Four Nations Demand Permanent Seats on Security Council
India, Japan, Brazil and Germany have gotten together to demand permanent seats on the UN Security Council. Under Chapter V of the UN Charter, there are 15 members of the Security Council; 5 are permanent members (US, UK, China, France and Russia), and they may veto any resolution. The remaining 10 are elected to two-year terms and have no veto. Needless to say, the demand the four are making is not being welcomed with open arms by some. At the same time, it is vital to the future of the UN (which is already edging toward uselessness) to better reflect the current distribution of international political power – the current system represents 1945, not 2005.
The biggest obstacle to a reform of the UNSC is the Bush administration, which doesn’t like the UN at all. Any new permanent members with a veto would mean a dilution of America’s ability to get resolutions it wants passed. The current administration would be even less likely to go to the UN with a problem if four more nations could veto a resolution. That said, it is unlikely that China would welcome any dilution of its power and influence. For that matter, Russia, France and Britain have been cool to the idea.
By the same token, India is the second most populous nation in the world (and likely to become number 1 thanks to China’s single-child policy), and it has nuclear weapons. Japan and Germany are the second and third largest economies in the world, and Japan foots 20% of the UN bill. Brazil is home to 185 million people and is a leader in not only Latin America but the rest of what used to be called the Third World. In short, they all have a good case.
The problem will come in getting any action out of the UN. To amend the Charter to allow them their permanent seats, a 2/3 vote of the 191 member General Assembly would be needed, and all five of the current veto-wielding states would have to go along. Many ideas have been floated on reforming the UNSC over the years, but the matter is finally reaching a point where something will have to happen. Either there will be reform, or governments will increasingly ignore the UN.
Of course, the UN has been a huge disappointment on many levels, and a case can be made that it its costs now outweigh its benefits. However, that does not mean that outright abolition is in order. There is a benefit to having one place where every nation has the ability to speak to every other – even if the speaking is more like yelling. After 60 years, the UN does need the change. The best place to start is with an acknowledgement that power isn’t distributed now the way it was six decades ago.
© Copyright 2004 by
The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without
written consent.
Home
|
|
|