This year marks the 75th anniversary of the United Nations but the landmark celebrations are taking place virtually due to coronavirus. It comes at a time when the world is in the midst of a global public health crisis and other crises such as climate change. The theme for this milestone is; “The Future We Want, The UN We Need: Reaffirming our Collective Commitment to Multilateralism,” and it reflects some of the biggest challenges facing the global body. The UN was originally formed by 50 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting better living standards and human rights for all. The role of the UN in global affairs has been revolving with changes in the international system, however, it is worth asking whether it has lived to the expectations of its founders. Like all institutions, the UN faces many challenges but this article focuses on issues of contestation deriving from its functionality and structure of the Security Council, some of which have been intensely controversial since the drafting of the UN Charter in 1945.
We are living in times where multilateralism as a world view is under great threat with nations increasingly opting for Isolationism and bilateralism at the expense of Multilateralism. Multilateralism is also feared to be a casualty of the coronavirus pandemic because during the pandemic, the world has witnessed a retrenchment characterized by pulling back of international supply chains and countries becoming more protectionist. The UN therefore, faces challenges in attempting to remain relevant in a world where multilateralism is under unprecedented pressure. The recent actions of some of its founding members have been unfortunate. For example, relations between the U.S. and the UN have deteriorated during President Trump’s tenure and as such the world has witnessed the U.S. withdrawing from the WHO in the middle of a global pandemic, withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal and going back on its climate change commitments. There is need to mend relations between the two parties as the actions of the U.S set a bad example for other members.
Over the course of its existence, the membership of the UN has expanded from 50 founding members in 1945 to 193 members with only Taiwan denied entry. But out of its total membership of 193 members, only 15 members of the Security Council get to make critical decisions concerning global peace and security. This is worsened by the fact that it is the 5 permanent members made up of China, Russia, U.S., France and the United Kingdom that have the final say. Chapter V, article 27 of the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to make decisions by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the five permanent members. There is a clause that requires all the five permanent members to concur in order for a resolution to be passed.
There have been incidences where the geopolitical rivalry among the five permanent members of the UN security Council has impacted the body’s negotiating power in brokering peace deals in conflicts across the globe, yet there is a clause in the Charter that demands members party to a dispute to abstain from voting. In other cases, the big powers have acted contrary to international law and have been accused of causing unlawful deaths yet they have escaped the legal arm of the body. For example, when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 without authorization from the Security Council and got away with it, a thing that left some UN skeptics calling it a “toothless barking dog.” The UN therefore, needs to stand out as a body that safeguards International Law and not one that perpetrates the interests of a few powerful states.
There have been debates on the lack of democratic decision making especially at the Security Council that gets to decide on issues of global security. For this deficiency in its structure, the UN has found itself ineffective and at the mercy of five permanent members. Reform of the Council has been central to the overall debates of revitalizing the UN, the changes ought to represent both an expanded and diversified membership. I think it’s long overdue to examine the privileged status of the Security Council’s permanent five. It no longer makes sense to have only the original permanent five members of the UN Security Council continuing to enjoy the highly privileged status to the exclusion of several others equally or even more worthy contenders for the same status. Besides, the current 15-seat Security Council with its five permanent veto wielding members and the ten rotating members reflects an outdated global balance of power, and Security Council reforms should aim to limit use of the veto.
In my opinion, veto power should be exercised with a lot of restrain and responsibility. For example, in a country like Syria where the civil war has lived on for over eight years largely due to the inaction of the Security Council caused by the failure of the 5 permanent members to unanimously reach a decision. And while they have the luxury to play politics, it has been at the expense of the Syrian people, especially women and children. I am of the view that when it comes to extending humanitarian aid to victims of civil strife where the five permanent members are actively involved, they should be made to contribute largely since they choose to be part of the problem and not a solution. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 leaving a trail of destruction and chaos, rebuilding the war-ravaged country has been largely at the expense of the U.S. due to its contributions in destabilizing the country. The same principle should apply to countries with veto power in the UN Security Council.
On the issue of representation, the African group has on several occasions negotiated for Africa’s representation in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of an expanded Security Council. The claim has always been the need to address the inequity faced by a continent with 55 countries where for instance, in 2018, close to 70 per cent of the Council’s resolutions concerned African peace and security issues. The suggestion is for Africa to have 2 permanent members and 5 non-permanent members. This claim has been as a result of the reluctance of the five permanent members to get directly involved in conflicts in faraway areas which are considered of no strategic significance to the big five or their failure to vote unanimously in conflicts where they have vested strategic interests as the case has been in civil conflicts in Syria, Yemen and Libya. Over the years, calls to increase membership to the Security Council have been met with resistance not only from the five permanent members interested in maintaining the status quo but also from countries that feel resentful of others joining the club of five.
Collective security under the UN is a tool used to promote peace and deter aggression and the Security Council is a machinery for a joint action to prevent an attack or interference to global peace. This is embedded in Hans Morgenthau’s principle of “one for all and all for one.” Expecting individual nations to cede more of their power to the UN might be wishful thinking but that is part of multilateralism. States compromise on their selfish interests to serve a common good. With an ambitious mandate and with challenging geopolitical dynamics, the UN Security Council can still live up to its mandate of promoting sustainable global peace and security. The UN has been able to prevent a largescale war to the magnitude that the world experienced during the First and Second World Wars and it remains a ray of hope for many people across the world. It is upon the leadership of the UN to learn from past mistakes and embark on reforms within the UN system. This should be in addition to strengthening collaborations between the Security Council and regional bodies in finding lasting solutions to conflicts.
By Patricia Namakula
