The In-Security Council: Dump it or Grow it?

re: Chithra Karunakaran

The article was topical and dealt with a serious, but an emerging problem. The United Nations has to be reformed, but the question is how to reform it in a manner, which arrives at a common consensus. When the charter of the United Nations was agreed upon in 1945, the world was still fighting the Second World War and it was still a colonial world ruled by the Europeans. Since 1945 much has changed, but the United Nations has failed to adapt to the changing international evironment. In fact, the United Nations never had a chance to implement its intentions, because after 1945 it soon became imbroiled in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and it was only in 1990s that it was freed from that, but ended up being dominated by the United States in the unipolar world politics that followed the end of the Cold War. In other words, the United Nations never had the chance to assert its role and the idea for, which it was created.

The United Nations has two political levels; Security Council and the General Assembly. The General Assembly is a forum for dicussion of international issues and it not a platform for suggesting solutions. The real power, within the United Nations, lies in the Security Council and that too within the circle of the permanent member states: China, France, United States, Russia and United Kingdom. What needs to be reformed is not the United Nations per se, but the Security Council. The Security Council needs to be defanged from its veto powers and its needs to be re-organized. Presently, there are three European nations on the council; Russia, France and United Kindom and one from Asia - China. This is an overtly Eurocentric organization and the principle of election to the Security Council has to be regional and that too based on demographic representation, economic performace and the ability to uphold the notions of collective security in the international arena and the historic record of upholding United Nations past resolutions and not ignoring them.

The problems encountered in the reformation of the United Nations are more political and then they are administrative.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

In response to PM:

``And lets not forget WHO, INICEF and `mineclearers` and synthetic legs (what`s the word?)``

Prosthesis...(?)

The WHO and UNICEF alone make the UN worthwhile. Thanks to their global immunization effort, much of the developing world, including the the Indian sub-continent, isn`t a puss filled smallpox pit.

But I suppose in this ``might is right`` world, that doesn`t count for much...

#14 arjum_m
Man, talk of mixed metaphores!
When you say the veto power simply acknowledges ``might``, you must have only the US in mind. I can`t see GB or France or even for that matter China as world powers.
If the veto power were to be rearranged such that blocks (or is it blocs?) of countries had veto power thru their elected representatives, then there`s some hope it will not be simply a case of might being right. The UN should be a regulatory body that has authority over the conduct between sovereign nations. Else it serves only as a cover for the 5 permanent members to continue with their private agendas. The only incentive for any country to stay within UN at present is that by being outside of it, it risks assault by a military superior.
Also, US wields influence over the UN by virtue of the fact that it is the agency`s largest benefactor. Perhaps that ought to be changed as well.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Damn! I meant `irrelvant` of course, not `relevant` on first line of last post.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

For all those saying the Un is sompletely releveant, I have a few words to offer:
Bosnia, Kosova, East Timor, Sierra Leonne, Cyprus, Burundi. Okay, you can associate al those words with the words `late` and `feet dragging`, but try to imagine what the world would have been withouteven the late intervention.
And lets not forget WHO, INICEF and `mineclearers` and synthetic legs (what`s the word?)

And to the interactor who wrote: ``The people who are talikg now like Mahatir Mohammad aginst global injustices will be made Idi Amins and Qaddafis.``...
Hey, as much as like the bloke, it`s odd that Mahatir had nothing to say about the unjust system of globalization pre-97 eco-bust, when Malaysia, like most of SE Asia, was more than happy to benefit from the outrageous flow of capital INTO their economies, unsupported by any real development.

This is leftist philosophy that has kept India down for the past 45 years. All nations are not equal. I think Rational Faith and Arjun have said everything I would have wanted to say in any case. Nehru`s biggest mistake of giving up a UN seat to China is actually hailed as a good thing. Too bad the Chinese were never too grateful.

Let me also exprress my disbelief that there are still socialists in India.

Thank you Ms. Karunakaran for writing this. But I think nothing will change. The neo-colonial powers will go to extreme lengths to preserve their hegemony. What is happening now at UN has happened before when after 1st world war French were severly short-changed by both UK and US. But this time the are holding their cards. I think eventually France and Germany will get their fair share of booty from the middle east and everything will go back to ``normal``. The people who are talikg now like Mahatir Mohammad aginst global injustices will be made Idi Amins and Qaddafis. If 400 years of past history is any evidence it is clear that West has so far been unable to one single international institution that has its basis in the priciples of justice and fairness. All of their institutions are there to preserve their economic and military hegemony and their prosperity. Everytime they eat their second slice of bread, it is soaked in the blood of some third worlder - despite that they are not willing to give up their second slice and they even want more.

Of relevance, perhaps:
How to Stop America, by George Monbiot
excerpt:

---

Presidents Roosevelt and Truman were smart operators. They knew that the hegemony of the United States could not be sustained without the active compliance of other nations. So they set out, before and after the end of the Second World War, to design a global political system which permitted the other powers to believe that they were part of the governing project.

When Franklin Roosevelt negotiated the charter of the United Nations, he demanded that the United States should have the power to block any decisions the UN sought to make. But he also permitted the other victors of the war and their foremost allies - the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China and France - to wield the same veto.

In submitting this article to Chowk, I hoped Pakistanis, Indians, the thoughtful people on chowk, all South Asians would join in thinking creatively and constructively and ``out-of-the-box,`` about the UN structure. It is a bureaucracy to support which each member state pays tens of thousands of dollars in membership dues. We also support expensive apartments, pay high salaries to our representatives and directly or indirectly we support the power structure of elite, dominant states.

I am not necessarily saying ``scrap the entire UN pronto.`` Obviously that would be undesirable and unrealistic. But perhaps People Power is what we need to reorder the UN`s priorities. Look what happened to the WTO when India, China and Brazil joined together and protested agricultural subsidies? And Pakistan and India joined together with other so-called developing countries to oppose the rich Euro-American alliance.

We the People can make a difference but it will require all the People.

I view the UN as a weak, costly structure serving a militarily, socially and economically dominant elite. It also serves primarily the elites of our own respective countries. It has no authority, no power and worst, no accountability. The millions of dollars spent there can more effectively serve the poor and the disenfranchised in sme of the poorest peoples in Africa.

The Security Council is the crux of the problem, the worm in the rotten UN apple. The Security Council is the sole instrument used by the US to deny basic human rights and sovereignty to the Palestinian people. That`s reason enough to scrap the SC.

If any of you are coming to the Meeting of the World Social Forum in Mumbai, a continuation of the historic work accomplished iby the World Social Forum in Porto lagre, Brasil, (Jan 16-Jan21,2004) I and hopefully others, will be doing a People`s Workshop discussion on the UN. See you there!

Thank you for all your comments and do keep them coming.

Chithra KarunaKaran

This is an excellent article.

UN must remain relevant. Veto power must go, as both Dr. Mahatir and President Musharraf have demanded recently.

You are right on target when you write:

``Maybe India, Norway, Pakistan, Mauritius, Sweden, Iran, Brazil, Sri Lanka and historically diverse others can help move the UN into the 21st century with political equality of all member states, at every level of operation of the UN. Article 109 can be invoked to amend the UN Charter.``

The General Assembly is too broad and the veto-wielding club of the security council too narrow that happy middle has to be found. A few powerful countries cannot stay outside international law and yet the UN has to stay relevant.

Chithra:

...the UN is a much maligned and flawed international institution where powers is exercised disproportionately…but it can still be viable…and it is the only one of its kind…

(digression: like democracy—which can be maligned and flawed)

…re: Security Council membership…in its present format it is a power grab…to make it representational there should be one member each from north and south america, and europe and two each from asia and africa…and they should be elected for a period of ten years…(If I could I would vote for India and China for the asian seats)

…also…very important…

...there should be a permanent UN Emergency Force under this reconstituted Security Council ready for deployment at any trouble spot within 24 hours…financed by a tax of a tenth of a cent on each liter of gasoline sold worldwide…so it can be outside the influence of major powers…

…condemnation of rogue acts by nation/s without sanction of force will remain whinings of a paper tiger…

…t