(Research paper by Stephanie Remers (C) 2012)
Executive Summary
This report hopes to work toward a system of Global Governance. The UNSC is the only current world body which has powers to enforce actions.
The Current permanent members are; France, United Kingdom, Unite States OF America, China and Russia. These were the victors of WWII and it has been repeatedly noted that the systems which were originally put in place in 1945 are now dated and the economic and political world has changed greatly since then, this system needs to be revisited. There is widespread agreement that the P5 (Permanent five members) no longer meet the global needs of our world.
There has been widespread agreement that reforming the UNSC would help to ensure that it reflected the interests of developing and developed countries. The problems of the Security Council can be broken down by the tension between the permanent members and those who are up and coming world powers i.e. India, Brazil, Japan and German.
The question proposed to the Secretary is how can the UNSC offer solutions to these issues ensuring fairness in representation for all members whilst safeguarding the decisions of the UNSC. In addition to this we need to maintain the founding principles of the UN as they have been expressed in the charter. An ad-hoc global society and its participants should be traded with a more productive and strengthened institution.
This report will express debates by other members in relation to UNSC reform, giving an overview of some of the current issues within the UNSC. The report will then provide suggested solutions by current member states and concentrate on solutions through regional representation and the adjusted use of veto powers.
Problem Statement
The standing issue is how do you balance the interests of the USA (free trade, protection of her own strategic aims vs. promotion of human rights) and china (less interest in human rights, wish to challenge American hegemony vs. the wish to trade with US on her own terms), without ignoring long term and important supporters of the UN such as the United Kingdom/France and developing nations.
Another issue of the current UNSC to consider is although economic and military might are important there is also the employment of soft power. Suggestions of a larger UNSC have been repeatedly put forward but would a larger UNSC be too unwieldy and thus be unable to react at all to major international security concerns, the opposing issue to this is that too small a UNSC would leave open to control from one of the major players in the current UNSC.
In 2003, almost a decade ago, Secretary-General Kofi Annan informed the General Secretary;
“I respectfully suggest to you, Excellences, that in the eyes of your peoples the difficulty of reaching agreement does not excuse your failure to do so. If you want the Council’s decisions to command greater respect, particularly in the developing world, you need to address the issue of its composition with greater urgency.” (Kofi Annan 2003)
This shows that a change of the UNSC is becoming frustrating and urgent
Aims and Failures
The purpose of the United Nations was to prevent another WWI or WWII from happening. In this matter the United Nations has been Successful, however the principals which the UN layout in their own charter are not being met.
Let’s look at the basic aims overall of the UN and compare these with some of its failures:
Aims Failures
‘To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’ Failure to prevent, aid supports or get involved in sufficient time; Korean War, Vietnam War, Cuban missile crisis, the gulf war(s), occupation of Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine crisis.
‘To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights’ Failure to financially support some of the other organisations such as UNICEF. Refugees and displaced people from armed conflicts, Poverty, climate change.
‘Maintain International law’ Hungary and Czechoslovakia was ignored by the Soviet Union, unable to resolve/define the ‘war on terror’
‘To Promote social progress and better standards of life’ On-going unresolved conflicts. Ever increasing refugees of war. Starving nations.
(Charter of the UN 2012)
Options Appraisal
Regional Representation
The general consensus is that a slow approach should be taken on board with regards to reforming the UNSC, however, there are mixed emotions as to whether the UNSC should be expanded, interchangeable or dispersed in to regional representatives. According to the Centre of UN Reform Education (2007)
- Some member states wish for the SC to be more geographically distributed.
- It needs to be defined weather it will be in geographical or political sense (I.e. where would the EU start and end)
- Some members believe that regional seats would not work as some nations do not have the means to elect members to the council; for example Ireland, Singapore, Japan.
Germany and Japan have both advocated for a place on the SC, both countries have contributed large amounts to the UN since WWII and become strong economies on the world market. Since then other nations have also grown and considered themselves for a candidate but have since said that they are happy to hand their seat to the hands of the EU. Italy have also expressed that they would not want Germany to hold a permanent seat on the SC.
Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, Germany, India and Nigeria all see themselves as desirable candidates for UNSC too. While they are all powerful countries they all agree that they should be now representatives on the SC.
Many other members would prefer to add more non- permanent members rather than changing the current P5 in order to have more regional representation this way, these countries pushing for more seats on the General assembly (GA) then formed a consensus, they were Spain, Mexico, Canada, Italy, south Korea and Mexico and are now known as the Uniting for Consensus.
The African group representing the Arab League is calling for two permanent seats and believe that they are entitled to a seat given that most of the UN dealings are in Africa and they are not even currently represented.
The G4 (Group Four) Brazil, India, Germany and japan would prefer new permanent seats rather than an expansion of non-permanent members, as mentioned Germany, India and Japan are amongst the largest economies as well as contributing the most to UN peace-keeping troops and believe this is why they should be entitled.
The problem is they all want to put themselves forward for the position. The UN has repeatedly put reforms on the table for the countries to agree on however each country keeps pushing themselves forward and rejecting the proposals. The issue is not of the UN but of the countries pushing for their place within a balance of power. This does not help in creating global governance if all nations keep pushing to be the greater powers
Decision making processes and Veto power
Veto power has been one of the biggest topics of debate, it is suggested that the removal of veto power will enable the UNSC to become more democratic in its decision making allowing the UNSC to be more representative and effective for developed and developing nations. The Centre of UN Reform Education in (2007) reports that;
Cyprus believe a decisions need to be made to eliminate the veto power or impose limitations. Cyprus state that if the SC was to be expanded then some members may condition acceptance biased on whether or not the veto power is implemented. Furthermore they believe that maybe the veto could be dropped in order to speed up reform and come back to it at a later date.
Germany believes that the veto power should never have been implemented and a way must be made to remove it. They also believe that removing it temporarily is a way to move forward.
Egypt part of the African group are asking for 2 additional seats and for them to keep the veto power, there concern is that if they got a seat how long would they have to wait for the veto power to return, if at all. They believe if veto power was to exist then it must apply to new permanent members too.
Liechtenstein Believe that a decision cannot be made on veto power and that they should consider limiting its use.
Recommendations
It is agreed that an alteration to the status quo in changing the UNSC is unlikely to happen quickly and that emerging economies need to put more pressure on to shift the current Balance of Power and the process of decisions need to be more globally representative.
If the European Union (representing Europe) was given a seat on the SC the benefits would be that it has no defence policy, therefore it won’t change status quo. It could open doors for other regions, i.e. African Union, aiding in the creation of global governance. It would aid in the removal of veto power as France or the UK would need to resign theirs and it would also allow Germany a place on the table through their new European Representative. (WFM-IGP News 2007)
The same principle would work for other groups. It would seem more suitable and in the best interest of Global Governance if the suggested four (EU, African Group, G4 and Uniting for Consensus) represented different nations and all pulled together as the new permanent members; this would allow for regional representation rather than individual nations and allow for a wider representation of nations, without making the membership too large. In implementing regional representatives to the SC it would enable Global Governance and be more suited to the needs of developed and developing nations.
The key to changing the current UNSC lies with the current P5 members, yet the current P5 want to keep their places and the use of veto power. The best way to change is through regional representation, the use of veto power is unlikely to get resolve any time soon therefore we should be concentrating on making a mutual agreement between states, which equally represents each nation and removes the balance of power.
In the meantime putting a hold on veto power may be the best option with an outlook in the future to changing it. One suggestion could be that rather than completely remove the veto power the SC could expanded, yet the use of the veto could be changed; if a SC member prohibited a resolution then it should be legalised that a resolution be changed to specific requirements and resubmitted. Conversely if a SC member veto again, purposely blocking the proposal/resolution then the issue should go through regardless. If SC member keep abusing their veto power then they should be removed and replaced. This will make sure that decisions are fair and not to the advantage of the controlling SC.
Another issue which has not been touched upon in this report is the SC needs to support the other sources available, such as NGO’s. Since the end of the Cold War the UNSC have frequently turned to NGO for support on the ground after government agencies are no longer available to remain on the scene of a conflict. NGO often have the support and understanding of the public which intern puts necessary pressures on the UN to act, NGO’s put pressure on to change policies. By including NGO’s it would also create a more unified society towards Global Governance.
There have been many attempts to reform the UNSC nonetheless each time it has just revealed how complicated the process is. The United Nations is losing its credibility. There needs to be wide support of reform which maintains the UN values and principals while enabling global peace and security.
Referencing:
1) ANNAN. K. (1993/2005). UN publication S/2006/78. Outlines efforts undertaken by the Council from to reform its working methods. From; Freiesleben, J, (2009). Managing Change at the United Nations, Reform of the Security Council, Journal. 1, 1-19.
2) Centre for UN Reform Education. (2007) Debate on Security Council Reform continues (ONLINE) Available at: http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/248. (Accessed 01 May 2012).
3) WFM-IGP. (2012). Reforming the United Nations Security Council. (ONLINE) Available at: http://www.wfm-igp.org/site/about. [Accessed 08 May 2012].Charter of the United Nations [2012]. Chapter I. (ONLINE) Available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml. (Accessed 02 May 2012).