Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called for UNSC and IMF reform in his speech at the BRICS summit. This is the first time an Indian PM has articulated a fuller vision of what India expects in terms of restructuring teh international system. The formation of a BRICS Bank to supplant the western dominated the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, better known as the World Bank is a major step in this direction. I am reproducing below a part of a paper I had presented in a Rio conference on this. This part pertains to UNSC reform. I will post the part pertaining to IMF reform in a subsequent post. Mohan Guruswamy. REFORMING THE UNSC. Even though the UN was fashioned by the victors of WWII, its birth had its origins in the darkest days of that period when leaders of nine occupied countries in Europe – Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Yugoslavia - met with representatives of Britain and Commonwealth nations in London on June 12, 1941 and signed a declaration pledging to work for a free world, where all nations could live in peace and security. This was called the Inter-Allied Declaration and was the first step towards the establishment of the UN. Two months later, US President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced the Atlantic Charter , not only expressing similar hopes, but also eventual disarmament and full economic co-operation. On January 1, 1942 the nations consulted signed what came to be known as the Declaration of the United Nations, approving the aims of the Atlantic Charter. More interestingly this was the first time the phrase “United Nations” was used. But the creation of the United Nations organization for preserving world peace had to wait till October 30, 1943 when Britain, China, the Soviet Union and the USA signed the Moscow Declaration on General Security. The signatories to the Moscow Declaration then met continuously from August to October 1944 in Washington DC and fashioned a basic plan for an international peacekeeping organization. The centerpiece of this plan was a Security Council in which the USA, USSR, Britain, China and France would be permanent members. Fifty nations then met in San Francisco on April 25, 1945, twelve days before Germany surrendered and four months before Japan was defeated, to consider this plan. After much deliberation the differences, mostly over the veto power demanded by the Big Three - US, USSR and UK, were papered over and on June 26, 1945 all the fifty nations present signed the charter and the UN formally came into being. The UN has grown much since then reflecting the changes in the world mostly due to de-colonization, fragmentation of the USSR, and the division of some founder member states like Yugoslavia. We have seen the emergence of 33 new nations since 1990, and it does look that this is still an ongoing process and more new countries must be expected in time. The UN now has 191 members. Switzerland, a notable holdout despite housing so many UN agencies, joined in September 10, 2002. The world has also changed in other significant ways. But most significant of all was the demise of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. The Cold War and the balance of power between the two super-powers ironically enough served as a guarantor of peace and the security of nations that came under accepted spheres of influence. With the world poised a button push away from Armageddon the UN, and especially the Security Council , became a ready forum to facilitate constant dialogue between the super-powers and it served this purpose quite admirably. True, it did not prevent regional wars from erupting constantly , but it did prevent a general war of ruinous dimensions. Both super-powers usually heeded the UN because the other was there. The veto powers ensured that one bloc could not override the interests of the other one. The veto thus came to be used 252 times since 1946. It was used the maximum in the first decade of the UN between 1946-55 when it was exercised 83 times and with the USSR alone using it 80 times. This dropped off to 31 and 26 respectively from 1956 to 1965. The West led by the USA came to use the veto more often since 1966 using it 115 times as opposed to 15 by the USSR. Since 1996 Russia has not exercised the veto even once whereas the USA has used it six times and China twice. This presumably reflects the shape of the world order to come? As an immediate response to a destructive world war, the UN reflected the reality and ethos of that age. Nothing reflected this more than the composition of the permanent members of the Security Council. Four out of the five were “white” nations. Two, China and France, were utterly defeated nations. Two, Britain and France, were colonial powers. The other ten members of the Security Council are elected members from the various regions. These are members are without the veto and with little voice or clout. Their plight is best illustrated by the admission of the former Colombian representative, Ambassador Luis Fernando Jaramillo, that even as President of the Security Council (1992-94) he was “forced to stand outside the chamber where the Permanent Five were meeting and beg for pieces of information as a personal favor from the permanent representatives as they were leaving.” Thus, it is very ironical that while the Cold War assured relevance of the UN and masked the basically flawed nature of the Security Council, its end seems to have made the UN increasingly irrelevant. The decision of the USA and UK to bypass the Security Council and seek the disarmament of Iraq on their own underscores this irrelevance. It is even more ironic that the threat of France to use its veto has forced the USA and UK to bypass the Security Council, where the USA had the support of the majority despite it being an unpopular course of action the world over. Most members of the UN, including long time US hangers on like Australia and New Zealand, would like to see the veto go. On the other hand by doing so and by equating tiny countries like Seychelles (pop. 79,000) with India (pop. 1.2 billion), it will end up making the unequal equal, which is as undesirable as making the equal unequal. While the single veto does not reflect a desirable level of democratization, to have a Security Council of elected equals will only render it more ineffective and irrelevant. The richer countries for one will find themselves even more represented than now. Some years ago Japan defeated India’s bid to become an elected member of the Security Council by offering Toyota limousines to Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors of voting countries. Many inn Africa accepted. On the other side the pursuit of support took the then Indian Prime Minister, PV Narasimha Rao, as far afield as Burkina Faso. We don’t know how it voted. Even within the Security Council the ability of some countries to have their way will make it vulnerable to unwise choices. In the early 2000’s the US Ambassador to the UN, Thomas Pickering, snarled near an open microphone at the Yemeni Ambassador al-Ashtal after his country voted against the US on Resolution 678 “that is the most expensive vote you ever cast.” The following week the USA suspended its $100 million aid package to Yemen. Thus, while a Security Council of a smaller number of countries is desirable to make the UN effective, it must also reflect world realities and be more representative of its diversity. For instance Africa and Latin America are not represented in the Permanent Five. Likewise the Islamic world does not find a place. India, which has a fifth of the world’s population, does not find a place. The biggest economy in Europe, Germany, does not find a place. On the other hand with two members, UK and France, Western Europe is over represented. With Russia added Europe has three members. Clearly this is not a satisfactory arrangement. Indian diplomacy during the past few years has centered more on securing a permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Partly in response to this and similar pressures from Japan, Brazil and Germany, we now and then hear of a proposal to make some of these larger nation’s permanent members but without veto powers. It seems that our leaders are so desperate for some international recognition that they are quite willing to accept even a second-class permanent membership. This would be unfortunate, as rather than making the UN more democratic; it will make it even more stratified. What we need to seek is the reform of the UN, by eliminating single veto’s, while at the same time ensuring that the Security Council does not become victim to the tyranny of a simple majority. The first step would be to make the Security Council more representative by accommodating nations reflecting the economic, geographical and cultural diversity of the United Nations, as well as relative power and size. Thus, the major political and economic groupings such as the European Union (EU) or North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) or Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) or South Asian Association of Regional Countries (SAARC) or Organization of American States (OAS) or the Organization of African Unity (OAU) or Asia Pacific Union (APU) or even the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) could each chose its member in the Security Council. Instead of a single veto being able to derail its intentions, a certain minimum threshold, say of three or four members should only thwart the Security Council’s majority. This will prevent the P-5 from insisting that world affairs only are shaped to their liking. But of course they will veto this. That’s why the various alphabet soups are being dished out all so often these days. A new acceptable soup will take time, but the world can afford to wait.
Posted on: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 05:47:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015