Promoting global peace and security
There has been renewed global interest recently in the potential reform of the United Nations Security Council. For various reasons, for many in Pakistan, the idea of such reform means one thing: the possibility of India gaining permanent membership of the Security Council. In reality, the scope and impact of any reform of the Council will extend far beyond the grant of permanent membership to one or more member states of the United Nations.
The United Nations General Assembly Decision 62/557 of 2008 lists five key areas of consideration in relation to the Security Council’s reform: categories of membership, status of the veto power, regional representation, size and working methods of an enlarged Security Council and the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Any meaningful reform of the Security Council will need to cover all these five areas and it is difficult for anyone to predict at this stage whether the concept of ‘permanent membership’ in current terms will continue to exist. Similarly one can only speculate as to the potential advantages of a permanent membership in a reformed Security Council in view of likely (and simultaneous) changes to the exercise of veto powers and enhanced regional representation through possibly a multi-tier membership structure.
It is important to remember that the Security Council has undergone reform in the past as well. In 1965, pursuant to resolution 1991 (XVIII) of the United Nations General Assembly, there was an increase in the number of temporary members of the Security Council from six to ten members. This change in the membership also included direction in relation to the geographical representation of the ten temporary members of the Security Council.
It is important to remember that the Security Council has undergone reform in the past as well. In 1965, pursuant to resolution 1991 (XVIII) of the United Nations General Assembly, there was an increase in the number of temporary members of the Security Council from six to ten members
Pakistan’s Mission to the United Nations has a clear position on the issue of Security Council’s reform which is available on its website and states, amongst other things, that “it is in the interest of everyone to seek a more democratic, effective and credible mechanism for the maintenance of international peace and security through a comprehensive reform of the Security Council”. The Pakistan Mission’s position on this matter also reaffirms that Pakistan has a longstanding principled position against increase of permanent members and that Pakistan, as part of the Uniting for Consensus group, has always advocated an effective and feasible reform of the Security Council reform based on consensus among the UN membership.
It is interesting to note that this Uniting for Consensus group is believed to be composed of countries like Italy, Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Korea and Spain. The only other Muslim country, apart from Pakistan, which is believed to be part of this group is Turkey whereas Indonesia is understood to be present at some meetings as well. The Arab countries have their own group and demand for a permanent membership for their own bloc.
The reason behind the stringent positions taken by countries in relation to the reform of the Security Council is the importance of this council compared to various other organs of the United Nations. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining global peace and security and it undertakes this role in a number of ways. For example, the resolutions passed by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, unlike resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly, are considered to be binding on member states of the United Nations. Moreover, the Security Council has the power to determine the existence of any threat to world peace and can make recommendations regarding steps (including economic sanctions and military action) to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Furthermore, the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court grants authority to the Security Council to refer cases for investigation and prosecution to the International Criminal Court. The Security Council first exercised this power in 2005 by referring the situation prevailing in Darfur to the International Criminal Court. As Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court couldn’t have exercised jurisdiction over Darfur matters without the Security Council’s referral.
It is possible to work for the restriction on the exercise of veto power in specific cases such as in relation to incidents of mass crimes. Interestingly, this idea was proposed by the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in an opinion column published in Le Monde in 2013
Considering the significance of powers vested in members of the Security Council, it is only natural for states to remain vary of the reform proposals and bids made by the G4 (India, Brazil, Japan and Germany) for inclusion in the Council as permanent members, as any alteration to the structure, either in terms of composition or exercise of powers, is likely to leave a profound effect on the global political landscape for times to come. Nevertheless, the states need to continue pushing for a meaningful change to shape the Security Council on democratic lines with the continued aim of working for maintenance of international peace and security instead of simply preserving their respective political alliances. Any positive change would also require the member states to seriously consider workable options to either restrict or eliminate the use of the veto power which many consider as being ‘anachronistic and undemocratic’. However, complete elimination of the veto powers may be a farfetched idea considering that the current permanent members would not be interested in any such plan and can simply ‘veto the elimination of veto’.
However, it is possible to work for the restriction on the exercise of veto power in specific cases such as in relation to incidents of mass crimes. Interestingly, this idea was proposed by the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in an opinion column published in Le Monde in 2013. He suggested that the permanent members should voluntarily restrict their right to veto without any amendment to the UN Charter once a request is made by at least fifty members to the UN Secretary General to determine the nature of the crime. Upon the Secretary General’s determination, the voluntary commitment would become effective, immediately. Though it is a mere suggestion but one that cannot be ignored. A suggestion made by one of the permanent members is likely to cause greater debate than the ones made by other member states. Similarly, a feature common to both the Razali’s and Kofi Annan’s plan to reform the Security Council expressly provided that no veto power shall be accorded to the new permanent members in order to prevent furtherance of anachronistic and undemocratic trends.
At this stage, it is perhaps safe to say that political pundits should not be too concerned about the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council in the immediate future as any such change requires approval of 2/3rd of the UN member states. This means that at least 128 out of the current 193 member states need to vote in favour of such change. Moreover, all the current five permanent members of the Security Council also need to give their approval and as each one of these has a veto power at the moment, the move can be blocked by any of these five members as well.
Comments are closed.