Anyone who has followed the speeches of the United Nations General Debate over the last few years would be aware of a recurring theme: the reform of the UN. Unsurprisingly, the Security Council is the biggest bone of contention. The five permanent members and their power of veto, make a mockery of the institution, particularly in the 21st century. These countries are: the UK, the US, France, Russia and China. Their privileged status stems from the fact that they were prominent as victors of the World War II. China (PRC) replaced the Republic of China (see previous post), while Russia took over from the Soviet Union after it disbanded in 1991. The current structure of the Security Council is outdated. Unless the United Nations evolves, it risks becoming as ineffectual as the League of Nations it replaced after the war.
The Security Council
The Security Council is made up of 15 members. Ten are elected for a two-year term, the five are there in perpetuity. The most important functions of the UN are carried out by the Security Council. These include approving military interventions, the imposition of sanctions and the deployment of peace-keeping forces. There are three main problems with the existence of the five permanent members.
Far from true representation
The first and second problems concern the number and the choice of representatives. The five members are (together with Germany) the most militarised nations in the world. They are self-serving to the extreme and in the case of Russia, China and the US, are led by ruthless and dangerous people. Morally, they are hardly representative of the nations of the earth. Nor are they geographically. More than half the continents on earth do not have a permanent representative, nor could they all have, as long as the number remained at five.
Current members are not going to relinquish their position and trying to add others would make Brexit negotiations seem smooth by comparison. Contenders for an extended permanent block include Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. These are vehemently opposed by other nations, such as Pakistan and South Korea for the last two, respectively. The fact is that a limited number will always be unfair to the nations that are left out.
The veto
The other serious problem concerning the five permanent members is the veto. Russia, China and The US are the worse offenders. They would veto eternal paradise for earth and its mother if it meant jeopardising their greedy self-interest, or that of their allies. We need only consider the veto power of the big five to understand why there has been little progress in issues concerning Palestine, Syria, Crimea and Taiwan. Proposals had been made by France and others to at least ban its use in extreme cases, such as those concerning genocide. These suggestions, however, were shot down by Russia. The Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitali Churkin, had this to say when the proposal was being discussed a few years ago:
"We see it as a somewhat populist proposal. If France wants to limit its own veto, they are welcome."If something as simple and obvious as that cannot pass, what hope is there of reform?
Change will have to come from outside the UN.
UN-Aligned is an new organisation that will be launched soon. Its aim is to have a parallel UN without all the power-politics and anomalies of the current one. It will be virtual at first, like an inspiration that will then materialise into the real world. The website is still under construction, but you can already access some of its material here. If you would like to be a part of this amazing project please get in touch via our contact page.
No comments:
Post a Comment