New Delhi, 27
April 2003
Mohan
Guruswamy argues that the United Nations should be democratised by
making the Security Council more representative of the major
groupings of the world. 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) 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 Permanent Five from insisting that world affairs
are shaped only to their liking.
However,
it is a moot question that with a single Super Power, who is already
threatening retaliation for those who opposed its war in Iraq,
whether the UN as we know it will continue to exist?
Democratization
of the United Nations
By
Mohan Guruswamy
By
the time you see this, the war in Iraq should be over, as good sense
has not prevailed. I have little doubt that the war will be over in
a short while, for however much martyrdom is exalted it finds few
takers and the ordinary Iraqi wants to live on as much as any
non-believer. In the march of history this would be another
meaningless war. But it will be significant nevertheless for it
signals the end of the United Nations as the main international
peacekeeping mechanism. It’s not that nations have not defied the
United Nations before. Israel has been doing it for decades. Even
India has from time to time cocked a snook at the UN. But this would
be the first time that a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council
has so blatantly and wantonly disregarded the prevailing world
sentiment and opinion.
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 was 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. The UN now
has 191 members and Switzerland was the last to join on 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
admirably served this purpose.
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.
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 between 1956–65. 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 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 members are without
the veto and with little voice or clout. Their plight is best
illustrated by the admission of the Colombian representative, Amb.
Jaramillo, that even as President of the Security Council 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
latest 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 forced the USA and UK to bypass the Security Council, where
it is most likely that the USA even now has majority support for its
increasingly unpopular course of action.
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. 1.03 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 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. A few 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 accepted. Even within the
Security Council the ability of some countries to have their way
will make it vulnerable to unwise choices. More recently the US
Ambassador to the UN snarled over an open mike to the Yemeni
Ambassador that his vote just cost that country $100 million. The
following week the USA suspended its 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 nations
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) 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 Permanent Five from insisting that world affairs
only are shaped to their liking.
Disclaimer Copyright |