Reforming the UN Security Council
The importance of the role of the UNO can be gauged from the very fact that it has averted the outbreak of third world war so far.
The United Nations is the only Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) that is primarily responsible for the maintenance of Peace and security and has the membership of almost all the sovereign states. Its success can be gauged from the very fact that so far it has managed to avert the outbreak of the third world war. The proposed reforms of the United Nations is a buzzword in international politics. The need was felt because of the emergence of new geo-political realities such as:
1. Cold War
2. Emergence of a large number of sovereign States as the result of Decolonization
3. Humanitarian Crisis such as Genocide in Rawanda in 1994 and Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia in 1995.
4. US preemptive attack on Iraq in 2003 on the pretext of anticipatory self-defense through unilateral interpretation of article 51 of the charter.
5. The Charter needs to reflect the changes that have taken place in international Politics over the years such as:
a. Article 23 mentions Taipei based “The Republic of China” instead of Beijing based “People's Republic of China”
b. The disintegration of the USSR is also not reflected as instead of mentioning Russian Federation, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic is mentioned.
c. The charter allows the member states to take action against the 'Enemy States' – Article 53, 77 and 107 - (Germany & Japan because they were in the enemy camp during the Second World War!!!)
The proposed reforms are divided in two categories – of the Security Council in particular and of the UN in general. I would highlight the reforms of the UNSC in this article.
The UN Charter, article 24, gives the Security Council primary responsibility for maintaining international Peace and security and 'in discharging these duties the UNSC acts on behalf of the member states. Moreover, it has the unique authority to adopt binding decisions under chapter 7 and has monopoly over the use of force. It can also suspend the membership of the defaulting member. Most of all, the permanent members (P-5) have the VETO power.
Currently, there are 5 permanent Members – China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States - and 10 non-permanent members. The non-permanent members are elected for 2 years. The geographical representation is distributed as follow:
1) 3 Seats for the African Group
2) 2 Seats for the Asian Group
3) 1 Seat for the Eastern Europe and 2 for Western Europe
4) 2 Seats for the Latin America and Caribbean Region
The proposed reforms need to encapsulate solutions of five key issues i.e. categories of membership, Veto, Regional representation, Size of the Council, its working methods and relationship between the UNSC and UNGA.
The charter was first amended in 1965 when 4 non-permanent members were added and the total membership rose to 15 from 11. Now Germany, Japan, India and Brazil claim to become new permanent members of the UNSC on the basis of their contributions to the UN budget and peacekeeping efforts. These countries formed a G-4 Block. This move led to the demand from other countries from Asia, Africa and Latin for balanced geographical representation.
Meanwhile, a group of like-minded formed an informal 'Coffee club' to counter the expansion of UNSC membership. Its members are Italy, Pakistan, Canada, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, turkey, Indonesia and Argentine etc. Their claim was rooted in article 24 which states that the UNSC acts on behalf of all the member states. Therefore they proposed that instead of creating more centers of powers (Veto Powers), the focus of the reforms should be to make it more efficient body capable of pursuing global priorities. Later on it was metamorphosed into United for Consensus Group (UfC).
Now both the groups counter each other and want to proceed with their respective agendas. These attempts merit careful scrutiny of the facts.
The first problem was to identify and adopt the procedure required to amend the Charter. Since any reform proposal entails Charter Amendment. Therefore it has to be adopted in accordance with the Article 108 which mandates that a resolution should be adopted by the 2/3rd members of the UN membership and ratified by the 2/3rd plus all the permanent members of the UNSC. It means if it is vetoed by even one member, it will not be adopted even if the remaining 191 countries say 'Yes'! The reason to identify that why such a rigid system of amendment is in place is not far to fetch. Actually the framers of the Charter insulated themselves against any prospective amendment that would eventually take away their 'Veto' Status.
At this point, I want to apprise my readers regarding the voting procedure of the General Assembly in order to enable them to appreciate the sophistication of the moves and counter moves made by both the groups.
a. Article 18 explains the voting at the UNGA. It says that each member has one vote and it divides the issues into two categories: Important questions – to be decided by 2/3 majority of the Members Present and Voting – and other question – by the simple majority of the members. It means if 100 members are making up any session, an important question will require 2/3rd of the members present and voting and not of 193 (total membership of the UN)
b. However, the charter could only be amended through article 108 which stipulates even stricter criteria. It mandates that for amendments to come into force 2/3rd of the entire membership will adopt it and further, ratification is required by 128 members including all the permanent members!!!
c. Article 109 lays the procedure for calling the General Conference of the Members of the UN which is 2/3 of the entire membership (128 members) and any 9 Members of the UNSC .But for giving the proposed amendment legal effect, ratification by 2/3rd majority is required including the concurrence of all the permanent members (the Veto power comes into play).
Interestingly, the G4 Countries first attempted to make their way through article 18 in which 2/3rd majority of Present and Voting is the threshold but they were successfully countered by the UfC. The UfC adopted the position that since the expansion of UNSC has charter amendment implications therefore it has to be adopted in accordance with article 108 and not 18.
The first half-baked attempt was made by Mr. Raza Ali, the then President of UNGA, in 1997. It is popularly known as Raza Ali formula. He proposed inclusion of 5 permanent members and 4 non-permanent members – total 9. The proposed distribution of the new permanent members was, one each from the developing states of Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean and two from the industrialized States. This formula created a lot of controversy over the role of the President of UNGA and eventually he had back off.
In 1998 a mature move was made when the G-4 Countries attempted to have a framework resolution adopted in accordance with article 18. But as explained earlier, the UfC proposed that in order to establish a legal way out, the voting threshold could be establish in accordance with article 18(3) that stipulates that the UNGA will decide the voting threshold of additional questions according to simple majority present and voting. In simple words, it means that if any dispute arises regarding voting threshold the General Assembly can decide the issue through a simple majority. Consequently the proponents backed off.
Now since the reform agenda has to be taken up in accordance with article 108, the main hurdle in the way of G-4 countries is the position maintained by the African Union (AU) that wants 2 permanent seats with veto power. They basis of its claim is the historical neglect of the African continent and also there is no veto power in the entire continent. It is crucial for the G-4 to win the support of African Union in order to meet the threshold of 108. In 2005, they introduced a draft resolution which proposed new permanent members without veto power. But this move failed.
Let us analyze the positions of different stake holders:
a. The G-4 countries are seeking increase in both permanent and non-permanent membership. They are in favour of having the right to veto but they maintain that the veto right, however, should not be a hinderance to the UNSC reforms.
b. The UfC opposes the further expansion in the permanent members of the UNSC as it negates the basic principle of the charter of 'Sovereign equality of all the States.' It proposes expansion of non-permanent members from 10 to 20 and the members are eligible for re-election.
c. The position of AU is referred to as 'Ezulwini Consensus' that is to have 2 Permanent seats with veto power and full privileges and 5 non-permanent seats.
d. One of the main hurdles is the divergent interests and the positions of the leading players i.e. P-5 (Permanent 5).
i. The US supports inclusion of Japan and lately, India.
ii. Russia is opposing veto power for new permanent members.
iii. China waits the emergence of consensus but it attends the informal meetings of UfC.
iv. France and UK has endorsed the G-4's position.
v. NAM supports the expansion in the non-permanent category.
vi. OIC supports the reform proposal that will ensure representation of the Islamic Ummah.
In a nutshell, as long as the AU maintains its demand of being granted the right to veto to the new permanent members, success for G-4 would be a far cry. At present, according to some estimates, the G-4 enjoys the support of 50 to 60 members and 60 to 70 opposes it whereas 60-70 are undecided and forms the critical mass whose support can turn the tables.
At the end it is pertinent to mention that now the issue revolves around number game. If the G-4 manages to get the support of 128 countries including the concurrence of all the veto powers, it will win and the structure of international system will get a radical transformation that will necessitate massive readjustment by the world community at large.
Azmatfarooq_fsp@hotmail.com
Muhammad Azmat Farooq (CSP)