UN Council needs urgent reform<\/p>\n
By Imron Cotan<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The United Nations General Assembly is
\nundergoing its 52nd session in New York and as has been
\npreviously predicted, the reform of some of its institutions,
\nespecially that of the Security Council, is indeed high on the
\nagenda.<\/p>\n
Notwithstanding the fact that it has recently resumed its
\npivotal role in maintaining international peace and security --
\nas stipulated in Chapter V, Article 24, of the UN Charter -- many
\nattempts have been made to reform the Security Council.<\/p>\n
There have been at least two underlining reasons upon which
\nthe international community's call for the reform of this
\npowerful organ of the United Nations is based.<\/p>\n
First, it is now being considered as nonrepresentative since
\nthe members of the United Nations have drastically increased to
\n185 states.<\/p>\n
Second, and of no less importance, the Security Council
\ncreated undemocratic rules to cater to the cold-war era, allowing
\na selected few of its members holding permanent seats -- namely
\nthe United States, Russia (formerly the U.S.S.R.), the United
\nKingdom, France and China -- to exercise individual veto powers
\nover any decisions the Security Council might take.<\/p>\n
The need to reform the Security Council has furthermore gained
\nground, especially among developing countries, due to an
\nincreasingly common perception that the Security Council seems to
\nbe more of a political tool for the most powerful countries to
\nmultilaterally legalize goals relating to their national
\ninterests.<\/p>\n
The stern and continuous actions taken against Iraq are indeed
\na striking example and seem to have been blown out of proportion.
\nIronically, in the meantime, the Security Council is
\nincomprehensibly speechless regarding tragedies of similar
\nmagnitude in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Israel and Zaire to
\nname but a few cases which it has long been confronted with.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the attempts to reform the Security Council
\nhave so far failed to achieve the looked-for results. It is
\nagainst this backdrop that the president of the 51st session of
\nthe UN General Assembly, Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia has
\ntaken the initiative to try to reform the Security Council.<\/p>\n
His proposals contain the following basic ideas:<\/p>\n
First, the permanent members should be increased to ten
\ncountries compared to the current five.<\/p>\n
Second, two out those five additional seats should be given to
\nGermany and Japan, as they represent the strongest economic
\npowerhouses in our recent history, while the remaining three
\nshould be openly contested among the members of the regional
\ngroupings of Asia, Africa and Latin America (including the
\nCaribbean), each having one seat respectively.<\/p>\n
According to the devised plan, candidates from developing
\ncountries could only be elected if they manage to secure the vote
\nof two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly. The
\ninitiative furthermore highlighted that all five of the
\nadditional permanent members should enjoy no veto rights.<\/p>\n
Third, four countries should be elected to function as
\nadditional non-permanent members of the Security Council
\nrepresenting respectively, African states, Asian states, Eastern
\nEuropean states and Latin American and Caribbean states.<\/p>\n
Fourth, the veto rights of the current permanent members
\nshould be subject to scrutiny in the future for eventual
\nabolishment -- for the maintenance of such power is being
\nperceived as legitimizing undemocratic values, originating from
\nthe cold-war era, which all developing nations object to.<\/p>\n
The proposals put forward by Razali seem to be very
\nattractive. They, however, contain elements which demand a closer
\nlook. Of cardinal importance is the selection process of the
\npermanent members originating from the developing world.<\/p>\n
Unlike Germany and Japan, the three representatives of the
\ndeveloping countries are obligated to freely compete in the
\nGeneral Assembly.<\/p>\n
Hence, these countries would not actually represent the
\naspirations of the region concerned, while at the same time
\nopening the possibility of non-regional countries in the General
\nAssembly to determine the representative of a particular region
\nwhich they do not belong to.<\/p>\n
The best way to circumvent this delicate situation is to
\nselect the regional representatives based on a consensus. This,
\nof course, is no easy task either.<\/p>\n
The political realities in the regions of Asia, Africa, and
\nLatin America and the Caribbean certainly pose formidable hurdles
\nto consensus-building efforts which would determine the
\nrepresentative country best-suited for each region.<\/p>\n
In Asia, India would be questioned by Pakistan and Indonesia.
\nIn Africa, Egypt would be challenged by Nigeria or South Africa
\nand vice-versa. While in Latin America and the Caribbean, Brazil
\nwould be antagonized by either Argentina or Mexico and the other
\nway around.<\/p>\n
Another innovative solution has to be invented. The proposal
\nput forward by Indonesia's Foreign Minister Ali Alatas before the
\n52nd session of the General Assembly recently is indeed
\npraiseworthy. Alatas proposed that, instead of one, Asia should
\nbe given two additional permanent seats in the Security Council.<\/p>\n
If this would be applied as well to the two remaining regions,
\nit would greatly help the regions pave the way for achieving a
\nconsensus decision.<\/p>\n
Without a modification such as Alatas' suggestion, the
\nproposals offered by Razali would not address the
\nnonrepresentative nature of the Security Council. As one might
\nrecall in its early inception, the Security Council consisted of
\n11 countries with the United Nations having 51 members (21.5
\npercent of the UN membership was therefore also part of the
\nSecurity Council).<\/p>\n
Should Razali's formulas be acceptable, the Security Council
\nwould merely have 24 members with the United Nations having 185
\nmembers. That means the membership of the Security Council would
\nonly constitute 15 percent of the total United Nations membership
\n-- far less than it was in its early establishment.<\/p>\n
While this idea is indeed totally unacceptable, it may lead as
\nwell to the question of validity or invalidity of the decisions
\ntaken in this would-be nonrepresentative body.<\/p>\n
What is most striking is that, for the case of Germany and
\nJapan, the election of these two countries would be based on
\neconomic parameters -- disregarding the fact that they were the
\npredominant Axis Powers during World War II, inflicting
\nhorrendous and unmeasurable damages to mankind and its
\ncivilization.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, these economic criteria are doomed to be short-
\nlived, for in the not-so-distant future many countries will also
\nbe able to claim that they are eligible as well for permanent
\nseats on the Security Council based on their tremendous progress
\nin economic fields and their huge contribution to the United
\nNations budget.<\/p>\n
These might, for example, include the Republic of Korea and
\nSingapore, while politically and demographically they do not
\nadequately represent any constituencies.<\/p>\n
In an attempt to thwart this totally unacceptable formula, the
\npotential candidates from Asia, especially Indonesia, have to
\ncampaign openly and assertively.<\/p>\n
Establishing beforehand a set of criteria for suitable
\ncandidates is indeed the right thing to do. As one might recall,
\nAlatas has on many occasions stated that those candidates should
\nbe chosen not only by geography but also from their political,
\neconomic and demographic weight and their track record of
\ncontributing to world peace (The Jakarta Post, Oct. 2, 1997).<\/p>\n
One additional important factor that should be included in
\nthis set of criteria is that the candidates have to represent the
\nexisting powerhouses of the real world.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the current Security Council does not have any
\nrepresentative from the Moslem world. Albeit Indonesia does not
\nclaim itself as an Islamic state, it is still a member of the
\nOrganization of Islamic Conferences. No single country can
\ncontest that Indonesia is a suitable candidate to serve as a
\nrepresentative of this important and yet developing constituency
\nof the world.<\/p>\n
Not until after all countries unanimously agree to specific
\ncriteria can Indonesia entertain the idea of reforming the
\nSecurity Council. If not, we should stand in the way of reforms
\nnot supported by all members, for Indonesia is too big a country
\nto fall to any pressures. We should stand firm for a right and
\njust course for the world and for Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The writer is a former United Nations Disarmament Fellow and
\nan expert on international peace and security affairs, residing
\nin Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/un-council-needs-urgent-reform-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}