When the victorious Allied powers of World War 1 formed the League of Nations in 1919, it was hailed as a momentous effort in the quest for lasting world peace. Its failure to prevent World War II resulted in its reinvention in 1946 as the more cumbersome United Nations. Unfortunately, the onus of collective security was entrusted to yet another clique of victorious nations as embodied by the Western-dominated, veto-wielding, permanent members of the Security Council. It took one war for such an international body to come into being and another for it to be transformed. And then along came the Iraq war in 2003 that almost led it to redundancy.
The illegal and unjustified American invasion of Iraq is only one in a long list of UN failings in recent times. The fratricidal wars in Kashmir, Bosnia and Somalia, the genocide in Rwanda, the humanitarian crises of Iraq and Darfur are all poignant reminders of UN’s political ineptitude. Thankfully, the domino effect of these events has effectively set the impetus for another UN metamorphosis.
Last year UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan commissioned a panel of international political figures to prepare a blueprint for overhauling the institution. After a year’s hard work, the panel presented its proposals on Dec. 2.
The illegality of the Iraq war, as so pronounced by Annan, likely weighed heavily on the panelists as they tried to set the stage for any such future denouements. Previously, the UN Charter and UN resolutions have been wantonly misinterpreted by nations to their benefit. While trying to dispel with the selective play of semantics, the panelists have proposed more objective and stringent criteria as the basis for dealing with imminent threats. As expected, the panel has recommended an expansion of the Security Council which is expected to take into consideration the evolving demographic and economic realities in the world.
Among the countries tipped to get the nod for permanent seats in the Security Council are Germany, Japan, India and Brazil. Perhaps the most contentious amongst these would be India. Ascendancy to the permanent post would empower India with a certain level of immunity which, one cannot help but wonder, whether it is ready for. The arguments cited in India’s favor like, being the largest democracy, its significant contributions to UN peacekeeping operations, being a veritable military powerhouse, should not detract us from its poor human rights record, failure to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and not to mention the periodic altercations with nuclear neighbor, Pakistan. There has to be resolution of major outstanding issues of any country before we can embark on seconding their candidacy.
One cannot help but cast back to the reforms sought from Turkey prior to its joining the EU. It would not be entirely wrong to expect the same from candidate countries before they become permanent Security Council members. While the structure and composition of the Security Council is lopsided, arbitrary additions to its membership would be counterproductive.
In addressing this issue, one option mooted by the commission was to curtail the powers of the new permanent members, i.e. denying them the veto option. While this seems reasonable enough, it is unlikely to win favor with vying countries as it would relegate them to a second-class membership. Another solution recommends creating a three-tier system where the new recruits would occupy the second tier. That, for these privileged new inductees, would be a decidedly better option. And what of the clichéd argument of doing away with the veto power altogether? This would clearly create a more democratic and less discriminatory United Nations. In such a scenario, hegemonistic countries like the United States and Russia would be unable to dictate the proceedings but this is unlikely to happen any time soon.
The UN is meant to be a representative body and the process of restructuring is anticipated to incorporate the demographic realities of the world. To date, Arab or Muslim representation has been negligible. The touted candidacy of India, housing the second largest Muslim population, as representative of this religion cannot be further from the truth. Candidate countries like Malaysia, Saudi Arabia or Egypt need to stand up and be counted.
The countries that have made the most of calling for reforms are in reality the very reasons behind the need for change. President Bush’s repeated calls for reforms are only meant to serve his vested political interests, like for instance the next time he needs to launch a war against an unrelenting foe. The decay of existing resolutions like those pertaining to Palestine or Kashmir, has made this organization all but redundant. On the other hand, it is inexcusable that resolutions such as 661 and 986 which bear responsibility for more than half a million child-deaths from malnutrition in Iraq be allowed the international mandate for perpetration.
It is for these very reasons that amending the UN Charter becomes mandatory. However, the amendments must incorporate the secretary-general’s vision of “a broader, more comprehensive system of collective security.” Security cannot be the prerogative of a few selected states — “all states, rich and poor, weak and strong” should share in this responsibility and still be able to partake of this inherent entitlement if the need so arises. The blueprint for change puts forward guidelines for confronting security threats which must be collectively adhered to regardless of the individual needs of sovereign states. The contemptuous veto power invested in selected states ought to be abandoned if any semblance of equality and proportion is to be apportioned to this prestigious institution. Although the road to reform is certainly an arduous one and laced with controversy, it is yet negotiable.
