Source: Facebook post
MOHAN GURUSWAMY:
!
Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a strong pitch for a permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council, saying it should get it as a "right" for its immense contribution to global peace. "Those days are gone when India had to beg. Now we want our right. No other country has such moral authority," he said while addressing the Indian community in Paris.
He also said that on its 70th anniversary the UN must see this as "an opportunity to recognize a peace-loving nation like India," and its position on this.
That will happen sooner or later, particularly if India regains its sharp climb on the economic ladder and as a military power. But the question that will also need to be addressed apart from the expansion of the UNSC, is what kind of a permanent membership will India get or should take?
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 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. On January 1, 1942 the nations consulted signed what came to be known as the Declaration of the United Nations and approving the aims of the Atlantic Charter.
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 now has 192 members.
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 served this purpose quite admirably.
True, it did not prevent regional wars from erupting constantly, for since 1945 there have been 244 wars and armed conflicts: 53 civil wars; 43 involving the USA; and 8 ongoing civil wars, 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 one.
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 from 1956 to 1965. 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 now?
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. The other ten members of the Security Council are elected members from the various regions. These are members are without the veto and with little voice or clout. Their plight is best illustrated by the admission of the former Colombian representative, Ambassador Luis Fernando Jaramillo, that even as President of the Security Council (1992-94) 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.”
While the single veto does not reflect a desirable level of democratization, to have a Security Council of elected equals will only render it more ineffective and irrelevant. Even within the Security Council the ability of some countries to have their way will make it vulnerable to unwise choices. In the early 2000’s the US Ambassador to the UN, Thomas Pickering, snarled near an open microphone at the Yemeni Ambassador al-Ashtal after his country voted against the US on Resolution 678 “that is the most expensive vote you ever cast.” The following week the USA suspended its $100 million 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 and the world’s third largest GDP in PPP terms, 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 nation’s permanent members but without veto powers. 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. 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 P-5 from insisting that world affairs only are shaped to their liking. Only an expansion of its permanent membership accompanied by its internal reform will assure the Security Council a secure place in world affairs.
Mohan Guruswamy
mohanguru@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment