the reform of the security council

7/18/2019 The Reform of the Security Council

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-reform-of-the-security-council 1/4

‘The Reform of the Security Council’

Or can we prevent the disintegration of the UN?

Following the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the eruption of conflicts,

especially a second ‘Great War’, the idea of an association of nations aiming to protectthe political independence and territorial integrity of states, with no regard to their size

and power, had to be revised.

After then end of WWII, as a result of the conferences reviewing the issue, a new

intergovernmental institution was called into being: the United Nations. However, in

order to ensure that world peace is maintained, even at the cost of ‘betraying’ its very

own principle of national equality, the creation of the Security Council was essential. A

body, ruled by the five ‘big’ veto-wielding nations (P5) with the right of passing

resolutions that are binding to all Member States was the result of a compromise that

solely served the purpose of providing the greatest powers a forum where they can put an

end to their disputes by reaching consensus.

Unfortunately, global politics proved it in a short time that the vision was wrong. Nations,

especially those of great leverage will not always be able to agree. Thus, in the Cold War

when the powers were split and unable to come to an agreement due to the use of vetoes,

a state of paralysis often occurred to the Council. This happened in particular when the

need for immediate action was the greatest.

Today, we face a new round of polarization. As its nature is identical to the previous one,

exactly the same problem of deadlock arises. As a result of this, we have witnessed

failure in addressing the Syrian conflict, the occupation of the Crimea and recently the

expansion of the ‘Islamic State’, which, in a way, all send a message to us: what did notwork then will not work better this time.

Sadly, the situation nowadays is aggravated by another factor: representation issues.

Thirty years ago at least we could say that all those states that had a say in global politics

were there in the Council to negotiate. Since then, the international community has

undergone a massive transformation – which has been ignored. Although the emerging

powers, such as coalitions: the European Union, the Arab League and the African Union

or strong economies like Brazil and Japan gain more and more influence, they still remain

missed out of decision-making on the Council.

Essentially, this means that the Council is not at all able to fulfill its purpose of providing

a common ground for the negotiations of the ‘greatest’ as it actually excludes some of

them. By the time passes, this issue will only grow larger, which will logically lead to an

even more serious problem: those excluded will not continue to support the system that

ignores them.

In this essay, I will focus on the two problems I have introduced above. I need to

emphasize in the first place that I see no real way for an extensive ‘reform’, so the title

might be deceiving: transformation is absolutely out of reach for the moment. However, if

things stay in their course, it will lead to the Security Council’s further loss of legitimacy,

and thus the disintegration of the whole United Nations system.



Shocking by blocking

It was exposed in many cases that although the Council is often seen as an independent

safeguard of human rights and the sovereignty of nations, sometimes it actually ‘assists’

in humanitarian catastrophes and even genocides. That can mostly be attributed to a

‘mighty’ feature of the council: the power of veto. What happens when its holders abuseit or rather use it for supporting purely their own interests?

Aware of the grave human rights violations committed both by Damascus and the rebels,

a plan of humanitarian intervention was proposed in accordance with the third pillar of

‘Responsibility to Protect’. Despite the immense need for action, Russia and China

unanimously blocked every single resolution, as they saw that all were aimed at helping a

‘western’ political transition in Syria. Obviously, it was not of Russia’s national interest

to move the Assad-regime from power, so instead they let the country fall into chaos.

The same happened on the ‘other side’ as well. In the long history of the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict nations called for the condemnation of Israel several times, but the

United States, neglecting UN-principles, always countered their efforts by vetoing the

resolutions that criticized their close ally.

These examples draw our attention to the fact that whatever is disliked by any of the P5s

can be easily blocked causing an instant halt in progress. However, the world of

diplomacy is also the world of persuasion, which means that clashes are natural but

compromise is to be reached – when the situation is suitable. If positions are too distant

from one another there is no possibility that the parties can get to a consensus.

So, what is going on when the political powers of the world are ‘repolarizing’? Positions

are becoming more distant; there are more conflicts and thus the increasing use of the

veto leads to the loss of belief in the SC. The countries of the international communitywill no longer believe in the protective power of the UN and decide to join different

groups that are able to defend them, which, at the end of the day, mean a shift in the

process of political polarization. It is a vicious circle that is really hard to quit. We are

drifting towards a new ‘Cold War’ on a river that flows faster and faster as the Council

loses legitimacy.

What makes it harder: the question of representation

Although the Security Council has never represented all the countries of the world, at

least, after the recognition of the People’s Republic of China it had all the nations of great

leverage until the dawn of the post-Cold War era. The composition of seats still reflectsthe WWII balance of forces: the winners of the war are unfairly overweight, especially

the ‘western’ group, while the countries of the southern hemisphere, the African, Latin

American and Muslim states, lack sufficient representation on the Council. Many of the

greatest contributors to the UN-system that are also economic and political world powers

are simply excluded of decision-making.

The Group of Four (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan) think of themselves as the new

permanent members of the body, whilst the Uniting for Consensus movement, under the

leadership of Italy, call for the expansion of non-permanent seats and counter the efforts

of the G4. As another key actor the African Union, according to the ‘Common African

Policy on Security Council Reform’, demands five permanent seats, two with veto power,and the right of the selection of countries representing Africa on those seats.



The last notable effort to bring the parties to compromise was Secretary-General Kofi

Annan’s 2005 ‘In Larger Freedom’ report, in which he proposed two models for reform.

Despite the great expectations of the Secretariat, the attempt was unsuccessful: further to

the failure of bringing together the advocates, it was not able to raise sufficient awareness

on the issue.

Although the need for broader representation today is definitely greater than it was in

2005 there is no scenario that would not hurt the UN. Why is that? (This is based on

evidence, however completely hypothetical.)

If there was an increase in the number of permanent seats with veto the process in the

Council would become more unsure because of the supposedly greater number of

attempts to block resolutions. By increasing inefficiency it may further undermine the

Council’s reputation. Although the G4 might become even greater supporters of the

Organization, the smaller countries would possibly turn away from it, as then it would

both not represent their interests and not protect them sufficiently.

If an extension was made only among the non-permanent membership the UN may lose

many of its greatest contributors. For example, Japan, the second in terms of financial

contribution, insists on that if they do not get a permanent seat they will reconsider the

amounts given to the UN. Further to that, technically nothing would change as the P5

could still use their vetoes.

What the truth is that neither of even these options is realistic in the current situation.

While the first would certainly be blocked by at least one of the P5s, the second would

probably not get enough support at the General Assembly. A two-thirds majority is

needed to pass a Charter amendment that can modify the Council. The G4, together with

the African Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference that calls for a

permanent Muslim seat, could mobilize enough votes to counter such an effort.

All in all, it is of low probability that the issue of representation can be solved. The

situation may seem hopeless as for the future of the United Nations. Given these

conditions it will lose power, legitimation and support significantly. But before we accept

the prospect of ‘the fall’ a last question arises: is there anything else that could be done to

prevent it?

An outlook on the future

Understanding the failure of the 2005 reform attempt is essential to draw a conclusion.

Already back then it was realized that in the future the Council could only workeffectively if the veto was abolished and if the membership was made to fit the changed

distribution of power. However, it was also clear that the P5s would never ever agree to

such plans. Kofi Annan proposed two models aiming below what would have been

needed but due to passivity and insufficient political will even these have failed.

Translating it, the nations have ‘voted’ for the ‘slow death’ of the UN.

That ‘slow death’ is caused by the loss of legitimacy and means that the recent system of

international relations that is in a way ‘controlled’ by the UN will be replaced with a

decentralized one. Is the idea of United Nations and the Security Council that bad that we

should abandon it? But if not, how should it be kept?



If I look at the current situation it seems to me that it would require a ‘political hurricane’,

a third bloody world conflict for example, to make governments reform the Council. But

if we would like to give a chance to change we should try to rely on a ‘group’ that is

fairly uncommon for international politics: the civil sector.

All governments depend on their citizens; if they can exert significant pressure from the‘outside’ they might be able to force their leaders to change their ways. Let us accept that

no official and structural change could be introduced to the Council, what however can be

changed is the informal conduct of work, the extent of openness in terms of involving

more parties in the decision-making process.

Also, by raising awareness through civilian channels in the countries that are not yet

involved in the dispute over the Security Council, it might happen that regional

cooperation would gain strength. Thus new coalitions could emerge which, together with

the civilian support, might be able to influence the course of the UN’s future.

Are we able prevent the disintegration of the United Nations? For me, evidence seems to

suggest that there is very little hope that the UN survives in the long run. It seems more

realistic that the Security Council along with the whole organization will lose the trust of

the Member States to other groups, organizations and institutions that are smaller and

more capable of taking action. However, that may further speed up the process of

polarization leading to the creation of a new global and political environment that may

remind us of the Cold War.

“We are not permitted to choose the frame of our destiny, but what we put into it is

ours.” – said Dan Hammarskjöld, the 2nd Secretary-General of the UN. Bad decisions are

also our decisions – if time gives birth to the will for a peaceful world, we might be able

to correct them.

the reform of the security council

Documents