If a country which is the largest democracy in the world, has a population of some 1.3 billion people, is multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-faceted, has provided the largest number of soldiers to UN’s peacekeeping operations, has played an important role in peacemaking, and has a major say in its regions affairs cannot be a permanent member of the Security Council, there is probably a need to revise and review what qualifies a country to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, under the UN Charter. It was said during the 50th Anniversary of the Charter that to talk of the United Nations is to speak of the humanities ideals but to explain the reality of the UN during its first 70 years is to confront the failures of humanity, which is central to the UN’s efforts. Even though the UN was intended to be the new collective security forum borne out of the disastrous experiences of the Second World War and intended to remedy the many failings of the League of Nations, its structure evolved from the balance of power paradigm that existed at the end of the Second World War.
No organization, United Nations included, established under a totally different set of circumstances which existed in 1945 can deal with the contemporary challenges thrown up by the 20th Century. It is a lot to expect that whatever was done in 1945 in formulating the UN Charter should also be relevant in dealing with the international situation that we face today. What is not expecting a lot, however, is to understand and accept the need for a continuous review in order that we meet the dynamic challenges facing the changing requirements of mankind. The new international reality of today is formulated by globalization, privatization, development, economics, human rights and so on which have metamorphosed the global scheme of things, which is no longer determined by politics and military might alone. Threats to international peace and security are no longer confined to military threats but are largely determined by terrorism, communicable diseases, global climate change, humanitarian issues, intrastate conflicts etc which are non-territorial in nature.
There were 51 members when the UN was established in 1945. The UN has grown today to accommodate more than 190 member nations. What is meant by this exponential increase in the membership of the UN is that the balance of power paradigm of 1945 is no longer relevant in dealing with today’s international reality. So the question of reforming the Security Council has not been an issue of controversy in recent times. Almost everybody, both in the United Nations and outside, agrees that the Security Council needs to be restructured, its permanent membership re-looked and the so-called veto right is revisited. The major criticism of the only mandatory decision-making body of the United Nations is that it lacks representation from Africa, Latin America and the developing countries of Asia in its permanent membership and provides a platform for waning rather than rising powers and does not have a place for economically powerful nations such as the G4 members. This is despite the fact that the global influence is now pivoting towards Asia and away from the West, meaning that the composition of the UN’s Security Council reflects a post-World War II colonial system which is woefully outdated and yet still powerful in global matters of war and peace.
It is not that the P5 does not understand that the world has changed dramatically in the last 70 years and the structure of the decision-making body needs to be revisited. The problem lies in the reluctance of P5 to share or give up their entrenched powers, given to them by the 1945 UN Charter which has been so structured that it cannot be changed substantively without the positive votes of all 5 permanent members. The question that faces us now is how to move forward in restructuring the permanent membership of the Security Council, now that the 70th anniversary has just been observed without any major change.
One way to move forward is to bring the issue before the entire membership of the UN represented in the UN General Assembly, to bring forward a framework resolution that defines the restructuring of the Security Council and to seek the vote of the entire General Assembly in the belief that it is the only democratic institution in the UN. If the framework resolution lays down the reality voted by two-thirds of the membership of the General Assembly, then the P5 and the naysayers would have a difficult time resisting it’s implementation or to negotiate more seriously for the solution of this issue. But there are some more provocative ideas which those who want the permanent membership to be reviewed could implement. For example, the G4 insists that the Security Council as constituted in 1945 is unrepresentative of today’s UN, that it has no permanent member from Africa or Latin America, that it’s structure and processes are non-transparent and even self-serving and that the veto power is often exercised in an arbitrary manner. And yet, every time the Security Council, which the G4 describe as unrepresentative and ineffective, makes a decision which the 5 permanent members approve, all UN members including the G4, beautifully respect and implement. It might be necessary for the G4 to give a thought to the fact that the impression they give to the 5 permanent members that the G4 will always follow the decisions of the unreformed Security Council and therefore there is no need for them to change the status quo.
The G4 needs to consider whether their position should not be changed from the current one where an issue of international importance being discussed in an organization in which they have full representation as well as decision-making power needs to be moved to an unrepresentative UN Security Council. I am referring to the Iran nuclear issue which was originally before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose board includes all G4 members as well as several other important countries besides the P5, were parties to a resolution in the IAEA to hand over the issue to the UN Security Council despite the fact that the Iran nuclear issue concerns not just the 5 permanent members but more importantly West Asia, South Asia, and the whole world. Similarly, the all-important issue of sending peacekeeping forces in conflict situations is decided basically by the P5 even though peacekeeping role is conducted in countries and continents which have no representation in the Security Council. In reality, while the P5 does provide both financial resources and logistics for peacekeeping forces, a large majority of the boots on the ground in Africa and Asia is provided by developing countries. The G4 and those who provide forces for UN peacekeeping efforts may someday decide to tell the P5 that they will not provide these forces merely because of decisions by unrepresentative Security Council unless the structure of the permanent membership is changed.
The suggestion I make is not to confront the P5 but to convey to them that the important decisions on war and peace can no longer be made solely by the victors of the Second World War in the changed order of the 21st Century. There is another idea that needs to be considered by the G4. There is no doubt that whatever set of credentials or qualifications that are laid down by the UN for a permanent seat in the Security Council, the member countries of the G4 will be able to meet them. And yet there have been occasions where a veto by a permanent member has stalled a security council resolution, and the more powerful countries led by one or two of them have resorted to military action through the principle of “Coalition of the Willing”. The G4 should ponder whether it is not possible for them to demonstrate that on regional issues of less importance to the international community, they could get together to find a solution, to implement it, to provide economic aid and to create capacity without the help of the P5.
What I am suggesting is to make it more apparent through actions that the world does not begin and end with 5 permanent members of the Security Council, that there are others who have both influence and power, without whose support Security Council decisions cannot be implemented. The change in the structure of the Security Council or its reform cannot be brought about merely by arguments in regard to credentials or demonstrations of a large majority of humanity to convince the P5 of the need for change. Nor should the potential candidates for permanent membership in the Security Council be assuaged in their feelings by the repeated assertions of individual permanent council members of support for reforms when it is clear that they have no intention of providing the permanent membership with veto rights to anyone other than the present P5. What is required if the world has to move forward and the UN has to become a more effective international organization in matters of war and peace is the action that potential candidates can take to force the P5 to accept the new international reality.
*Ambassador Prakash Shah was India’s permanent representative at the United Nations and Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.