Democratizing the UN or restructuring world order?
Democratizing the UN or restructuring world order?
By J. Soedjati Djiwandono
JAKARTA (JP): One demand of the Non-Aligned countries, as embodied in the Jakarta Message in September 1992, and which has been one of the issues discussed during the recent Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) ministerial meeting held in Bandung, is the democratization of the United Nations organization. The most crucial issue of democratizing the UN concerns the right of veto enjoyed by the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Insisting on either abolishing or expanding the veto right, which in effect would mean reducing its effectiveness as a mechanism for decision making in the Security Council, seems to misunderstand its original intent, as well as the underlying motive and original goal of establishing the international organization. It tends to overlook certain facts of life in international politics.
In the first place, the UN is basically a creation of the so- called Big Five, that is to say, the victors of World War II, now the permanent members of the UN Security Council, when a large number of the present developing nations of NAM and concurrently members of the UN were yet to obtain international recognition as sovereign and independent states. Second, the UN was a reflection of the postwar world. It represented the then prevailing world order. That world order, which shortly afterwards developed into the Cold War, was the postwar "balance of power".
In that kind of world order, the question of peace or war was the primary responsibility of the major powers. It means that it is practically up to them, or any one of them, whether there will be war, particularly a world war, or peace in the world, if only in the limited sense of the absence of such a war. Therefore, it would only be fair that besides their responsibilities, they also enjoy certain privileges.
The veto right of the major powers is both a responsibility and a privilege, but one which is necessary for the maintenance of international peace. And this is precisely the goal of establishing the United Nations, as was the case with the League of Nations, its post-World War I predecessor.
A decision of major importance, such as one likely to affect international peace, made in the Security Council without the concurrence of any one of the major powers, may very well prompt the major power concerned to take unilateral action, leading to war, especially if at stake is what it perceives as its vital national interest. It would be a breach of international peace. Thus the veto right has been designed precisely as a mechanism to ensure a consensus among the major powers, as a guarantee for the maintenance of international peace, the primary goal to be attained through the international organization.
The United Nations purports to represent existing world order. And the decisive influence of the United States over the organization, through its dominant role in the Security Council since the end of the Cold War, seems to fit in with the prevailing world order. Restructuring of the United Nations, therefore, would require re-structuring the world order, not the other way round. But a world order comes into being not so much by design, as by force of circumstances.
In passing, finally, one may wonder if it is really democratic for all nations, big and small, with populations ranging from mere dozens of thousand to hundreds of million, to have the equal right of one vote in the United Nations, irrespective, at that, of their financial contribution.
And is it right to insist on democratization at the international level, while at the domestic level the issue is, to say the least, simply swept under the carpet?
The writer is a member of the board of directors at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.