When the “founding fathers” –regrettably, no “founding mothers”—created the United Nations 79 years ago, one of the biggest anomalies was bestowing the power of the veto to the five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council (UNSC): the US, UK, France, Russia and the Republic of China (later the People’s Republic of China).
But a longstanding proposal for the reform of the UNSC has been kicked around the General Assembly hall –and the corridors of the UN– for several decades now. But it never got off the ground.
After the US ambassador to the UN last week weighed in with a proposal for two new permanent members from Africa, among others, the proposal for the reform of the UNSC has gained momentum once again. But new members, if any, will not be armed with veto powers—a continued monopoly of the current P5.
Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco, told IPS proposals for Security Council reform generally go nowhere due to opposition from the veto-wielding permanent members who do not want to lose their advantages under the current archaic system.
However, this proposal, or some variation of it, might have a chance of success in light of the fact that it is being pushed by the United States, which has historically been an opponent of such reforms, he pointed out.
Furthermore, given that each of the P5 desire to extend their influence in Africa and among small island states, it would not reflect well on them to oppose such an effort, Zunes declared.
US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said last week the Biden administration has announced its support for key changes to the composition of the United Nations Security Council.
“This is a process that began two years ago when President Biden shared that the United States supports expanding the Council to include permanent representation for countries from Africa as well as 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 following the President’s announcement, I met with dozens of countries in New York in what I like to call a listening tour. I listened to their ideas and their aspirations for a more inclusive, representative Security Council,” she said.
“And now we head into the final High-Level Week of the Biden-Harris administration with three new commitments for Council reform. First, that the United States supports creating two permanent seats for Africans on the Council. Second, that the United States supports creating a new elected seat on the Security Council for Small Island Developing States.”
And third, the United States is ready to take actions on these reforms and pursue a text-based negotiation; in other words, to put our principles to paper and begin the process of amending the United Nations Charter, she added.
The reform of the UNSC has faced both political and legal barriers—including the amendment of the UN Charter.
The 12-member Uniting for Consensus Group (Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Spain and Turkey) said last week that it “will oppose the creation of new permanent seats and have a different idea on how to enhance African representation in the UNSC”.
In an interview with IPS, Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, said assuming that the elusive political consensus emerges for the purpose of amending the UN Charter, there are a number of steps mandated by the Charter 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. It is clearly stated that amendments shall be adopted by Two Thirds of Members of the General Assembly (GA) and ratified by Two Thirds of Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.
Since all Members of UN are entitled to be Members of the GA, unless they are suspended or otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that the two thirds of the vote in the GA refers to those members present and voting. The ratification must be by two thirds of all the members of the United Nations. This would be a time consuming and challenging process.
Ratification, he said, is a domestic process dependent on the constitution, laws and practices of each state. In many countries, ratification of a treaty is an executive act and could be undertaken, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, by the Head of State, the Head of Government or the Foreign Minister or any other official duly authorised by being granted Full Powers by any of the above authorities.
In some other countries, he said, consistent with their own constitutional and legal requirements, Full Powers for the purpose of ratification can only be given following the fulfillment of certain domestic legal and procedural requirements, for example, following cabinet or parliamentary approval.
In the US, treaties (the Charter is a treaty at international law) can be concluded only with the approval of the Senate. The non fulfillment of the domestic processes is likely to result in domestic legal and political consequences.
Two thirds of the United Nations must include all the Permanent Members of the Security Council. Given the current divisions among the Permanent Five, any consensus among them on a crucial issue as the amendment of the Charter would be truly 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 body was established by the Charter of the United Nations and 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 1945 San Francisco Conference at which the UN Charter and Statute of the ICJ was adopted.
Participation was determined by virtue of having signed or adhered 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 gore while the veto wielder can strut the world stage without actual blood in their hands, all the while camouflaging their guilt with fancy justifications.”
The UK and France haven’t had to wield the veto in over a decade as they have tended to hide behind the US veto, he said.
Accommodating new (and shall we say, well deserving) aspirants to the permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC) has been a vexing question for some time. An amendment of the Charter would be required to expand the number of permanent members of the UNSC. The permanent membership of the UNSC reflects the outcome World War II.
The winners secured for themselves the prime positions at the head table from which they could control world affairs. But the world has changed immeasurably since then.
Today there is no justifiable reason for Europe to occupy FOUR of the five permanent seats in the SC or for the WEOGs to occupy three of the five permanent seats especially in a world where military and economic power has shifted drastically to other countries, he pointed out.
Africa with 54 countries, and 1.2 billion people,does not occupy 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.
Thalif Deen, Senior Editor, UN Bureau, Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defense Marketing Services; Senior Defense Analyst at Forecast International; military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group, USA; and one-time UN correspondent for Jane’s Defense Weekly, London.
