Has the Security Council failed the UN ?

The News, Sun, September,26, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



It is not too far fetched to assume that United Nations still continues to enjoy the reputation of being the premier international organization despite the fact that developments in the recent past appears to have made UN rather a weakened organization and almost each of its191 members favour reforms. Indeed the voices to reform the United Nations (UN) are continuously increasing. There exists a widespread impression that the UN is doing a poor job and therefore it must be reformed.  The UN is known for supporting a massive bureaucracy, which is often clocked in secrecy. Its employees who are often deemed to be over 60,000 are hardly ever subjected to public scrutiny.

Reforming the Security Council appears to be central to the reforming of the UN. It needs to be stressed here that successive waves of reforms have washed over the UN, each promising greater efficiency, effectiveness and coherence but none of these steps have come close to altering the basic nature and the purposes of the organisation. Perhaps that is why it was aptly put by a writer that the UN appears to be always changing, always reforming but never reformed. One major reason for rare reforms is its complex amendment system. The framers of the UN Charter made the amendment procedure so complex that only three amendments were approved in more than fifty years- two to expand Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and one to enlarge the Security Council. An amendment requires the support of two-third of the member states, including all the permanent members of the Security Council, and the subsequent ratification by their national constitutional processes.

According to the UN Charter the primary purpose of the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security.  It was expected to play an effective role in mobilizing the world community to repel aggression, manage conflict, and maintain peace. Whether or not the Security Council has been able to perform the assigned function adequately has become a subject of debate among many quarters. There are those who argue that the very composition of the Security Council hampers its effectiveness while others stress that the single most effective impediment in the smooth functioning of the Security Council is the veto power that is exclusively enjoyed by the five permanent members of the Council. Another argument often advanced is that the very structure of the Security Council does not reflect the realities of the post Cold war international order.

While there seems to be a consensus over the need to reform the Security Council, divergent opinions are continuously expressed over the nature, scope and functions of the organization. A vast majority of the countries do not look at the performance of Security Council favourably. Many regard the performance of the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) as average. It could have performed much better if it were not caught in the Cold War web. The leaders of respective blocs-capitalist and communist- were more responsive to affairs affecting their own bloc members.

Many countries view UNSC as a total failure. Not only the Charter itself stressed the importance of maintaining international peace and security but the very rationale of creating UN was based on the principle of collective security system. To maintain international peace and security, the framers decided to establish a powerful body called the UN Security council.  It was expected to play an effective role in mobilizing the world community to repel aggression, manage conflict, and maintain peace. Whether or not the Security Council has been able to perform the assigned function adequately has become a subject of debate among many quarters.

Two aspects of the UNSC relating to its composition have effectively impeded the expected performance and these include the permanent membership and veto power.While the permanent membership of the UNSC makes it an undemocratic institution, the   veto power of the permanent members made its task rather difficult. To add further complications to the problems, the then existing cold war made its full contributions. At the time of its creation it was deemed that the permanent members would work towards the maintenance of global peace irrespective of their own considerations.

Cognizant of the poor performance of the UNSC many members would like to introduce reforms with a view to make it more effective. Given the nature of existing international political system in which states are the basic units and all states are engaged in what they deem is the best in their national interests, it may not be all that easy to inject the much desired reforms into the UN system. Nevertheless voices are being aired to reform the UN as a whole and more specifically the UNSC.

Currently it is often discussed that the number of permanent members should be increased. Many states have expressed their desire to be considered for inclusion into the UNSC in the capacity of a permanent member. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the ongoing debate is that no agreed principle has been advanced. Some countries are stressing that their countries are large in terms of both territory and population and therefore they must be considered. While there are some countries that are advancing the argument that it should be on the basis of individual country’s contributions, there are others who are pushing the notions like geography, population, economic and military power as the basis for considerations.

India, Japan, Brazil, and Germany are frequently mentioned as possible candidates. In many ways each of the above mentioned countries have some justifications to be considered for the permanent seat of the UNSC. For example India represents more than a billion people which by itself are a good enough reason but on the other hand India is also one of those few countries which had not implemented UNSC resolutions. Does it make sense that you make a country a permanent member of UNSC which had refused to implement the UNSC resolutions?

Similarly the case Germany also appears impressive but one must take into considerations that if Germany is also made permanent member of the UNSC on the basis of its economic strides, then Europe would have four permanent members of the UNSC. It would indeed look lopsided in terms of giving representation to various regions. Brazil is the largest country in Latin America but it does not qualify both in terms of contributions to UN and even the population if compared with many other Asian countries. The only convincing qualification is geographic but is it enough.

Japan’s case relatively appears much stronger than both India and Germany. Not only its contributions to the UN are almost 20% of the total contributions but have also been giving impressive amount of aid to developing countries. Even in the events of specific calamities, Japan has been forthcoming. It has also started contributing towards the UN peace keeping forces. If we assess Japan purely on the basis of contributions than it certainly qualifies. But is this basis sufficiently convincing? 

Instead of increasing the number of permanent members, perhaps it would be more appropriate to reduce the numbers. Europe should have only one permanent member. However this writer is supportive of expanding the number of non-permanent members. Another five seats should be added to non-permanent category. With reduced number of permanent members and increased non-permanent members, the UNSC would not only become more representative but may even turn out to be much more effective than what it is today.

Admittedly the debate regarding the reforming the UN in general and UNSC in particular would go on for sometimes. However it needs to be stressed here that it would not be all that easy to secure the desired reforms particularly those aiming to restructure the UNSC. The sitting permanent members would resist changes that are aimed to oust them or even the inclusion new permanent members. But one thing is certain that the debate itself has reflected and highlighted the poor performance of the existing Security Council. May be it acts like a stark reminder to ensure the much desired effectiveness of this body? It is time that the Security Council must assert itself and ensure the implementation of its resolutions that have so far been ignored. The impression regarding the ineffectiveness of the Security Council would continue to exist unless it becomes active and ensures the attainment of its main UN mission- a mission to prevent conflict and maintain international peace.