By Elishya Perera
(CWBN)_In 1945, during a post-World War era, fifty nations decided to make a commitment towards international peace and security. However, seventy five years later, with the shift in global economic power, the change in the status of world nuclear forces, as well as the shift in terms of population, the question arises, ‘does the United Nations and its membership reflect the social, economic and geopolitical realities of the 21st century’?
Historical background
After World War I, an international group formed the League of Nations, in order to solve disputes between nations. However, once World War II began, the initiative had failed, but highlighted need for a reformed organisation to ensure international peace and security.
Over the next few years, several meetings took place to draft a post-war charter, and the final charter of the United Nations, which outlines the purpose and principles of the organisation, was produced at the United Nations Conference on International Organization, which was held in San Francisco, in April 1945. Subsequently, the charter was ratified by 51 members, in October that year.
The United Nations Charter established six main organs, including the Security Council. According to Chapter V (Article 23) of the Charter, the permanent membership of the Council was granted to China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America (known as P5), based on their importance in the aftermath of World War II.
Dramatic population shift
The roots of the UN are deeply colonial. Back in 1945, four out of the five permanent members were colonial states, and over the last 75 years, majority of them have been decolonised. This meant a noteworthy shift in terms of population; in 1945, the P5 accounted for 10% of the UN member states and over 50% of the world’s population within their empires. Now, they account for 26% of the world’s population, and just 3% of member states. On the other hand, while China has been considered the most populous country for decades, if not for centuries, however, according to a report released by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the population of India is expected to surpass that of China by 2024.
Sift in global economic power
The dramatic shift in population is not the only crucial change that has been taking place over the years. The ‘World in 2050 report’, issued by PwC UK, claims that India could overtake the US as the world’s second largest economy by 2050 (based on GDP at purchasing power parities) and should be the third largest economy ahead of Japan by 2030. However, it cannot be denied that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the global economy, especially in hard-hit nations like India and USA. Nevertheless, according to a statement made by a senior Communications Officer for IMF, Raphael Anspach, the Indian economy is expected to contract by 10.3% in 2020, but is likely to bounce back with 8.8% growth rate in 2021. On the other hand, the U.S. economy suffered its deepest contraction in at least 73 years, as GDP fell at a 32.9% annualized rate.
New face of global geopolitics
According to the European Commission, “the diffusion of power among countries, and from countries to informal networks, will have a dramatic impact by 2030, largely reversing the historic rise of the West since 1750 and increasing Asia’s weight in the global economy and world politics”. According to the Commission, by 2040, the economic power of E7 (China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, Mexico and Turkey) could be double the size of that of G7 (USA, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, and Italy), from being the same size in 2015 and half the size in 1995. By 2030, no country will be a hegemonic power, nor the USA or China, nor any other large country, while Asia might surpass North America and Europe combined in terms of global power, considering its higher rate of economic growth, larger population, increasing military spending, and growing technological investment.
Call for reforms since the 1990s
With these significant transitions in social, economic and geopolitical aspects, in comparison to seven decades ago, the United Nations is now being challenged by new threats, including poverty, climate change, a global pandemic, as well as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, in order to cope with these challenges, and to ensure the effectiveness of the organisation to maintain international peace and cooperation, many parties believe that the way forward is to acknowledge the key difference between 1945 and 2020, and to reform and redefine the United Nations. However, the call for reforms began in the 1990s, when majority of the member states demanded that the UN be decolonising and look more like the diverse world it serves.
In 1994, Roberto R. Romulo, Foreign Secretary of the Philippines, told the General Assembly, “It is ironic that in the midst of the rapid spread of democracy in recent years and the expanding membership of the United Nations, the Security Council remains unrepresentative in its size and the geographic distribution of its membership, and undemocratic in its decision-making and working methods”. Richard Butler, Australia’s representative, said, “It is absolutely clear that the Security Council we have today is yesterday’s Security Council. It cannot do the job we need done today and will certainly need in the future”. Twenty five years later, the member states are still calling for the comparable reforms and rectifications.
One of the crucial reforms and a subject of interest for many member states for decades has been the reform of the Security Council. The formal discussion about reforming the Council began in 1993, by way of the pen-ended Working Group on the question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council, and in 2007, the member states decided to move discussions to an Intergovernmental Negotiations process. Accordingly, enlargement of the Council and calling for “full representation” has been proposed by many countries and unions, and two of the most significant and talked about proposals were brought forward by the G4 and the Coffee Club.
G4 and the Coffee Club
In 2004, a high-level advisory panel on UN reforms, proposed 2 models on reforming the Security Council; Model A recommends an increase in permanent seats from 5 to 11 and non-permanent seats from 10 to 13, while Model B retains the current 5 permanent and the 10 non-permanent seats, but suggests the creation of 9 semi-permanent seats with a renewable term of four years.
Accordingly, India, Germany, Japan and Brazil, known as the G4, launched a joint effort for permanent seats in the Council, and lobbies for Model A, claiming that “the Security Council must reflect the realities of the international community in the 21st century”.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan said, “In addition, the de facto legislative role which the Security Council has come to play recently, in such fields as counter-terrorism and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, needs to become more effective by providing the Security Council with greater representativeness, by expanding the Security Council membership”.
Declaring that United Nations reform is “the need of the hour”, Indian PM Narendra Modi said that Indians have long waited for reform, and called for the country to be included in the UN’s decision-making structures. “How long would a country have to wait, particularly when the transformational changes happening in that country affect a large part of the world?” he asked.
Uniting for Consensus, nicknamed the Coffee Club, is an unofficial group of states which lobby for Model B. In other words, it is a reaction to proposals on expanding the permanent-membership of the UNSC (Model A). Many parties believe that their position is aimed at blocking the case of their rivals, while creating new hopes for themselves through pushing expansion only in the non-permanent category. This fact becomes more obvious since the member states of both groups are known to be aspiring powers and regional rivals.
In May 2005, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called a meeting between the G4 and the Coffee Club, in an effort to narrow down their differences on the expansion of the Security Council. However, it turned out to be a futile exercise, with the two sides failing to find a meeting ground.
No tangible progress so far
Over the decades, the calls for the UN to be decolonised and inclusive have been addressed by diversifying heads of different UN agencies, which have proven to be ineffective. For instance, amidst the global pandemic, the World Health Organisation is led by an Ethiopian national, Tedros Adhanom. Therefore, many parties would have expected increased support from the organisation, for developing countries, especially the African region, to protect the lives and livelihoods of their citizens. However, with millions lives lost and national economies significantly damaged, in an unprecedented move, the United States decided to halt the funding of the primary organisation responsible for international public health, accusing the WHO of mismanaging the situation and failing to impose travel restrictions on its fellow P5 China, during a time, when the US President himself hailed China’s early response to the pandemic. This decision was a major blow to the WHO, amidst vaccine trials and distribution of test kits, and the poorest countries had to turn to the World Bank, IMF and regional organizations for financial and technical assistance.
In the recent months, the United Nations has claimed that the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on the UN Security Council reforms have been facing difficulties because many deliberations are tough, and the process has been slowed as in-person meetings cannot be conducted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, long before the pandemic, these reforms were still overdue.
In January 2019, on the question of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the security council, María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, then president of the UN General Assembly said, “Progress this year is critical. Many Member States feel that we have reached a ‘make or break’ point. Many have expressed frustration at the lack of progress”. And over the following months, many member states, especially the states lobbying for the increase in permanent membership, were evidently dissatisfied regarding the continuous delay and lack of concrete progress.
“Only if we manage to reform the Security Council will we stop it from becoming obsolete,” said Ambassador Heusgen from Germany, while India claims that the reforms are being held hostage by countries, that do not wish to see the required changes in the organisation.
In 2010, then-President Barack Obama said that in years ahead, he “looks forwards to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member”. However, his administration failed to follow up, while President Trump appears to be supporting reforms elsewhere in the UN.
For developing nations, the legitimacy of the Security Council depends on whether its composition of both permanent and elected members reflects the global membership of the organisation. However, the United States and other advanced nations disagree. They claim that the Council’s primary mission is to be effective, not representative.
In the Cold War era, veto powers were required to ensure that a single state or empire could not override the interests of another. However, in the present day, this power is being used to block the consensus of the Council. On the other hand, with the significant transitions in social, economic and geopolitical aspects of the world, shouldn’t the permanent members of the UN be determined on these criteria along with democracy and contribution to international peace, instead of their significance 75 years ago? However, there is no doubt that the P5 would never accept this. Nor would they submit to decisions made by others. Nevertheless, it is about time that the world questions if international peace and security should continue to be led by an organisation governed by inequalities? Instead, isn’t a reformed, redefined and restructured United Nations that is fit-for-purpose “the need of the hour”?
