|
|
UNITED NATIONS: Security Council Reform Not Just a Question of Numbers
By Mario Osava*
RIO DE JANEIRO, Jul 5 (IPS) - Rather than granting veto power to a greater
number of countries, the United Nations Security Council needs "qualitative"
reforms that would strip its five permanent members of that authority, if
true multilateralism is to be achieved, say analysts in Latin America.
A mere quantitative change in the Security Council that "maintains the same
design" would not be in line with the current global situation and would
merely ensure the continuation of the crisis in the multilateral system,
argued Cándido Grzybowski, one of the organisers of the World Social Forum
(WSF) and the director of the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic
Analysis (IBASE).
"Changes in the decision-making process are needed, in order to come up with
better quality resolutions," agreed Juan Tokatlián, director of political
science and international relations at the University of San Andrés, in
Buenos Aires.
The U.N. Security Council "has always been an oligarchical, undemocratic
mechanism lacking in transparency," he told IPS.
But what is now being negotiated in the debate on U.N. reforms is only the
make-up of the global system's highest body, which is composed of 15
countries, including 10 rotating members and five permanent veto-wielding
members: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.
A committee of experts named by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan set forth
several proposals for Security Council reform, including initiatives for
enlargement, but without altering the veto power of the five permanent
members.
Germany, Brazil, Japan and India are also demanding permanent seats for
themselves and for two African nations, as part of a proposed expansion of
the body to 25 members.
The debate, which began in the early 1990s after the break-up of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War, has degenerated into a dispute over the
eventual new spots on the Council, with many countries opposing the
aspirations of the four regional powers and demanding a system of rotating
seats.
In Latin America, Brazil's candidacy is rejected by Argentina and Mexico.
But "if the Council is expanded, the inclusion of Brazil is a given,"
because "it is the only country in the region with the vocation of being a
global actor," Rosendo Fraga, director of the New Majority Studies Centre in
Argentina, told IPS.
Argentina, which a century ago was "South America's biggest economy," today
has a gross domestic product equivalent to one-fourth or one-third of the
GDP of Brazil or Mexico, which means it has lost the "critical mass" needed
to defend its aspirations to a rotating presence in a permanent Latin
American seat, said Fraga.
It is only natural for Brazil to play a regional leadership role due to the
size of its economy, territory and population, "while Mexico does not have
that vocation, and Argentina and Chile lack critical mass," said the
Argentine analyst.
Brazil, which has aspired to a seat on the Security Council for years, has
built up its case by actively participating in U.N. peacekeeping missions,
such as the one it currently heads in Haiti, said former Mexican diplomat
Andrés Rozental.
Brazil "has never refused - as has Mexico - to assume its responsibilities
as the geographically, economically, demographically and politically
dominant country in the region," wrote Rozental in an article for the
non-governmental Mexican Council of International Affairs, which he presides
over.
Mexico remains caught up in "a sterile debate on whether or not it is a good
idea to occupy the place to which we could also be entitled due to our size,
economic strength and population. Up to now this national schizophrenia was
nothing more than a theoretical discussion, without practical effects,
because an actual reform of the U.N. charter seemed remote," he added.
The former diplomat lamented that officials in Mexico had not "clearly
stated that Mexico also aspires to the additional seat on the Security
Council, and that we would not accept a decision reached without a
consultation process and without even a discussion on the merits of each of
the candidates."
But it is unlikely that Brazil and other contenders for a seat on an
expanded Security Council will achieve the same status as the five permanent
members with power of veto, as part of the modernisation and democratisation
of the global body, because they face the opposition of strong neighbours,
like China in the case of Japan and Argentina in the case of Brazil, in
addition to other obstacles.
The Council, which was created to maintain international peace and security,
is involved in both military and diplomatic questions, observed Tokatlián,
who wondered how it could accept as permanent members countries like Germany
and Japan, which "do not control their own security, because they have U.S.
bases in their territories."
But Brazil lacks one credential that is decisive: a military that is capable
of rapid intervention abroad "to impose peace" rather than merely maintain
it, said Geraldo Cavagnari, a researcher at the Strategic Studies Centre at
the University of Campinas and a former Brazilian army officer.
That is "one characteristic that Brazil does not yet have," which requires
sophisticated resources and implies risks and high costs, including human
costs, because it can involve jumping into the middle of armed conflicts, he
said.
The Brazilian armed forces are getting a taste of that in Haiti, where they
are heading up a U.N. peacekeeping mission that is not enjoying a great deal
of success, Cavagnari added.
Brazil's ambition is "madness", a product of "the old nationalistic
militarism and dream of becoming a great power," which is possibly
generating negative effects like the tension with Argentina and other
neighbours, besides commercial and political concessions to China, said
Grzybowski.
Brazil's pretensions have also influenced its nuclear policy, with pressure
to revive the plan for building new nuclear energy plants, "despite the
opposition of the country's energy authorities," he said.
The Security Council should be maintained in a U.N. reform process, but
alongside a "redefinition of national sovereignty, in whose name genocide
has been committed," and the enforcement of respect for human rights, so
that they are not ignored when "crimes against humanity are committed," like
in the case of Rwanda in 1994, said the analyst.
It would be more democratic to adopt a system of rotating membership and a
collective veto that would kick in with a minimum number of votes, "like
one-third, for example," suggested Grzybowski.
Tokatlián, meanwhile, pointed out that a large Security Council, such as the
proposed 25-member body, would make it difficult to adopt decisions quickly.
Both analysts expressed their concern about society's scarce participation
in the debate on Security Council reform.
In the WSF, which has drawn tens of thousands of activists and
representatives of civil society to its annual gathering since 2001, U.N.
reforms are being discussed as part of the "new democratic international
order," noted Grzyboswki, a member of the WSF International Council.
Grzyboswki and many WSF activists are not impressed by the official
proposals for U.N. reform that are presently being debated.
They argue that much deeper changes are needed, such as putting the World
Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank under
U.N. control, affirming the supremacy of human rights, and promoting human
security, by strengthening several U.N. commissions and councils that now
have only consultative status.
* With additional reporting by Marcela Valente in Argentina and Diego
Cevallos in Mexico.
(END/2005)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
