The need for UNSC reforms has been emphasised by most of the UN secretary generals during their tenures
MAJOR GENERAL (RETD) S B ASTHANA
WITH India being part of the United Nations Security Council as the non-permanent member from January 1, 2021, and celebration hangover of 75 years of the UN rolling over to next year, the debate on UNSC reforms continues, with no worthwhile progress, despite high pitch for reforms made by many countries including India.
The fact that unilateral and multilateral interventions without UNSC sanctions continue to happen, UN hesitancy and alleged delay to declare coronavirus as pandemic are being seen as armtwisting by Permanent Five (P5) members. And the UNSC passing resolution to grant stipend to UN designated global terrorist, and diluting global response to biggest security challenge of the century are some examples to justify poor credibility of UN/UNSC in absence of reforms.
It’s also a fact that there is no other alternative organisation to the UN, with as much recognition and membership of various countries, having a large number of missions of various kinds to its credit, and for various global roles. But it needs to be reformed to meet the aspirations of developing countries.
The UNSC was composed by victors of the Second World War in 1945 to suit their interests; and the UN Charter was designed accordingly, giving to themselves the permanent membership and veto power in the council. The geopolitical, strategic, economic realities have changed considerably since then, but the UNSC has not reformed itself to these global realities.
With global economic and population fulcrum shifting to Indo-Pacific, inadequate Asian representation and no African and Latin American representation are pushing the UN to irrelevance, unless it reforms itself.
With non-permanent status, it can be part of resolutions for next two years, setting the agenda when it gets monthly presidency twice and at best try to create an environment of reforms.
The need for UNSC reforms has been emphasised by most of the UN secretary generals during their tenures. Antonio Guterres once expressed: “The Security Council we have now does not correspond to today’s world. I have encouraged member states to have a serious dialogue on this. I want to continue this dialogue at the UN General Assembly, but the permanent members do not agree.”
This indicates the helplessness of the UN in dealing with P5 on the subject. Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his address on 75th anniversary of the UN had urged that “reform in the responses, in the processes, and in the very character of the UN is the need of the hour”.
Many other countries have expressed similar sentiments since last three decades.
The UNSC in current form is not representative of the developing world and global needs, with primacy of policy being a political tool in hands of P5.
By 1992, India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan (referred as G4) had put up their claims and logic for demanding inclusion as permanent members. India has been part of the UN since the inception; it has the world’s second-largest population and is the world’s largest democracy suited to represent South Asia, having contributed maximum peacekeepers to the UN so far. Hence India has a strong case.
Brazil is the largest country in Latin America (unrepresented continent) and fifth largest in the world. Japan and Germany are one of the largest financial donors to the UN.
Besides G4 countries, South Africa (largest economy in African continent) is also a claimant, as the continent remains unrepresented on high table of permanent members.
Reforms in the UNSC also requires an amendment to the UN charter, in accordance with Article 108, which highlights that any reform of the Security Council not only requires the support of at least two-thirds of UN member states, but also all the permanent members.
The stance of P5 members to expansion has been varying as per their national interest; most P5 members agree to Indian inclusion, except China.
Reforms to improve effectiveness and responsiveness of the UN to international security challenges are meaningless without the reform of the UNSC veto power with P5, which enables any one of them to prevent the adoption of any “substantive” draft council resolution, regardless of its level of international support.
There have been many proposals since inception – from totally abolishing veto power to selectively using for vital national security issues and requiring agreement from multiple states before exercising the veto, thereby following consensus principle.
The roadblock is that Articles 108 and 109 of the United Nations Charter grant the P5 veto over any amendments to the charter, requiring them to approve of any modifications to the UNSC veto power that they themselves hold. It thus becomes obvious that even if one member of P5 doesn’t agree to any reform, the UNSC cannot be reformed.
Holding veto power by any P5 member, therefore, doesn’t guarantee that a resolution howsoever important will get through in its favour. But it certainly guarantees that no resolution against its interest will go through in the UNSC. It therefore gives a lucrative power which P5 members will not like to give up or share.
Today the P5 countries in the UNSC being a divided house, the veto power is the biggest obstacle in getting through any resolution even for the global benefit, if it happens to be against national interest of any one of the P5 members or their allies/partners.
The UNSC has thus become an organisation, which can pass strong resolutions against weak countries, weak resolutions against strong countries and no resolution against P5 countries, and its implementation also follows the same power structure and politics.
Besides the existing P5 members, an expansion of the UNSC from five to 10 permanent members, with the addition of G4 and South Africa will provide equitable regional representation besides balancing developing and developed world to meet the aspirations of humanity. These ten countries account for nine out of ten largest economies and eight out of ten largest defence budgets. The rotational election of non-permanent members the numbers, which was increased from six to 10 in 1965, could continue on regional representational basis as hitherto fore. The expansion of P5 without veto power makes very little impact on the problems, because of which the reforms are required. Ideally the veto power should be abolished, but I don’t think P5 will like to part with their trump card, which makes them powerful in the UN.
Under the given charter, articles and structures, there is a very little hope for UNSC reforms in near future unless the lack of reforms can push the credibility crisis of the UN to a degree that it becomes unsustainable for it to function, or incidences of sidelining the UN increase manifold.
There is also a possibility that if the UN doesn’t reform itself, it may lose relevance and alternate global and regional groupings may assume greater importance with issue based consensus in like-minded groupings for unilateral/multilateral actions. More global pressure from middle powers like G4 may force an expansion of the UNSC as a possibility, but abolition of veto power in current setup is unlikely, as it makes P5 powerful to an extent that the threat of using veto sometimes forces a change in drafting of resolution, even if it is not in best interest of humanity. No P5 member is likely to compromise this power in its own national interest, which is generally prioritised before global interest, thus making reformation process a mirage. IANS