Initial step to UN Security Council

Initial step to UN Security Council

By Rizal Sukma

JAKARTA (JP): In a recent interview with Kompas daily,
Indonesia's foreign minister Ali Alatas suggested that Indonesia
has the potential to be a candidate for a permanent member of the
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should this most
prestigious body be reformed.

Alatas' remarks were made following his suggestion before the
UN General Assembly that two permanent seats should go to major
developing countries in Asia. Even though he did not mention
which Asian countries should be given the two seats, many believe
that the two countries would be Indonesia and India (Kompas, Oct.
3, 1997).

The remarks are, of course, timely. The existing UN system no
longer reflects the reality of contemporary world politics. Much
has changed during the last five decades, especially since the
end of the Cold War.

The present UNSC arrangements clearly reflect the reality of
post-World War II international politics in which the victors of
the war assumed a predominant role as the "arrangers" and
"guarantors" of peace, stability and security.

In the mind of the victors, only the Big Five (U.S., Britain,
France, the former Soviet Union and China) had the privilege and
the ability to manage international problems and prevent another
world war from reoccurring.

Based on such assumptions, the five major powers have used
their UNSC positions to make important decisions which they have
seen necessary to preserve international "peace" and "stability".

To make their exclusive positions even more effective, they
also have been granted with the power of the veto which has since
become a source of resentment among "ordinary" members of the UN.

All in all, it can be said that the current arrangements of
the UNSC are based on the presumed ability of the big five (a) to
deal with international problems and (b) to make the world a
better place to live.

In a way, such a privileged role for the UNSC was indeed
justified since it served the need of the day. The immediate
priority of the post-war period then was to prevent the outbreak
of another war by emphasizing the military-security dimension of
war prevention strategies.

The UNSC system, which highlights the security and military
role of its five permanent members, clearly reflects such realist
thinking.

Moreover, it might have been driven also by the failure of the
League of Nations to maintain international order and peace in
the aftermath of the World War I.

In other words, the UNSC arrangement which has been in place
until today, has matched the reality of post-war international
relations which has dealt only with the question of war and peace
defined primarily in terms of a conventional military-security
framework.

Now, as international relations have undergone profound
changes, and problems encountered by states are no longer limited
to conventional war and peace issues, the current system has
become obsolete indeed.

The increasing complexity of the contemporary world renders it
even more difficult for scholars, experts and policy makers alike
to define what constitutes "world problems" within a framework of
traditional international relations.

As the field of the study itself has become more
interdisciplinary, so too has the world it portends to explain.

For example, issues such as poverty, growing population, human
rights, democratization, environmental degradation, food
security, energy scarcity and uneven development between the
North and the South have all become world problems which require
solutions on a global basis.

If we assume that the permanent members of the UNSC should be
those countries which have the ability to deal with world
problems, then it is clear that the current arrangement no longer
reflects such a criteria.

It is difficult, for example, to claim that Russia, and even
Britain and France, are well equipped with the ability to deal
with such global problems.

Moreover, the current reality of international relations
clearly suggests the growing role of other powers such as Japan
and Germany. It is also not an exaggeration to say that many
countries, especially those in East Asia, may be in a better
position to address many of today's world problems.

However, it should be made clear that the ability to deal with
new world problems should not be the only criteria for membership
in the Council.

Experience in dealing with them should be no less important.
In this regard, it can be argued that many developing countries
have proved to be successful in addressing many of the above
mentioned problems, especially poverty, demography and food
security.

Moreover, it can also be argued that those who used to
experience these problems may be in a better position to
contribute more in terms of a global effort to eradicate them. In
short, it is important to acknowledge that experience in dealing
with contemporary world problems should also be made part of the
criteria for UNSC membership in the reforming of that body.

Even though contemporary international relations can no longer
be conceived merely in terms of conventional peace and security
problems, it does not mean that these issues are no longer
relevant.

Commitment to preserve peace and stability still constitutes a
significant criteria for UNSC membership. However, within a
changed world such as it is today, one can no longer assume and
claim that only big powers have the rights and responsibility to
preserve and maintain peace and stability.

Many other developing countries have demonstrated and played
important roles in this respect, either at regional or global
levels. Therefore, track records in maintaining international
peace and stability should also constitute an important criteria
for membership in the UNSC.

In this context, Indonesia clearly has the right and suitable
criteria to be nominated as a permanent member of a reformed
UNSC.

The republic has abundant experience in dealing with many
"world problems". It has also played an important role in
maintaining peace and stability in Southeast Asia as well as
outside of the region. There also is no doubt that Indonesia will
continue to play such a role even more vigorously in the years to
come.

In light of the above argument, it would be appropriate for
Indonesia to make its qualifications and intentions to become a
permanent member of the UNSC known to other countries by
declaring them more forcefully.

Of course, it would be premature to assume that by doing so
Indonesia would soon become a permanent member of the UNSC. We
realize that resistance might be great indeed.

Moreover, a reform of the UNSC itself is not an easy agenda
for non-UNSC countries. However, one should keep in mind that "a
thousand mile journey must always begin with the first step". A
public and straightforward declaration of intent would constitute
such a first step.

The writer is a researcher at the Centre for Strategic and
International Studies, Jakarta.