Image via Wikipedia

So, I was feeling a bit nostalgic today and was reading up on Former UN Sec-Gen, Kofi Annan‘s report: In larger freedom. For those of you unfamiliar with this report, Mr. Annan explicitly showcased and outlined his desire to see a Reformed Security Council through two Models (See Page 43 of the report), each of which present a way to make the Security Council a more democratic organ. Considering this and the voice of the hundreds of academics out there, I felt like adding my voice into the fray. Thus, this post.

When we consider how the UNSC can be restructured, we need to consider two critical blocs of countries: The G4 i.e. the proponents and the group of countries that calls itself “Uniting for Consensus” i.e. the opponents. The G4, consisting of India, Brazil, Germany and Japan (the last two still considered “enemy states” under the UN Charter) propose expanding the permanent seats to include themselves in the UNSC. On the other hand, the UfC, consisting of countries like Pakistan, Argentina, Italy and South Korea firmly oppose this form of expansion, instead suggesting the expansion of the non-permanent members, citing it as more democratic. Of course, one would be a fool not to take into account the possibility of certain hidden agendas of these nations, even if they’re hidden in plain sight. After all, the hostility between some of these countries on opposing sides is not really a secret, is it?

Now that we have a gist of both proposals, you’d probably notice how both have shortfalls that essentially betray the United Nations’ democratic values. To elaborate: if we consider the G4′s proposal, the main shortfall I see is on what basis the new members of the SC should be decided. You can’t possibly decide who gets to be on the Security Council simply because of things like Peacekeeping troop contribution, Economic Growth etc. That doesn’t really seem fair, does it? On the other hand, the UfC’s proposal still begs the question as to why the current P-5 countries should be permitted to hold on to their seats on the Security Council.

The way I understand it,  the veto was proposed to ensure that no country or bloc of countries has absolute power in the UNSC. However, the fact that all these countries were part of the Allied Nations in World War II seems to contradict that. But, the fact of the matter is, the importance and purpose of the veto was fully understood during the Cold War, where the USSR/Russia with 132 vetoes and the US with 82 vetoes (from 1946-2007) discovered their ability to make the United Nations a completely powerless organization and it won’t be too long before any of the G4 countries realize this i.e. if their proposal is accepted.

The bottom line is that if the number of countries with the veto power increases, the odds of critical resolutions getting vetoed also increases, yet again, bringing the United Nations to a screeching stand-still. Whereas, if the countries that have the veto remain constant, countries will consider it an unfair bias. This is why I believe that all seats in the UNSC must be non-permanent, with five seats holding the veto power. Such a measure will provide different countries the opportunity to have the veto and they won’t be able to continuously maintain a monopoly over it as their terms would end after a period of five years. Such a measure would ensure that the democratic values of the UN are not completely betrayed and would also ensure that views of different countries and blocs are prevalent in the UNSC. But, most importantly, it serves to ensure that the power of the UNSC is dissolved.

But that’s just me.

Also See:

• Israel backs India’s bid for UNSC membership (nation.com.pk)
• Veto powers questioned at United Nations (colonel6.com)
• India welcomes Pakistan’s UNSC seat (thehindu.com)