Restructuring UN Security Council
By Saad S Khan

ON May 31, 2004 Pakistan relinquishes the seat of the Presidency at the UN Security Council. This was the second and the last time during the present two-year tenure that Pakistan occupied the august seat. The Security Council presidency, largely ceremonial in nature, is rotated monthly among the member-States according to the English alphabetical order of their names.

Pakistan has been elected to the non-permanent seat for Asia at the Security Council six times, meaning thereby that she has held the post for twelve years in all. Pakistan’s arch rival India has also held the seat for approximately an equal period and she is now emerging as one of the strongest contenders for a permanent Security Council seat. Pakistan has had a strong case for many years, yet in the recent decades her chances are becoming slimmer. In any case, there can be one more new permanent seat to Asia besides Japan, so it has to be either India or Pakistan; by no means, the both.

The prospects of expansion of the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council being imminent, the strongest among the contenders are Germany and Japan, the two economic and industrial giants of the modern era. A few years ago, the Prime Minister of Italy had once quipped that Italy also had a case for veto power since she too had lost the Second World War. Although Germany and Japan do not qualify for a permanent seat for being the loser Axis Powers of WW II, but the five existing veto powers, namely, United States, Russia, Britain, France and China, are there certainly in reward of them being part of the victorious Allied Powers.

The veto power granted to the five Bigs in the UN Charter in 1945 was nothing more than a recognition of the ground realities of that time. Had the victors not been given a predominant position in the new world body, the latter might not have even come into existence. The world might not have been a safe place to live, had there been no United Nations, the weaknesses of the UN system, not withstanding. And even if a UN had been in existence, the lack of legal power to the most powerful States to block a resolution not going in their favor, could have led them to defy the UN resolution by force of arms, like the recent Iraq invasion demonstrates. This would have made the United Nations into a paper body. Even today, a sudden abolition of veto power can lead the world into chaos. And so would an arbitrary grant of veto to, say, five more hopefuls. The existing permanent members have abused the veto right for self-serving ends and there is no reason not to expect others to do the same.

The second expansion of the UN Security Council by increasing the membership to twenty five, ten permanent plus fifteen non-permanent, is to be high on the agenda at the annual session of the General Assembly beginning this September. The first, and heretofore the only, expansion in the 1960’s had enlarged the Council from eleven to fifteen, through the addition of four non-permanent members. This is the first time that even the permanent members may be increased, although this may involve “serious compromises”, and the new permanent members may not enjoy the right to veto. Admittedly, this would make even the permanent membership discriminatory in nature. But this is how the politics works; evidently the existing permanent members are not likely to show any sign of altruism in the interest of the larger world community.

The three “Bigs” namely, the United States, Russia and China may have some case of for privileged treatment. Even if all States are equal, under the UN Charter, these three are “more equal” than the others. However, the United Kingdom and France are no more the mighty powers they used to be, yet their veto power remains an anachronism that is there to stay for some foreseeable future. Why? Because taking away their veto right or requiring them to share the prerogative with five more States, is again subject to their concurrence which is not forthcoming. Taking, for the purpose of the present column, the necessity of expansion as a settled issue, the questions that confront the world community now can be summarized as how to expand the UN Security Council that it becomes more democratic, what equitable criterion can be envisaged to elevate new States as permanent members that will satisfy the total UN membership and how to make the existing five veto powers agreeable to the inclusion of five additional privileged peers.

The new five are to be geographically distributed as two seats for Asia, and one each for Europe, Africa and the Latin America. Assuming, Japan (from Asia) and Germany (from Europe) as confirmed entrants, we are still left with one seat each from Asia, Africa and the Latin America. The obvious choice from Latin America may be Brazil, while Nigeria can lay a viable claim from Africa. In Asia, India has the strongest case. Pakistan alone could have posed a worthwhile challenge. Yet, thanks to successive dictatorships, Pakistan’s democratic credentials are a joke, economy is in doldrums and foreign policy is rudderless. India thus can relish a walk over.

Even in Latin America and Africa, the world community must demand from the contenders an impeccable human rights record, robust economy and responsible foreign policy, as pre-requisites for candidature. But this option has its flaws. For one, how would India, for instance, be expected to put her own interests in back burner in the larger “Asian interests”, assuming there could be some definable ones. It would be grossly undemocratic to allow one country to represent a whole continent, but “undemocratic” the UN has been since its inception. In any case, the India’s persistent violation of UN Resolutions on Plebiscite in Kashmir and her continued illegal occupation of the disputed region, Nigeria’s poor human rights record and Brazil’s shaky economy have put big question marks on their credentials.

One way would be to grant the three regional seats, not to the countries but, to the most representative regional organizations, like Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Organization of American States (OAS) in case of Africa and the Latin America, while for Asia there is no parallel regional body. Probably, the third veto could be given to the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, which may satisfy the Muslim bloc of the United Nations community. In any case, Asia is represented permanently through China while no single country from the former two regions enjoys permanent status at the UNSC. Given that the countries pursue their self interests quite independently, a singular position on every issue by a whole regional bloc is highly unlikely, if not out rightly unworkable. So the Organizations are out as permanent members.

So, if the next five permanent members, without veto rights, may neither be countries nor organizations, then we may be required to think the unthinkable That is, they may be five distinguished persons--- sounds strange!! Well, we have to be bold and imaginative. Here we may like to discuss two options. One to have the Secretary Generals of the OAS, the OIC and the OAU (NOT the Organizations per se, but their chiefs in their personal capacity), the Chief of the European Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. These five distinguished diplomats of the world shall be non-veto permanent members of the UNSC [provided none of them belongs to a State already a permanent member].

In the alternative, another option would be to have the five persons rotated annually. The winners of the Nobel Prize for peace and literature for the preceding year and the chief of the international parliamentary union, make three members. The remaining two seats would be rotated annually among the Mayors of world’s five most populous cities and the heads of five largest human rights organizations. The remaining fifteen non-permanent seats obviously shall go to the Member States of the UN through elections on a geographical basis as at present.

Democratization, or for that matter, any reform at the United Nations, would require affirmative votes from all the five existing permanent members plus a two thirds yes vote from the General Assembly. Since the existing big five would never go against their own preeminent position, nor can the world community indefinitely postpone a more realistic and representative world body, a medium way needs to be found. That is to say, that we need to have such a formula which would, for the time being, leave the existing five undisturbed, yet open the way for future changes.

As a first step, the world’s single largest economy, the largest State area-wise, and the biggest country population-wise, may be guaranteed a permanent veto power. This would take care of the USA, Russia and China for the foreseeable future. In any case, these three credentials are objectively verifiable The remaining two vetoes may be reserved, one for the State with the highest ranking on Human Development Index (HDI) and the other for the nation with the top ranking on the Human Freedom Index (HFI). For the first forty years, however, the UK and France may be deemed to have been holding these credentials, respectively. Thereafter, the status should be subject to review every twenty years.

The preceding formula guarantees the existing five veto powers of their Status for Forty Years. Thereafter, the UN Committee of the whole house, comprising the full membership of the UN General Assembly, may be entitled to determine the status, through objectively verifiable means, by a two thirds majority. The present largest population is that of China but within four decades, as per the existing projections, it would be India. Who knows if the EU would surpass the United States as the largest economy in as many years? And so on and so forth.

Whatever the form and whatever the arrangement, the ultimate objective of creating a democratic responsible world body must not be lost sight of. The United Nations must be made an institution that has inbuilt mechanisms for upholding the human rights and human values.●

The writer is an Oxford published author and a widely published commentator on governance and politics of the Muslim world. He is a regular contributor to 'Pakistan Times'
E-Mail: saadskhan@yahoo.co.uk

© 2004 Saad S Khan