Photo by Luke Redmond
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lukeredmond/1795084139
NEW YORK, Sept. 20 -
Born in the aftermath of World War II out of the failure of its predecessor,
the League of Nations, the United Nations (UN) this year has reached an
important milestone. After 70 years of
international diplomacy, the UN has weathered the storm of a great many crises,
controversies, and scandals. However, in the years to come the UN will face its greatest challenge yet,
maintaining its relevancy in international affairs. In order to do this, the
seminal international organization of the 20th century will need to reform if
it is to have a positive impact on the international issues that plague our
time.
The Untied Nations supreme
executive body, the Security Council, has long been ruled by five permanent
members: China , Russia , Britain ,
France , and the United States .
These powers, victorious after the Second World War, have used this historical
privilege to dominate world affairs over the UN's 70 year history. Despite the monumental failures of
these 'Great Powers' to prevent tragedies at Srebrenica in 1995, in Rwanda
the year before, and most recently in the Syrian Civil War; the status quo has
served us well since 1945. Despite successfully averting nuclear war, others
claim that the P5 have held dominion over the Security Council for too long,
and reform is needed.
Today, many states are calling for the current distribution of power on
the Security Council to be reconsidered. Proposals vary from expanding the
number of permanent members, to increasing the size and tenure of the
non-permanent seats, to both. Others have proposed changes to how the P5's veto
is used (the five permanent members are able to cast a veto on any resolution
which results in its failure to be adopted regardless of support from the rest
of the Council). The stated rationale behind these varied proposals is that
over the past seven decades the distribution of power in international affairs
has shifted. The developing nations insist that the Security Council's makeup
must be more representative to reflect this. There are also questions of
efficiency in light of the councils most notable failures to succeed in its
mandate of ensuring 'the maintenance of international peace and
security'.
Remember that for career diplomats
representing their nations at the UN Headquarters in New York City, a seat on
the Security Council is seen as capstone to their careers,
the ultimate feather in one's cap. Ultimately behind all of the proposals for a
specific nation's inclusion in the Council lies the desire of that nation's
diplomatic core to increase its prestige and consequently its states position.
Even if we are to concede that the Council should be more representative of the
developing world, there are far more considerations to be made than pleasing
any one nation when it comes to Security Council reform. For example, including
India as a permanent member
would inevitably anger its neighbor and rival Pakistan , who would then have to be
included to prevent conflict. The same parallel can be drawn elsewhere.
Consider that it can take over a year to plan even something as innocuous as a
UN official dinner for fear of seating the wrong nations next to one another.
One can easily extrapolate the implications the nuances of international
affairs have for even the most mundane functions to something as significant as
safeguarding international peace and security.
Security Council reformation is further complicated by the fact that it
would be unfathomable for a current P5 member to give up its position. This
means that any discussion about reforming the Security Council will inevitably
mean its expansion.
Therein lay the final rationale for
reforming the Security Council, greater efficiency. Simply stated, if a council
of 15 cannot effectively pass resolutions to solve a crises like the one going
on in Syria ,
what possible benefit could we derive from adding another 10, 20, or even 30
voices into the mix? Calls from pro-reform nations to consider efficiency as a
primary driver for change should be taken with a grain of salt, see their true
motivations above: power and privilege.
To be sure, the current set-up in
the UN Security Council is far from ideal. Yes, the balance of power has
shifted away from many of those 'Great Powers'. Yes, the failure of the Council
to prevent atrocities in the former Yugoslavia ,
in Rwanda , and now Syria is
troubling and demoralizing to say the least. One can clearly see the need for
action, but the question remains what might that action be? None of the current
proposals to reform the Security Council make any sense when considering
efficiency and the need for action on dire issues concerning global security.
If anything they will only further stagnate a quagmire of politicking that has
inundated the Security Council for much of its existence.
At 70 years old, the UN is faced
with a herculean task. Find a way to appease everyone and gain some momentum on
the world's current crises (of which Syria is but one of many); or fade
away into irrelevancy as those disgruntled states take their resources
elsewhere. The League of Nations only survived
26 short years, by all accounts the United Nations has outdone its predecessor
in every respect. Let us hope that they do not both in the end share the same
fate.
No comments:
Post a Comment