The UN needs reform that would make it stronger, more representative and more effective inter-governmental organization.
Emerging from the ashes of World War II, the United Nations was meant to save humanity and its succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The UN was established to pursue the twin goals of peace and prosperity. For the realization of these goals, it was hailed as "mankind's last best hope." In a polarized world, however, the UN became another arena for political confrontation between the two hostile military alliances.
The post-9/11 world has witnessed unprecedented erosion in the role, authority and credibility of the UN.
The Cold War began as the dust of World War II was just beginning to settle. Bipolar conditions with the US on the one side, and the Soviet Union on the other, imposed an enormous burden on the new international organization. As a result, the UN was handicapped from the very outset. The Security Council, responsible under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security, in particular, became hostage to political and strategic expediencies of the major powers.
The post-9/11 world has witnessed unprecedented erosion in the role, authority and credibility of the UN. Unabashed use of military power without any legality is now the universal norm. Might seen wrong by all has never been claimed so "right.” Besides inter-state conflicts, the recent years have also seen intra-state implosions, involving terrible human suffering and dislocation. The Security Council has not been able to respond to these crises and conflicts in an objective manner.
With growing complexity and magnitude of global challenges including recurrent threats to and breach of international peace and security, the disillusionment and despair over the UN's capacity to manage these challenges are increasing. At the same time, it goes without saying that the onus for UN's "failures" rests on its members, especially the veto-wielding five permanent members of the Security Council.
If the UN of the 21st century is to be prevented from meeting the fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations, its "structure and culture" will have to be adapted to the realities and challenges of today's changed world. This warrants an attitudinal change on the part of member-states which must take decisive steps to restore the UN's credibility and authority as the instrument of international legiti macy.
The democratic principles of "sovereign equality and one-state-one-vote" should be accepted as the basis of its strength and participatory character. This would require restoration of the primacy of the General Assembly as the chief policy-making organ of the UN and democratization of the UN Security Council to enable them acquit their Charter role in pursuit of global peace and development.
The post-9/11 world has witnessed unprecedented erosion in the role, authority and credibility of the UN. Unabashed use of military power without any legality is now the universal norm. Might seen wrong by all has never been claimed so "right.” Besides inter-state conflicts, the recent years have also seen intra-state implosions, involving terrible human suffering and dislocation. The Security Council has not been able to respond to these crises and conflicts in an objective manner.
With growing complexity and magnitude of global challenges including recurrent threats to and breach of international peace and security, the disillusionment and despair over the UN's capacity to manage these challenges are increasing. At the same time, it goes without saying that the onus for UN's "failures" rests on its members, especially the veto-wielding five permanent members of the Security Council.
If the UN of the 21st century is to be prevented from meeting the fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations, its "structure and culture" will have to be adapted to the realities and challenges of today's changed world. This warrants an attitudinal change on the part of member-states which must take decisive steps to restore the UN's credibility and authority as the instrument of international legiti macy.
The democratic principles of "sovereign equality and one-state-one-vote" should be accepted as the basis of its strength and participatory character. This would require restoration of the primacy of the General Assembly as the chief policy-making organ of the UN and democratization of the UN Security Council to enable them acquit their Charter role in pursuit of global peace and development.
The General Assembly with its universal character and authority must be involved in all decisions of global relevance and impact, including the appointment of the secretary-general.
The General Assembly with its universal character and authority must be involved in all decisions of global relevance and impact, including the appointment of the secretary-general. In cases where the Security Council is prevented from acting effectively, the General Assembly should be able to operate under "Uniting for Peace" authority and adopt mandatory resolutions concerning global peace and security.
The reform of Security Council would not be an easy task. It is a complex issue and has been the subject of protracted discussions at the UN for more than fifteen years. The vast majority of the UN membership would like to see the Security Council democratized through comprehensive reform encompassing its enlargement decision-making (including the question of the veto) and the Council's working methods.
In 1945, when the UN came into existence, its total membership was 51 and the Security Council comprised 11 members. In 1963, Article 23 was amended to increase the membership of the Council from 11 to 15 (five permanent and 10 non-permanent members). Since then, the UN membership has increased to 192, whereas composition of the Security Council remains static. There is a growing demand for restoring the representative character of the body to reflect growth of the UN membership.
While there is a consensus on the increase in the non-permanent category of the Security Council's membership to make it more broadly representative of the international community, the overwhelming majority of the UN members are against expansion in the permanent category. There is also strong opposition to the continuation of the veto power which is considered anachronistic to the Charter's principle of sovereign equality of states.
In December 2004, a high-level panel established by the Secretary-General came up with a two-model proposal on expansion issue for consideration by the UN member-states, both of which sought to expand the membership of the Security Council from fifteen to twenty four, one involving six new permanent members without veto and three new non-permanent members divided among the major regions, and the other suggesting eight new four-year-term renewable seats, two each for Asia, Africa, Europe and Americas and one two-year-term non-permanent seat.
A deadlock situation now prevails with overwhelming resistance among UN member-states to any expansion in the permanent category while calling for increase only in non-permanent seats. With Pakistan in the lead, an informal group of many like-minded countries, familiarly known as “Coffee Club” has now grown into a large movement called 'Uniting for Consensus' (UfC) which opposes any expansion in the permanent category and seeks a comprehensive reform of the Security Council to make it more representative, more democratic and more accountable.
The UfC proposal offers the best basis for a solution that takes into account the larger interests and main concerns of the broadest membership. Under this proposal, all states, particularly small and medium, which constitute the vast majority of UN membership, can enjoy a significantly improved access to the Council by doubling the ratio of permanent members to the elected ones from 1:2 to 1:4. The proposal envisages enlargement of the Council membership from 15 to 25 with no increase in the permanent category.
On the other hand, four major contenders for permanent membership of the Council, namely Brazil, India, Germany and Japan which have formally designated themselves as G-4 are pursuing their own campaign for increase in both categories involving addition of six permanent and four non-permanent seats. Their proposal aims at creating a system impermeable to change that does not ensure “adequate” regional representation because permanent members will represent their own interests.
G-4 wants an early decision or a time-bound commitment for expansion in both categories involving new permanent seats which they hope to occupy by virtue of their own perceived criteria. They also want veto power for the new permanent members. Their approach is rigid and self-serving focused only on grabbing the “status” that comes with the entry into the “elitist club” of the Council.
The present five permanent members known as P-5, with the exception of China, are not opposed to the creation of new permanent seats but are not ready to share their veto power. They have divergent positions on the number and criteria for filling those seats. With the exception of Africa, all regional groups are also divided because of deep differences between the main contenders and their regional rivals.
The very concepts of permanent membership and veto power, remnants of World War II, negate the principles of democracy and sovereign equality. An ideal solution would be the abolition of both the anomalies which only represent the vestiges of power and privilege. But in today's world, there is no scope for ideal solutions. The current veto-wielding powers will not give up their "veto prerogative", nor permit any move for abolition of their permanent status. They might prefer a new category of “veto-less” permanent members which will only make a mockery of the Security Council and the UN Charter.
Instead of creating new permanent seats, a new category involving an appropriate number of "semi-permanent" (renewable three or four year-term) seats could be created to be filled through regional rotation. Similarly, if the veto power cannot be rescinded altogether at this stage, at least the use of this prerogative should be rationalized by subjecting it to at least two concomitant negative votes of non-permanent members or one-fifth of whatever is the revised number of Council's elected members and restricting its application only to decisions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
The reform of Security Council would not be an easy task. It is a complex issue and has been the subject of protracted discussions at the UN for more than fifteen years. The vast majority of the UN membership would like to see the Security Council democratized through comprehensive reform encompassing its enlargement decision-making (including the question of the veto) and the Council's working methods.
In 1945, when the UN came into existence, its total membership was 51 and the Security Council comprised 11 members. In 1963, Article 23 was amended to increase the membership of the Council from 11 to 15 (five permanent and 10 non-permanent members). Since then, the UN membership has increased to 192, whereas composition of the Security Council remains static. There is a growing demand for restoring the representative character of the body to reflect growth of the UN membership.
While there is a consensus on the increase in the non-permanent category of the Security Council's membership to make it more broadly representative of the international community, the overwhelming majority of the UN members are against expansion in the permanent category. There is also strong opposition to the continuation of the veto power which is considered anachronistic to the Charter's principle of sovereign equality of states.
In December 2004, a high-level panel established by the Secretary-General came up with a two-model proposal on expansion issue for consideration by the UN member-states, both of which sought to expand the membership of the Security Council from fifteen to twenty four, one involving six new permanent members without veto and three new non-permanent members divided among the major regions, and the other suggesting eight new four-year-term renewable seats, two each for Asia, Africa, Europe and Americas and one two-year-term non-permanent seat.
A deadlock situation now prevails with overwhelming resistance among UN member-states to any expansion in the permanent category while calling for increase only in non-permanent seats. With Pakistan in the lead, an informal group of many like-minded countries, familiarly known as “Coffee Club” has now grown into a large movement called 'Uniting for Consensus' (UfC) which opposes any expansion in the permanent category and seeks a comprehensive reform of the Security Council to make it more representative, more democratic and more accountable.
The UfC proposal offers the best basis for a solution that takes into account the larger interests and main concerns of the broadest membership. Under this proposal, all states, particularly small and medium, which constitute the vast majority of UN membership, can enjoy a significantly improved access to the Council by doubling the ratio of permanent members to the elected ones from 1:2 to 1:4. The proposal envisages enlargement of the Council membership from 15 to 25 with no increase in the permanent category.
On the other hand, four major contenders for permanent membership of the Council, namely Brazil, India, Germany and Japan which have formally designated themselves as G-4 are pursuing their own campaign for increase in both categories involving addition of six permanent and four non-permanent seats. Their proposal aims at creating a system impermeable to change that does not ensure “adequate” regional representation because permanent members will represent their own interests.
G-4 wants an early decision or a time-bound commitment for expansion in both categories involving new permanent seats which they hope to occupy by virtue of their own perceived criteria. They also want veto power for the new permanent members. Their approach is rigid and self-serving focused only on grabbing the “status” that comes with the entry into the “elitist club” of the Council.
The present five permanent members known as P-5, with the exception of China, are not opposed to the creation of new permanent seats but are not ready to share their veto power. They have divergent positions on the number and criteria for filling those seats. With the exception of Africa, all regional groups are also divided because of deep differences between the main contenders and their regional rivals.
The very concepts of permanent membership and veto power, remnants of World War II, negate the principles of democracy and sovereign equality. An ideal solution would be the abolition of both the anomalies which only represent the vestiges of power and privilege. But in today's world, there is no scope for ideal solutions. The current veto-wielding powers will not give up their "veto prerogative", nor permit any move for abolition of their permanent status. They might prefer a new category of “veto-less” permanent members which will only make a mockery of the Security Council and the UN Charter.
Instead of creating new permanent seats, a new category involving an appropriate number of "semi-permanent" (renewable three or four year-term) seats could be created to be filled through regional rotation. Similarly, if the veto power cannot be rescinded altogether at this stage, at least the use of this prerogative should be rationalized by subjecting it to at least two concomitant negative votes of non-permanent members or one-fifth of whatever is the revised number of Council's elected members and restricting its application only to decisions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
No comments:
Post a Comment