UN Reform: Challenges & Opportunities

Pakistan ObserverArticlesRabi us-Sani 24, 1426 AH, Thursday, June 02, 2005UN reform: challenges & opportunitiesAmer Rizwan KhattakWilsonaian idealism tampered by pre and post World War-II realism inspired the birth of United Nations Organisation in 1945. Earlier the sheer idealism had failed to pass the test of time, because the outbreak of World War-I had proved to be the last nail in the coffin of the League of Nations. United Nations can rightly claim to be more successful than its prototype, not only in keeping itself alive in the face of serious odds all-around, but also in being a relatively better and pertinent answer to political complexities of the modern world. The events of cold war, and superpower rivalry, at times, paralyzed it; those of post-cold war saw it being bypassed; the rigorous pulls of the international system subjected it to many tests, yet the very fact that it still exists is in itself a no less achievement to its credit. There might be innumerous failures to its credit yet its unparalleled score in the socio-economic nay political fields suffice it to be credited. It is no denying the fact that the geopolitical realities and the very nature of the world system has undergone a transformation since the inception of the UN in 1945, so theorists and analysts have long been demanding an overhauling of its organisational structure.Guided by these dictates and exigencies of time, in 2003, the UN Secretary General appointed a ‘High Level Panel’ on ‘Threats, Challenges & Opportunities’ to be chaired by former Thai Prime Minister Amend Panyarachun entrusting it with the task to finalize its report embodying recommendations on the UN Reform. Its task was to channelize the spadework done by a working group that had been carrying out its deliberations on the subject almost for a decade. Pakistan was represented by the former Executive Director of the UN Population Fund Dr Nafis Sadiq whereas India was represented by Mr Satish Nambiar.The report for the proposed transformation was submitted to the UN Secretary General in last December. Its major recommendations focus upon the subjects of non-intervention, terrorism, and enlarged Security Council. The president of the panel while transmitting his report said that recommendations had been submitted to the Secretary General, and that ultimate decision to that effect had to be taken by Heads of State and Government. So, this has to be very clearly understood that it has an intergovernmental character. It will then be subjected to a debate by UN members. Consequent to that the Secretary General is to submit his recommendations to the general membership. The aim and purpose would be to evolve a consensus on these recommendations. It is no denying the fact that these panelists have tried to propose a new vision of collective Security. For instance, two models for the expansion of UN Security Council have been suggested; Model ‘A’ recommending the creation of new permanent seats but without veto, while Model ‘B’ talking about quasi-permanent seats, or members who could be rotated or re-elected after four years term and so on. However, neither of the model favours giving veto power to more members or slashing the powers of P-5. Pakistan is the member of ‘Coffee Club’ that opposes expansion in the permanent category, and holds a position quite close to ‘Model B’The report also underscores the imperative to resolve some of the disputes that may threaten Collective Security, and that this should be done in accordance with the Charter. There is a Charter requirement to resolve long-standing disputes like Palestine and Kashmir, and the situation in the Korean Peninsula. And these panelists have demonstrated sagacity and statesmanship in pointing out the need for resolving these issues.However, it should be kept in view that the veto power enjoyed by P-5 has, so far, proved to be the main stumbling block in resolving the potentially volatile disputes. Therefore, it can be argued in a way that retention of veto power in itself, besides being antithetical to the principle of sovereign equality and the very system of Collective Security, would continue to blur the prospects of the vision of the panelists. Nevertheless, maintenance of international peace and security is traditionally considered to the responsibility of “big powers”. However, the compass of “big power” needs to be modified owing to the growth of new centres of power and the changed geopolitical realities of the new era. Yet the P- 5 would not let them be stripped of this mantle. We may say that looking into the latter option is in a way beyond the mandate of the panelists. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan hinted at this compulsion when he hinted at the fact that abolishing veto was almost impossible because the current permanent members were unlikely to give up their privileges. The report focus on economic and social development, interstate disputes, , the threats of terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction, and organized transnational crime as well. The UN can effectively cope with the challenges of the new dynamic world system, only when it is overhauled with the question of equality receiving proper attention. The recently submitted report by UN Secretary General entitled, “ In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All” points at the very same paradox. Let us hope that we may avail of this “historic opportunity in 2005”, and not only contribute to “strengthening the United Nations” but also give the humanity the priceless endowment of “freedom from want”, “freedom from fear”, and “freedom to live in dignity”.Interestingly, since very independence, India’s designs have been to release itself of the regional capsule, and establish its influence as a major global power. It has its own ‘Monroe Doctrine’ in so far as this region is concerned. Its efforts, however, received a serious set-back when it suffered to eat a humble pie in the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Again, owing to growing Sino-Soviet schism, Soviet Union started putting its eggs in Indian basket, so that it could be used as a counterpoise to the increasingly formidable People’s Republic of China. The latter itself could not afford to let India grow powerful to its detriment, and started closing ranks with Pakistan — being the potential counterpoise to India. Latter’s success in dismembering Pakistan in 1971 spurred its designs. In the aftermath of these events, India showed lukewarm response to the Soviet proposal of an Asian Collective Security System because it envisaged spearheading such an endeavour itself instead of allowing an outside power to step in and take the lead. The 1974 and 1998 nuclear tests by India were aimed at accentuating that status yet Pakistan’s ‘tit for tat’ tests didn’t let its designs realize to its full. The events following 9/11 gave India a unique opportunity to assert its position as a global democracy committed to combating the so-called ‘Islamic Terrorism’. Even Pakistan’s strategic somersault could not stop it from making a rich harvest from the aftermath of 9/11. The then Prime Minister of India Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru hinted at India’s right to become UNSC permanent member as early as in 1955 Bandung Conference. In 1992; India floated the idea in Security Council Summit. However, it formally announced its candidature in the 1994 General Assembly session.Of late, Panyarachun has submitted a report to UN Secretary General on ‘Threats, Challenges & Opportunities’. India was represented in the said panel by Mr Satish Nambiar. Roughly speaking on the most important point of Security Council enlargement, the panel has suggested two models: ‘Model A’ recommending the creation of new permanent seat but without veto, and “Model B’ talking about quasi-permanent seats or members who could be rotated or re-elected after two years’ term. It is interesting to note that both the proposed models, though envisaging increase in UNSC seats on regional bases, do not recommend veto status to new aspirants. There exists an understanding between Germany, Japan, Brazil and India ie G-4 for holding a united stance on the issue. There was a reported German move to introduce a resolution backing the first option. However, even ‘Model A’ does not warrant veto power to new UNSC members making it distasteful, particularly for India to accept the debilitated slot. Indian External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh was reported to have told Rajya Sabha on December 3, 2004, that India would not accept veto-less permanent membership. He reiterated India’s position time and again, particularly in an interview given to BBC World on 09 April 2005. India again rejected UN permanent membership sans veto power when its ambassador to UN Mr Nirupam Sen said both in terms of decision-making and in legal constitutional terms,As far as the P-5 are concerned, their policy statements on supporting either of the models and the stance held by G-4, or even vice versa, have not come to the fore so far. Meanwhile, former US Ambassador to India and former US Deputy Security Adviser Mr Robert Blackwell said, while addressing a meeting of the Confederation of Indian Industry that it was difficult for India to get permanent membership of the Security Council given its impression of a country “involved in huge oil and food scandles”. Mr Blackwell said if India was given the status, “other similar economies will also want the same, and the Security Council will end up becoming virtually non-functional.” Again, AFP reported on 12 April 2005 that according to an Indian government document, People’s Republic of China would support India’s candidacy for permanent membership of an expanded United Nations Security Council.