Initial step to UN Security Council<\/p>\n
By Rizal Sukma<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): In a recent interview with Kompas daily,
\nIndonesia's foreign minister Ali Alatas suggested that Indonesia
\nhas the potential to be a candidate for a permanent member of the
\nUnited Nations Security Council (UNSC) should this most
\nprestigious body be reformed.<\/p>\n
Alatas' remarks were made following his suggestion before the
\nUN General Assembly that two permanent seats should go to major
\ndeveloping countries in Asia. Even though he did not mention
\nwhich Asian countries should be given the two seats, many believe
\nthat the two countries would be Indonesia and India (Kompas, Oct.
\n3, 1997).<\/p>\n
The remarks are, of course, timely. The existing UN system no
\nlonger reflects the reality of contemporary world politics. Much
\nhas changed during the last five decades, especially since the
\nend of the Cold War.<\/p>\n
The present UNSC arrangements clearly reflect the reality of
\npost-World War II international politics in which the victors of
\nthe war assumed a predominant role as the "arrangers" and
\n"guarantors" of peace, stability and security.<\/p>\n
In the mind of the victors, only the Big Five (U.S., Britain,
\nFrance, the former Soviet Union and China) had the privilege and
\nthe ability to manage international problems and prevent another
\nworld war from reoccurring.<\/p>\n
Based on such assumptions, the five major powers have used
\ntheir UNSC positions to make important decisions which they have
\nseen necessary to preserve international "peace" and "stability".<\/p>\n
To make their exclusive positions even more effective, they
\nalso have been granted with the power of the veto which has since
\nbecome a source of resentment among "ordinary" members of the UN.<\/p>\n
All in all, it can be said that the current arrangements of
\nthe UNSC are based on the presumed ability of the big five (a) to
\ndeal with international problems and (b) to make the world a
\nbetter place to live.<\/p>\n
In a way, such a privileged role for the UNSC was indeed
\njustified since it served the need of the day. The immediate
\npriority of the post-war period then was to prevent the outbreak
\nof another war by emphasizing the military-security dimension of
\nwar prevention strategies.<\/p>\n
The UNSC system, which highlights the security and military
\nrole of its five permanent members, clearly reflects such realist
\nthinking.<\/p>\n
Moreover, it might have been driven also by the failure of the
\nLeague of Nations to maintain international order and peace in
\nthe aftermath of the World War I.<\/p>\n
In other words, the UNSC arrangement which has been in place
\nuntil today, has matched the reality of post-war international
\nrelations which has dealt only with the question of war and peace
\ndefined primarily in terms of a conventional military-security
\nframework.<\/p>\n
Now, as international relations have undergone profound
\nchanges, and problems encountered by states are no longer limited
\nto conventional war and peace issues, the current system has
\nbecome obsolete indeed.<\/p>\n
The increasing complexity of the contemporary world renders it
\neven more difficult for scholars, experts and policy makers alike
\nto define what constitutes "world problems" within a framework of
\ntraditional international relations.<\/p>\n
As the field of the study itself has become more
\ninterdisciplinary, so too has the world it portends to explain.<\/p>\n
For example, issues such as poverty, growing population, human
\nrights, democratization, environmental degradation, food
\nsecurity, energy scarcity and uneven development between the
\nNorth and the South have all become world problems which require
\nsolutions on a global basis.<\/p>\n
If we assume that the permanent members of the UNSC should be
\nthose countries which have the ability to deal with world
\nproblems, then it is clear that the current arrangement no longer
\nreflects such a criteria.<\/p>\n
It is difficult, for example, to claim that Russia, and even
\nBritain and France, are well equipped with the ability to deal
\nwith such global problems.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the current reality of international relations
\nclearly suggests the growing role of other powers such as Japan
\nand Germany. It is also not an exaggeration to say that many
\ncountries, especially those in East Asia, may be in a better
\nposition to address many of today's world problems.<\/p>\n
However, it should be made clear that the ability to deal with
\nnew world problems should not be the only criteria for membership
\nin the Council.<\/p>\n
Experience in dealing with them should be no less important.
\nIn this regard, it can be argued that many developing countries
\nhave proved to be successful in addressing many of the above
\nmentioned problems, especially poverty, demography and food
\nsecurity.<\/p>\n
Moreover, it can also be argued that those who used to
\nexperience these problems may be in a better position to
\ncontribute more in terms of a global effort to eradicate them. In
\nshort, it is important to acknowledge that experience in dealing
\nwith contemporary world problems should also be made part of the
\ncriteria for UNSC membership in the reforming of that body.<\/p>\n
Even though contemporary international relations can no longer
\nbe conceived merely in terms of conventional peace and security
\nproblems, it does not mean that these issues are no longer
\nrelevant.<\/p>\n
Commitment to preserve peace and stability still constitutes a
\nsignificant criteria for UNSC membership. However, within a
\nchanged world such as it is today, one can no longer assume and
\nclaim that only big powers have the rights and responsibility to
\npreserve and maintain peace and stability.<\/p>\n
Many other developing countries have demonstrated and played
\nimportant roles in this respect, either at regional or global
\nlevels. Therefore, track records in maintaining international
\npeace and stability should also constitute an important criteria
\nfor membership in the UNSC.<\/p>\n
In this context, Indonesia clearly has the right and suitable
\ncriteria to be nominated as a permanent member of a reformed
\nUNSC.<\/p>\n
The republic has abundant experience in dealing with many
\n"world problems". It has also played an important role in
\nmaintaining peace and stability in Southeast Asia as well as
\noutside of the region. There also is no doubt that Indonesia will
\ncontinue to play such a role even more vigorously in the years to
\ncome.<\/p>\n
In light of the above argument, it would be appropriate for
\nIndonesia to make its qualifications and intentions to become a
\npermanent member of the UNSC known to other countries by
\ndeclaring them more forcefully.<\/p>\n
Of course, it would be premature to assume that by doing so
\nIndonesia would soon become a permanent member of the UNSC. We
\nrealize that resistance might be great indeed.<\/p>\n
Moreover, a reform of the UNSC itself is not an easy agenda
\nfor non-UNSC countries. However, one should keep in mind that "a
\nthousand mile journey must always begin with the first step". A
\npublic and straightforward declaration of intent would constitute
\nsuch a first step.<\/p>\n
The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and
\nInternational Studies, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/initial-step-to-un-security-council-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}