UNITED NATIONS, Sept 25 (IPS) – When the founding fathers – who were, alas, not mothers – established the United Nations 79 years ago, one of the biggest anomalies was that veto power was given to the five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council: the US, the UK, France, Russia and the Republic of China (later the People’s Republic of China).
But a long-standing proposal to reform the UN Security Council has been kicked through the General Assembly and the halls of the UN for decades, but it has never gotten off the ground.
After the US ambassador to the UN last week proposed two new permanent members from Africa, among others, the proposal for reforming the UN Security Council has regained momentum. But new members, if any, will not be armed with veto powers—a continued monopoly of the current P5.
Stephen Zunes, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco, told IPS that proposals to reform the Security Council typically fail due to opposition from the permanent members with veto power, who do not want to lose their advantages under the current archaic system.
However, he indicated that this proposal, or a variant of it, could have a chance of success as it is being promoted by the United States, which has historically opposed such reforms.
Moreover, since all P5 members want to expand their influence in Africa and among small island states, it would not work in their favor to oppose this, Zunes said.
U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said last week that the Biden administration has expressed support for significant changes to the composition of the United Nations Security Council.
“This is a process that began two years ago when President Biden indicated that the United States supports expanding the Council, with permanent representation for countries from Africa, but also from Latin America and the Caribbean.”
“That’s in addition to the countries we’ve long supported for permanent seats: India, Japan and Germany. In the months since the president’s announcement, I’ve met with dozens of countries in New York in what I like to call a listening tour. I’ve listened to their ideas and their aspirations for a more inclusive, representative Security Council,” she said.
“And now we enter the final High-Level Week of the Biden-Harris administration with three new commitments to Council reform. First, that the United States supports the creation of two permanent seats for Africans on the Council. Second, that the United States supports the creation of a new elected seat on the Security Council for small island developing States.”
And third, the United States is prepared to take action on these reforms and negotiate on a textual basis. In other words, to put our principles on paper and begin the process of amending the United Nations Charter, she added.
The reform of the UN Security Council faced both political and legal obstacles, including the amendment of the UN Charter.
The Uniting for Consensus Group, made up of 12 members (Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, San Marino, Spain and Turkey), said last week that it “will oppose the creation of new permanent seats and has a different idea on how to strengthen African representation in the UN Security Council”.
In an interview with IPS, Dr Palitha Kohona, former head of the UN Treaty Division, said that assuming the elusive political consensus emerges to amend the UN Charter, there are a number of steps prescribed by the Charter that need to be followed. (The Charter has been amended four times in the past 79 years.)
The amendment, he pointed out, is governed by Articles 108 and 109 of the Charter. They clearly state that amendments must be adopted by two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly (GA) and ratified by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all permanent members of the Security Council.
Since all members of the UN have the right to be members of the GA, unless suspended or otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that the two-thirds vote in the GA refers to the members present and voting. Ratification must be carried out by two-thirds of all members of the United Nations. This would be a time-consuming and challenging process.
Ratification, he said, is a domestic process that depends on the constitution, laws and practices of each state. In many countries, ratification of a treaty is an executive act and can be undertaken, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, by the Head of State, the Head of Government or the Minister of Foreign Affairs or another official duly authorized by the grant of Full Powers by one of the above authorities.
In some other countries, he said, in accordance with their own constitutional and legal requirements, full powers for the purpose of ratification can only be granted after certain domestic legal and procedural requirements have been met, for example, after approval by the Cabinet or Parliament.
In the US, treaties (the Charter is a treaty in international law) can only be entered into with the approval of the Senate. Failure to follow domestic processes will likely result in domestic legal and political consequences.
Two-thirds of the United Nations should include all permanent members of the Security Council. Given the current divisions among the Permanent Five, any consensus among them on a crucial issue like Charter change would be a Herculean challenge, warned Dr. Kohona, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN and until recently Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
According to the UN, the world organization was established by the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of 50 countries. The founding members of the United Nations are the countries that were invited to participate in the San Francisco Conference of 1945, where the UN Charter and the Statute of the ICJ were adopted.
Participation was determined on the basis of signing or acceding to the Declaration by United Nations (1942) or as approved at the Conference.
Dr Kohona told IPS: “The veto is a fancy weapon in the hands of the P5. It perpetuates the slaughter of non-combatants by a ruthless aggressor mired in blood, while the veto wielder can step onto the world stage without actual blood on his hands, while camouflaging his guilt with fancy justifications.”
The UK and France have not had to exercise a veto for more than a decade, as they usually hide behind the US veto, he said.
Accommodating new (and, dare we say, well-deserved) candidates for permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC) has been a thorny issue for some time. An amendment to the Charter would be needed to expand the number of permanent members of the UNSC. The permanent membership of the UNSC reflects the outcome of World War II.
The winners secured the best positions at the top table from which they could control world affairs. But the world has changed immeasurably since then.
He stressed that there is no justification today for Europe to hold FOUR of the five permanent seats on the Security Council or for the WEOGs to hold three of the five permanent seats, especially in a world where military and economic power has shifted dramatically to other countries.
Africa, with 54 countries and 1.2 billion people, does not hold a single permanent seat. Asia, with over 50 countries and a population of 4.6 billion people, has only one permanent seat in the SC, held by China.
IPS UN Office Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2024) — All rights reservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service