Reform The United Nations In A Package

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Former Secretary-general Kofi Anan in 2005 had proposed a comprehensive package for reforming the United Nations system, in which he called for action, not mere words, to fulfill the pledges made to the people. In a report to the UN General Assembly, Anan had said in a more forceful and frank manner that the United Nations needed to reform in a package but not like an ‘a la carte menu from which nations could choose only those aspects they fancy’. This was perhaps the strongest worded report ever voiced by any executive chief of the world body on reforming the United Nations.

There have been demands for reforms in the United Nations for decades. From Algeria to Albania, Mongolia to Mozambique and China to Chile, all member states are of the opinion that the world body needed vigorous reforms in order to make the United Nations more representative, legitimate and efficient so that it can more effectively play its role in resolving the global challenges ranging from financial crises to peace and security to climate change.

Reform modality

Reform was abuzz also during the ongoing 66 session of the UN General Assembly as leaders voiced their concern about making the world body more representative. But the member states are not unanimous on the reform modality. As a result, the reform in the United Nations system has failed to materialise despite unanimity on the necessity of reorganising, restructuring and democratising the world body.

The composition and structure of the Security Council was raised more prominently. All countries except the five permanent members, or the Big 5, demanded the expansion of the Security Council. There are four main aspirants to the new permanent seats of the Security Council - India, Germany, Japan and Brazil.

These countries have their own strengths and weaknesses. Of the four countries, Brazil’s claim is more justified. The composition of the Security Council does not represent the present global reality. The United Nations was created by the victors of World War II, and the big powers of that time had a strong say in the structuring of the world body. This composition represented Europe and North America but not the world. Of the five permanent members, three are from Europe (United Kingdom, France and Russia). Two continents (South America and Africa) are not represented in the Security Council. Against this background, Brazil’s inclusion should ensure representation of South America.

Similarly, Africa is a continent that has numerous problems and also enormous potentials. This continent must be represented in the Security Council. The probable candidates are South Africa and Egypt. So far as Asia is concerned, China is the sole representative of Asia. Given the size of the country, its population and economic might and international influence, China’s seat in the Security Council is rightful and justifiable.

There is also no question about the justification of the United States’ place in the Security Council because of its lead role in global affairs, ranging from economic size, economic strength, military might and technological leadership to global presence. But what is not justified is the place occupied by the three countries of Europe - the United Kingdom, France and Russia - as permanent members of the Security Council.

In the first place, having representation of three countries from a small continent and leaving two big continents with almost half of the countries of the world without representation in the Security Council are both unjust and undemocratic. Secondly, all three countries (Britain, Russia, and France) do not possess the criteria to be permanent members of the Security Council in the present global reality.

Germany is Europe’s leader in terms of physical size, economic might and its contribution to the development of the world. Germany is, perhaps, one of the largest donors to the development of the developing and least developed countries. Germany has, thus, a rightful claim for a permanent seat in the Security Council. Although Britain, France and Russia were global powers during World War II and in the immediate aftermath of the war, these countries have lost their relevance in the present situation.

So far as Asia is concerned, this is the largest continent with more than half the world’s population. India and Japan are seeking their place in the Security Council as permanent members. India is no doubt a large country in terms of size and population. It is also emerging as an economic power. However, the question is whether India’s entry into the Security Council as a permanent member will ensure representation of the rest of South Asia and the Middle East. Japan is better positioned to claim the permanent seat of the Security Council because of its contribution to the development of the developing countries.

Military might should not be made the sole basis for a Security Council seat. Instead, economic strength and contribution to world peace and development are more important criteria. If economic strength and contribution to development of the world are to be made the criteria, Japan and Germany would be better qualified.

The reform of the Security Council is long due, and it has to be restructured to represent the present global reality. Although there are voices and demands for the enlargement of the Security Council to accommodate more countries in it, enlargement alone may not ensure genuine representation and democratisation of the world body. Strict criteria must be devised by the General Assembly on the basis of which countries can be chosen as permanent members.

Whether the Security Council is restructured or enlarged, it has to ensure that all five continents get equal representation. Europe deserves one seat whereas the remaining two seats could be given to South America and Africa. This arrangement will ensure equal representation of all the five continents.

If other continents are to be given more seats, commensurate with the number Europe is enjoying, the Security Council would be too large to handle. Three seats to each of the continents would mean at least 15 permanent seats in the Security Council. If three seats are alloted to each continent, Canada and Mexico would be the next permanent members.

As the world is getting more integrated, several regional groups have sprung up. If the Security Council is, at all, to be enlarged, it would be better if regional groups like SAARC, APEC, Commonwealth of Nations, Shanghai Cooperation Forum, African Union, European Union, Union of South American Nations, Arab League and the likes found representation instead of individual countries.

The chair of these regional bodies would get the opportunity to sit in the permanent seat of the Security Council, which would mean all countries in the world, irrespective of their size, military strength and economic might, would get a chance to be in the Security Council. This would be more representational and judicious.

Election of secretary-general

The system and provisions regarding the election of the secretary-general also need to change if the United Nations is to be made more democratic. The Security Council selects or elects the secretary-general and the General Assembly plays a rubber stamp role in endorsing it. There must be provision where the Security Council recommends the names for the post of secretary-general, while from among the short-listed candidates, the General Assembly elects the secretary-general either unanimously or through a democratic process. Thus, reforms in the United Nations system should be in a package and not on a piecemeal basis.