UN Council reform questioned

By Omar Halim

JAKARTA (JP): The intense pressure which Germany and Japan have exerted to become permanent members of the Security Council and the air of reform circulating these days in the United Nations has made the issue a major focus of discussions.

Pronouncements on the topic were made by the open-ended working group of the General Assembly, headed by Malaysia's Razali Ismail, assigned to look into the reform of the council, and foreign ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in their recent meeting in New Delhi.

The objectives of making the council more effective, representative and accountable are commonly held by these bodies. But the discussions have also focused on expanding the size in order to increase the representation of developing countries; whether the additional members should be permanent members or not; and whether they should have veto power.

This approach reflects what is considered politically feasible for instituting change in the council. But it is important for us to look into the matter with a fresh and objective perspective.

The council, according to the UN Charter, has the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security". Disputes would preferably be settled by peaceful means, such as mediation, arbitration or judicial settlement, either between the parties themselves or through the appropriate regional organization. If the parties fail to reach a peaceful settlement, the council may recommend solutions, including terms of settlement which it considers appropriate.

If a situation is deemed to be a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or (an) act of aggression", the council can impose sanctions on the guilty state or resort to enforcement measures, which were taken against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1991. Before taking such drastic measures, the council could deploy, with the agreement of the contending states, a peacekeeping force to "prevent the aggravation of the situation".

During the Cold War, one superpower could effectively block the other by using its veto power, and the council was frequently unable to take collective action to restore or maintain peace. Only 13 peacekeeping missions were launched by the council from its inception in 1945 to 1988, and these only occurred because the two superpowers deemed it in their interests to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. The most notable examples were the missions interposed between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

The end of the Cold War brought 22 new missions from 1988 through 1996 but the nature of the conflicts were different than earlier ones. The new conflicts were intrastate in nature and the UN was not well prepared to deal with them. Examples of major failures were Somalia, Bosnia and, to a lesser extent, Cambodia.

The huge costs incurred in these missions prompted the council to be even more selective in deploying new missions. Many say that conflicts in Europe have been given much more attention than in other regions, especially in Africa.

The inaction of the UN in Rwanda, where genocide occurred in 1994, exemplifies this point.

Council decisions have been primarily influenced by its permanent members. The present permanent membership is based on who were the victorious forces during World War II, even though the global power structure more than 50 years later is markedly different. Two of the defeated powers, Germany and Japan, are now knocking hard at the door of this exclusive club. The incongruity of their situation is shown by the UN Charter which still categorizes them as "enemy states", defined as any country which "during World War II has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter".

Furthermore, overall membership of the UN has increased from 51 in 1945 to 185 today. NAM, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and Secretary-General Kofi Annan have called in unison for the council to be "more representative' of the present UN membership, and more accountable, in order to have 'even greater legitimacy and support". It is therefore necessary to democratize the council, and "democratization" is one of the catchwords in the world today.

But democratization does not automatically mean expansion in membership because, in addition to Germany and Japan, there are at least three countries from each region of Africa, Latin America and Asia that aspire to the same permanent membership status. This would severely constrain the council's effectiveness. We need therefore to examine what system could be appropriate for the next 50 years.

Democratization means that every region should have equal say over decisions, including veto power. But democratization further also means that the position of the veto holding member should reflect the position of the region it represents, and not its national interest.

The solution may be for permanent membership, with veto power, to be conferred on regions, and not specific states. A state elected by each region should establish a mechanism to have full consultations with the other members.

Since every member should have equal opportunity to represent the region (although not all would be ready to do so), an election could be held every three or four years. The question now is the number of regional groupings. This could depend upon the political, economic and cultural factors to determine membership of a group.

For example, Western European states have formed a European Union, and this could thus be judged as a group.

Eastern Europe could be another. Africa and Latin America, plus the Caribbean, are groups that have already shown more cohesiveness than others. North America could be a region. The big "region" of Asia could be broken down into West Asia; South and Central Asia; and East Asia and the Pacific.

All these would make eight regional groups. In order to allow more states to participate in the work of the Security Council, there could be another eight states, elected every two years, which would not hold veto power. This would bring total membership to 16, or one more than the present number. Such a Security Council would be small enough to be effective, representative of the whole membership of the UN and transparent to all in taking its decisions.

Resistance to change would no doubt come from those members who already have veto power. But if membership is not determined on a more rational basis, and if change must inevitably take place, the council will continue to be expanded in order to accommodate the dire need to be more representative of the world community. Eventually, it will lose its effectiveness. Now could be the best time to make a clean break.

The writer is an Indonesian observer who worked in the economic, social, public information, political and peacekeeping fields of the United Nations for more than 28 years.

Window: But democratization does not automatically mean expansion in membership because, in addition to Germany and Japan, there are at least three countries from each region of Africa, Latin America and Asia that aspire to the same permanent membership status.