Reforms required in the UNSC
Aged Vine in a fresh bottle:
- The statement is as direct as it gets: we’ve heard this song before. Politically, it is intolerable that the P5, or the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)—the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—enjoy their status and the right to veto any resolution or decision made by the Council just because they prevailed in a war 76 years ago. The word “won” in the context of China ought to be encircled by inverted commas.
An equitable scenario that is unjust:
Problem with representation:
- The geopolitical conditions of 1945, not those of today, are reflected in the Security Council. Approximately twenty-two percent of the 51 countries that made up the UN at the time of its founding in 1945 were represented on the Security Council, which had 11 members. Presently, the United Nations has 193 member nations, however the Council has just 15 members, or less than 8% of the total.
- The Security Council was increased from 11 to 15 members in 1965 by electing four extra non-permanent members, marking the only modification to the original Charter.
Problem with composition:
- The Council’s makeup also unfairly accentuates the preponderance of power at the time. Even though it only makes up 5% of the world’s population, Europe yet has 33% of the seats in any given year (not including Russia, another European power).
Financial contribution issue:
- From an equity standpoint, this arrangement is unfair to those nations whose financial contributions to the UN exceed those of four of the P5 members. Germany and Japan, for example, have been the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget for decades, despite the UN Charter still referring to them as “enemy states” (since the UN was founded by the victorious Allies of World War II).
The Indian case:
- Furthermore, it excludes other nations like India, whose enormous population, economic contribution to the global community, and in-kind support of the UN (via peacekeeping missions, for example) have all contributed to the shaping of global affairs in the seven decades since the UN’s founding.
Positions of the nations:
- It is evident that the Security Council needs to be reformed in order to go into the second quarter of the twenty-first century. However, for each state that believes it should be a permanent member of the Security Council, and particularly for the few that feel their standing in the world should be acknowledged as being on par with or better than at least three of the current members, there are a number of states that are aware that any reform will not help them.
- Acknowledging this fact, the tiny nations that comprise over half of the UN membership are happy to contest from time to time for a two-year non-permanent seat on the Council.
- However, the potential beneficiaries’ competitors, the medium-sized and large nations, are bitterly opposed to the idea of a few breaking free from their current second-class standing in the international community.
- Many are overtly motivated by a spirit of rivalry, resentment over the past, or plain envy. They have effectively and permanently blocked efforts to change the composition of the Security Council.
Changing the UN Charter presents challenges:
- A portion of the issue stems from the very high threshold for changing the UN Charter. A two-thirds majority of all members, or 129 of the 193 states in the General Assembly, are needed for any amendment, and an additional two-thirds of the member states would need to ratify it.
- Since ratification is often a parliamentary process, the only “prescription” that has any chance of being approved is one that will be supported by two thirds of UN members and not face resistance from any of the current five permanent members.
- Although India’s qualifications may seem clear to us, Pakistan, which views India as its strategic rival on the subcontinent, is adamantly opposed, China is not keen to lose its position as the only Asian permanent member, and Indonesia appears to be somewhat devalued by the idea of an Indian seat.
Persistent deadlock:
- Therefore, while the discussion goes around in circles for decades, the Security Council remains stuck in its ways. This was most strikingly demonstrated lately with the war in Ukraine, when a Permanent Member of the Security Council invaded a sovereign UN member state and the Council was unable to act.
- Resolutions on North Korea, Mali, Syria, Ukraine, and Mali have been obstructed by Russia’s growing use of the veto power. Proposals to overhaul the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, two financial institutions founded at Bretton Woods in 1944, have been hampered by the same kind of Western obstructionism.
- Nevertheless, this is the only international system that unites all nations on a single platform. Can we afford to let it become irrelevant and ineffective?
