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.