Desiderata’s Second Guest Blogger H.M. Liew is a student pursuing a Masters course in International Relations and Defence, and she enjoys academic exchange and political discourse.
A Call for Reform of the United Nations
While most world conflicts, particularly the American-led occupation in Iraq, and the anti-terrorism war declared by countries aligned with the United States following September 11, 2001, have yet to see any real signs of solution, several major powers already can’t wait any longer in proceeding with unilateral efforts in pursuing their self-interests. At the centre of their campaigns and government initiatives is the United Nations Organisation (UN).
Under intense lobbying is a proposal to increase the number of permanent members from the present five in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to reflect more equitably the present geo-political global situation. Japan is pitching for one of the additional seats based mainly on the fact that it is the UN's second greatest financial sponsor, only after the United States, as well as its fine track record of economic cooperation and participation in U.N.-led peacekeeping operations. Nevertheless, Germany also has expressed its readiness to undertake the responsibility of becoming a Security Council permanent member since “the composition of the Security Council should reflect the current geo-political reality” and “consideration should be given to those countries which have wishes and capabilities to safeguard international peace and security and have made significant contributions in this regard".
Other countries like India, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil also have expressed strong interest in becoming UNSC permanent members with the claim of reflecting post-World War II geopolitical realities. Indonesia also announced its aspiration for a seat on the ground that it is the world’s largest Muslim nation and world’s fourth most populous country.
The United States has been using the UNSC membership issue as leverage for making Japan, its loyal supportel, take on a greater militaristic role that would suit Washington's global strategy.
Although Indonesia is the largest Islamic state in the world, it failed to convince the international community as it has been suffering economic and political instability and has yet to solve its civic wars and separatist movements at home. Moreover, Indonesia is not actively involved with Islamic states and does not have significant clout or influence in the global Islamic community.
However, while the reform of the UNSC is becoming the limelight of discourse and media coverage at international forums, the question arises: Will the enlargement of the UNSC permanent membership help in smoothening the decision making of the United Nations in peace maintenance or conflict solving?
It seems that the prospects are not optimistic. Even with the present status of just five members, the problem posed by the veto powers vested in the five permanent members (the US, Britain, France, Russia and China} remains a perennial problem. Any one member using the veto could stalemate any initiative presented to resolve the major conflicts afflicting flashpoints, pointing to just one of the complexities arising from the conflict of interests situations at current times.
Recent historical events have proved that the veto powers in the UNSC have been a stumbling block for the UNSC to solve most of the world’s major conflicts. The Korean War in 1950-53 actually was the only occasion when the UN was able to take decisive action in a crisis directly involving the interests of one of the superpowers. When South Korea was invaded by communist North Korea in June 1950, the Security Council immediately passed a resolution condemning North Korea, and called on member states to send help to South Korea. However, the resolution was possible because of the temporary absence of the Russian delegates, who would have vetoed the resolution if they had not been boycotting Security Council meetings since January of that year in protest at the failure to allow communist China to join the UN.
Though this was claimed by the West as a great UN success, it was in fact very much an American operation – the vast majority of troops and the commander-in-chief, General MacArthur, were American, and the US government had already decided to intervene with force the day before the Security Council decision was taken. Only the absence of the Russian enabled the US to turn it into a UN operation. This was a situation not likely to be repeated, since not only Russia, but also other veto powers, would take good care to be present at all future Council sessions.
The Suez Crisis in 1956 also showed the ineffectiveness of the United Nations due to the self-interests of the big powers. When President Nasser of Egypt suddenly nationalized the Suez Canal, many of whose shares were owned by the British and French, both powers protested strongly and sent troops to protect their interests. At the same time, the Israelis invaded Egypt. Jointly, these three nations drove Egyptian troops away from the Suez region and reestablished control. At the United Nations, Britain and France prevented the Security Council from assuming responsibility for peace and order in the area, with voting covering censure to more direct action. During one voting, a most unusual event occurred -- with the United States and the Soviet Union voting together against two of Washington’s closest allies. Even though finally the aggressors agreed to withdraw their troops, enabling the United Nations to ensure a reasonable settlement over the canal and preventing the Arabs and Israelis from further aggravation of their conflict, it showed the trend of repeated failures of the UN from taking “real” effective actions, as what had also happened in the League of Nations, the precursor organization to the UN.
The Hungarian Uprising in 1956 that took place at the same time as the Suez Crisis also showed the United Nations at its most helpless. When the Hungarians tried to exert their independence from Russian control, Soviet troops entered Hungary to crush the revolt. The Hungarian government appealed to the United Nations, but Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a withdrawal of the Russian forces. The General Assembly passed the same resolution and set up a committee to investigate the problem; but Russia refused to cooperate with the committee and no progress could be made. The contrast with Suez was striking: there, Britain and France were willing to bow to international pressure. However, Russia simply ignored the United Nations and nothing could be done.
The UN once again proved helpless in the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 when the world had to face the very real danger of nuclear war. The fact that the incident that came to be known as the ‘thirteen days of doom’ ended was not due to the role of the UN in solving conflict but because of the desire of both superpower players involved -- the US and Russia -- to make peace.
On the other hand, the UN has been totally ineffective in halting the arms race and the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, as well as the spread of other weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological ones.
The US’s stubborn engagement in Iraq against the vast majority of UN members’ opinion is the most recent evidence about the failure of the UN in safeguarding world peace. The UN could not do anything except in making a few insignificant statements of condemnation.
The cruel reality of the failure of the UNSC in solving world conflicts arises from the power struggle and self-interests protection among the powerful states, particularly the five permanent members that have the veto power in the decision making of the UNSC, causing many deadlocks in the U.N, preventing it from proceeding with unified or at least majority-backed action. The push for their own national interests among major powers was once the fundamental problem that also brought about the failure of the Concert of Europe and the League of Nations. The veto is quite rightly blamed for the failure of the UN – an outstanding irony when the instrument was intended to be for providing security, for preventing wars and for peaceful settlement of international disputes.
In the present circumstances, the functioning of the UNSC has resulted in the division of the world into military camps and camp-mates or camp-supporters. Many of the UN General Assembly’s recommendations regarding maintenance of peace have been ignored by the states at which they were addressed. The major offenders are the superpowers and their allies, who are reluctant to subordinate their national interests to the priority of world peace. With a paralyzed UNSC and an impotent General Assembly, the UN has been limping along and is being used as just another international organ for serving the national interests of its member states.
It is a must for the U.N. to reform its structure in order to avoid following the path of failure preceded by the Concert of Europe and the League of Nations.
But the core issue should be the elimination of the structure of five permanent members in the UNSC as the record shows any decision making of the General Assembly is easily crippled by the veto power of the existing five permanent members – a practice inherently undemocratic in such modern times.
What are the long-term prospects of UN-coordinated collective security if the UN is merely to be used as an underfinanced subcontractor of a fig leaf for the priorities of the powerful, with little evidence of any convincing criteria for consistency?
The enlargement of the UNSC in fact will not guarantee halting world strife and moving closer to peace-building, or any efforts assisting to break the deadlock often encountered by the present Big Five in the UNSC would be positive. This issue of the expansion of UNSC membership in fact has been discussed for years, but nothing is really moving forward because of blatant rivalry among prospective members and differences in opinion about UN reforms in general.
It is very sad and disappointing to see the general debate at the 59th UN General Assembly session has been dominated by the issue of the enlargement of the Security Council instead of progressing solutions on countering long lasting problems such as the Palestine-Israeli conflict and more recent global challenges like the spreading terrorist menace. The reforms at the UN cannot be deferred anymore if some solutions to these lingering and emerging problems are to be attempted if not permanently resolved.
No comments:
Post a Comment