Dump Security Council to preserve UN sanctity
And 59 years down the line Cousins’ invaluable words continues to resonate and hold true, as the august body’s structural flaws and operational deficiencies come in the way of ushering a just world order.
Indeed, there is no denying that the UN is not a perfect institution entrusted with the critical task of maintaining global peace. Even the UN Security Council (UNSC) in its present form represents an antiquated approach to international politics notwithstanding the fact that, as an executive arm of the main body, it was supposed to ensure continuous compliance with international norms for promoting world peace and enforcing the will of the international community against rogue states.
Though, global geopolitics have altered drastically during the last few decades, the UNSC has remained stagnated since its formation in 1945, when wartime victors crafted a Charter in their own interest and preserved permanent veto-wielding Council seats for themselves.
As Indian Premier Narendra Modi observed in a recent communication to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the UN has become a mere “product of circumstances of a bygone era.” Pitching for a reform in the UN structure, Modi wrote “whatever we seek to do as the United Nations, from dealing with the transformed security environment to ensuring the effective implementation of the post-2015 Development Agenda, our relevance and effectiveness will depend in large measure on the internal reform of the United Nations, especially its Security Council.”
Surely, the UN General Assembly adopting a resolution to use a framework text as the basis of discussions on UNSC reforms is a major development, since this is the first time in the history of intergovernmental negotiations that a decision on reforming the UNSC has been adopted by means of an official document.
Besides, the entire General Assembly has agreed to move forward on a text that is supposed to be the starting point for further negotiations. Though the UN has been a source of innovative and resourceful ideas in promoting sustainable development and global peace and harmony, the fact of the matter is this world body is gradually losing its sheen for several reasons.
Most worryingly, the UN is often being exploited by powerful nations as an extended geostrategic tool that can be used, abused and ignored in accordance with the individual nations’ changing global perspective. Now that inter-governmental negotiations for reforming the UN, especially its elite Security Council, can be formally carried forward beyond the 70th session of the General Assembly, the big question is can inclusion of a host of new permanent members actually resolve the “effectiveness deficit” gripping UN badly? Since the end of the Cold War, endless reform debates — often contorted by partisan politics — have circled continuously without providing any realistic solution.
Many argue that postponing reforms beyond a certain limit may actually make the UN irrelevant as they cite the upheaval created in the global economic system due to formation of BRICS and Asian Infrastructure Investment Banks.
The most well-pitched argument for an expanded UNSC is premised on the conclusion that the Council does not reflect contemporary power realities and should therefore be reformed, keeping in mind the changing security and socio-economic scenario globally.
True, challenges in today’s era is far more complicated and an organization like UN must be capable of adequately dealing with genocide, human rights abuse, environmental degradation, transnational organized crime and nuclear, radiological, chemical and bio-terrorism; and even state collapse at short notice.
But, given the ongoing rat race among aspiring countries to obtain a permanent membership as and when the UNSC is restructured, the elite body is destined to remain undemocratic in future too, unless a global consensus is arrived at before embarking on any expansion procedure.
There is legitimate fear that if new members are accommodated selectively, the smaller nations will have no say in international decision-making and their creativity will also be lost to the Council. Moreover, any arbitrary expansion of UNSC will undoubtedly give rise to new hegemonism at regional levels. In any case, the very existence of the privileged “P5” clique undermines the fairness of UN.
There is an extreme inconsistency between the underlying principles of UN and the UNSC structure as well as its function. And major UNSC players have shown willingness to randomly utilize their privileged positions authoritatively. After all, UNSC provides an ideal platform to a few, very privileged stakeholders to dominate the UN’s basic structure and mold it according to their respective needs.
The UNSC, therefore, must give way to a structure that can not only hold big powers to account and overcome democratic deficit but also have more credibility as an arbiter in global arguments. Should the UN not champion the cause of democracy, fairness and equality of states?
So, when countries seek privileged status above 187 other general member-states of UN to rub shoulder with the “permanent five,” it amounts to legitimizing a version of absolutism that needs to be scrapped at the earliest.
Let us also remember that putting more countries behind the shut doors of UNSC cannot help address its democracy deficit adequately. Rather, having no closed door at all or permanent privileged status will enhance UN legitimacy.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point of view
