By Brett Popplewell
At 60, the United Nations Security Council is showing its age. With its archaic structure still favouring the victorious nations of the Second World War, the council is unwilling to modernize and unable to act effectively.
In September, the UN gathered for what Secretary General Kofi Annan hoped would lead to wide-ranging reforms to the UN and the Security Council. But as usual, internal power struggles and political differences among member states hampered progress and killed most of those reforms.
The timing could not have been worse with the U.S. Congress threatening to pass a bill that would slash funding for the UN in half if reform does not occur by 2008. Such a threat could cause the UN to falter in its time of need like its predecessor, the League of Nations which disappeared after failing to prevent the Second World War.
With UN reform falling off the table, the structural shortcomings in the organization’s most powerful organ, the Security Council, remain relatively unchallenged. This is simply unacceptable.
While the UN says it represents the people of 191 nations, it manages to discriminate against most of them by unjustifiably favouring five nations above all others.
As it stands, Africa, South America and Southeast Asia have no permanent voice on the council. Meanwhile its five veto-holding members, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, all bask under the false pretence that they have a moral superiority over the other 186 states in the General Assembly.
The power of these five members means any one of them can strike down a council resolution – even if the other four permanent members and the 10 rotating Security Council members support it.
Throughout its history, the UN has been unable to intervene successfully in conflicts because council members have acted in their own self interest to veto a total of 256 resolutions.
The present genocide in the Sudan and the wholesale human rights abuses in Zimbabwe certainly warrant the council’s attention, but that attention is not being given partially because China has favourable relations with the Sudanese and Zimbabwean governments.
Remedies to the Security Council’s ailments are simple: remove the vetoes, add permanent members from the leading nations of today and give Africa and the Middle East a permanent voice on the council.
The G4 – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – is pushing for permanent status on the council. So far, the group has met with unjust opposition from the current veto-holding members.
Brazil’s candidacy has been overlooked primarily because of its status as a developing nation. Meanwhile the U.S. has not officially backed India’s bid despite India’s nuclear power and status as the world’s largest democracy.
France supports Germany’s bid because of its ranking as a great power, its international influence and its global engagement, not to mention its status as Europe’s largest nation and economy. However, a permanent German seat would grant Europe an unbalanced status on the council – a concern to other members like the U.S. and China.
Japan is the only nation with U.S. support. It also happens to be the second largest financial contributor to the UN. However, Japan has a powerful opponent in China who, despite being a major human rights violator in its own right, is against Japan’s candidacy due to past animosity.
Even if the G4 gain permanent membership, Africa and the Middle East would still have no permanent representation. These regions surely deserve better, given the number of resolutions directed toward them.
Stephen Brown, professor of political science at the University of Ottawa says the council’s shortcomings would not end if the G4 and other nations were granted permanent membership.
“The fundamental thing that needs reforming is the veto power of the five permanent members, and I don’t see that happening,” Brown says.
The executive director of the United Nations Association of Canada, Kate White, says she agrees we’re stuck in a power structure that reflects the world of 1945, but sees no way out.
“The real problem is the veto countries don’t see it in their interest to give up their grip on the power,” says White.
But sticking with the present system is simply unacceptable. It’s time for the global community to rise up and confront the Security Council’s veto-holding members and demand that they relinquish their death-grip on the council.
Kofi Annan and the General Assembly must right the wrongs of the past and revitalize the UN by calling on the permanent members to relinquish their veto and accept council reform.
That reform should allow the current permanent members to stay on the council but be joined by the G4 nations as well as two permanent representatives from Africa and one from the Middle East.
With 12 permanent members and 12 elected rotating members, the council would have a more balanced and just global representation.
It could then operate on a two-thirds majority vote to carry any resolution – with no single nation being granted the ability to veto the will of the rest of the world.
Only then could the Security Council, at 60 years of age, finally operate with maturity and fulfill its mandate of maintaining peace and security between nations and stop looking the other way when threats to mankind arise.