UN needs structural reforms

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Once again world leaders are meeting in New York in the annual gala UN General Assembly in which leaders are to make their rhetoric on UN’s role in maintaining global order, peace, cooperation and prosperity. This has been a regular phenomenon every year since the United Nations was created 67 years ago. The same is being replicated this year in the UN Headquarters in New York as the UN General Assembly is already underway.
It is true that the ideals for which the global body was created are equally relevant at present as they were six decades ago when the world had been virtually devastated by the World War II. In the aftermath of ugly war that killed hundreds of thousands people and wrecked much of the human creation in Europe and elsewhere, the global population was desperately in search of lasting peace so that people’s desire to live peaceful life would be best ensured. Although Allied powers composed of the United Kingdom, the United States and Soviet Union won the war over Germany, Japan and Italy, the so-called winners, too, were exhausted. This was an ample testimony that war is something that cannot be won. In war, both the parties in armed combat would be the loser.  A new realization—realization of peace— dawned on the mind of the world leaders –both the so-called victors and vanquished—after the war was over. The leaders of major powers then worked hard to devise an international mechanism to prevent wars in the world in future. The concept had initially been mooted to create a body that would serve as the global government to oversee global affairs. The concept of global government had been mooted against the background of failure of the League of Nations.
 Although the United Nations came into being, it virtually lacked authority to act and have a decisive say in the global affairs at the time of real crisis. The United Nations was created as a tiger devoid of teeth and claws that would no longer able to bite at the time when it is most needed. Given the nature and structure of the United Nations, it looks this global body was created to represent interest of the powers of that time or for that matters the victors of the World War II. Since the United Nations was created, much change has taken place in the world. The world has become a narrow global village, thanks mainly to the newer and revolutionary invention and innovation in the field of information technology. In the changed global context, the United Nations and global community have been facing more daunting challenges than ever before. The United Nations has, now, become our global lingua franca and we cannot imagine the world without the United Nations, which is in itself a testimony of the necessity, values and significance of the global body. But, given the structure of the United Nations, it no longer represents the present global reality. There is a general impression among the vast majority of the people in the world that the United Nations is increasingly becoming a tool of big powers more particularly five permanent members of the Security Council. To put simply and more frankly, the United Nations has failed to represent and protect the interest of the seven billion people that the world has at present.
Against this background, reforms in the United Nations, its organizational structure and also its power are highly sought after. Many countries mainly belonging to the developing world and also a few from the western industrialized world have been demanding reforms in the organizational structure of the United Nations in general and Security Council structure and representation in particular. Otherwise far apart on several international issues, the UN member countries are together on the issue concerning the UN reforms. All member states are of the opinion that the world body needs 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.
However, disagreements on its institutional modality, regional rivalry and structural and bureaucratic hurdles have dogged the agenda of UN reforms. Although the member states have been demanding reforms in the United Nations organizational structure for the last 20 years, they are not unanimous on a single model and the modus operandi for the structural change and reforms of the global organization. They have their own agenda and interest in the UN reforms. This demonstrates that genuine reforms in the United Nations are still far from realization.
The core demand calls for structural and representational reforms in the Security Council (SC), the main executive organ of the United Nations. This is because, the United Nations, despite being a world body, its functions do not seem to reflect multi-lateralism due mainly to the composition and power structure of the Security Council as it is dominated by Western powers—to be particular the US-led West.
The 15-member Security Council has two types of membership - permanent and temporary. The five permanent members are the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. The rest are non-permanent members that are elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term with no power to influence the decision of the UNSC. The decisions of the United Nations are influenced by the five permanent members of the Security Council who wield veto power. The present structure of the Security Council is neither democratic nor just. Because the permanent members hold veto power, the Security Council obviously cannot take any decision that is against the will and interest of the five permanent members. The non-permanent members are just there to endorse what the permanent members decide.
Countries like Japan, Brazil and Germany want an enlargement of the Security Council so that they too can be included as a permanent member. At the same time, some regional groupings such as ASEAN, OPEC, SAARC, African Union and South American groups are pursuing vigorously for permanent representation in the Security Council. Given the present structure of the UNSC, the representation of all the five continents has not been even. Europe has three permanent members - Russia, the United Kingdom and France - whereas Africa and South America have none. This system was devised more than six decades ago when the international scenario was completely different. Now the world has undergone a sea change. The world body also must also change in line with the new pattern and order that have evolved in the present day world. The Security Council needs to be restructured to ensure equal representation of all the continents and people in the world on equitable terms.
The victors of the World War II set the tone and agenda in the international order which was also got reflected in the structure of the United Nations. The victors of the war created the United Nations and incorporated provisions that have ensured better and stronger say of the Western powers in the decision-making process of the world body whereas the rest of the world is just revolving around them. Otherwise, there was no justification for having three permanent members from a single continent (Europe) while depriving the other continents of their due representation.
The United Kingdom was a global power, whose colonies expanded far and wide. As a superpower of that period, it was natural for the United Kingdom to have secured its place in the Security Council with veto power. The inclusion of the USA in the Security Council can be duly justified as it represents the North American continent. Russia was given a permanent seat because it represented the communist and socialist bloc in the world. France represented the vast majority of Francophone countries mostly in Africa which were either French colonies or under the influence of France. China’s seat in the Security Council represented the Asian continent and also because it accounted for one fifth of the world’s population. Although defeated in the war, Japan and Germany were powers to reckon with. But their role was not recognized and they were not given due place in the world body.
The international situation has changed drastically. The post World War II international scenario no longer exists at present. The once divided Germany has now been unified. Both Japan and Germany have emerged as economic powers. The United Kingdom is no longer a global power but acts just like an extended arm of the United States. The Soviet Union has disintegrated into several countries. Russia is exercising the permanent seat of the Security Council as an inheritor of the Soviet Union, but Russia is no longer a communist or a socialist country and does not represent the socialist bloc. France, too, does not represent the entire Francophone countries. Against this backdrop, the rationale behind the permanent membership of the United Kingdom, France and Russia is being questioned. Germany is better deserving of a place in the Security Council than UK, France and Russia.
Africa is rising, and the African countries have already started asserting their legitimate share and say in the United Nations’ decision-making process. It is an injustice to Africa to deprive it of a permanent seat in the Security Council. Moreover, more than 50 per cent of the issues that the Security Council has to deal at present are related to African continent. Similarly, South America, too, is feeling the pinch and the entire continent does not have representation in the UN Security Council. Brazil, which is an emerging global power, has already started demanding a share in the UN Security Council to represent the South American continent.
As long as the present composition of the United Nations Security Council continues, it will not represent the present geopolitical, geo-strategic and geo-economic realities. The first and the foremost job of the UN reform should be to change the Security Council’s composition, representational system and structure. It has to be restructured in such a way that genuine and deserving countries are given a place in the Security Council as permanent members with veto power whereas some countries that have lost relevance and validity to stay on as permanent members should be released of their role. Against this background, Nepal now needs to put forth its views clearly on the issue pertaining to UN reforms to ensure that the role of the developing countries and the Least Developed countries are enhanced.