CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF
THE PROBLEM
After World War II [WW II] the United Nations [U.N] was set up
to end all wars, enhance respect for international law and promote human rights
and peoples' well-being. The U.N was established as an association of nations
which accepted the values of civilized life and agreed to co-operate together
for the good of all. According to Christian Tomuschart [2002:45], the U.N was
founded, as it is enshrined in the Charter, «To save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war». This is the most important function
of the U.N and, to a considerable extent, the criterion by which it is judged
by the peoples it is at the service of.
As stipulated in its Charter, the principal function of the
U.N is to maintain international peace and security. Other roles include
international cooperation, coordinating social, economic and cultural covenants
as well as international conventions and other humanitarian problems, notably,
in areas of promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. The U.N mainly
comprises of the Security Council [UNSC], General Assembly [UNGA], the
Secretariat and specialized agencies. As Sydney D. Bailey [2001:40] argues,
«The United Nations General Assembly consists of all the small and large,
greedy and generous, allied and neutral, democratic and tyrannical, arrogant
and diffident member states of the United Nations». When the U.N was
established, the core responsibility for maintaining international peace and
security was entrusted to the UNSC. This organ is made up of five veto power
wielding permanent member countries [The United States [U.S], Russia, France,
the United Kingdom [UK] and China] requiring it to act in accordance with the
purposes and principles of the U.N.
According to John T. Rourke [1995:363], «In the U.N
Security Council any of the permanent members can, by its single vote, veto a
policy statement or action favoured by the other 14 members. Between 1946 and
1990, the veto was cast 246 times, with each of the members using its special
prerogative to protect its interests.» The use of veto by permanent
members has led to some questioning whether or not the UNSC can still be the
custodian of international
peace and security. As John Young [2003:56] puts it, the UNSC
«operates, by and large, according to the golden rule - those who have the
gold make the rules».
Since the establishment of the U.N, global politics has been
facing major systematic challenges. Throughout this period, the UNSC did not
fully live up to peoples' expectations as a guarantor of international peace
and security. The incessant calls for reform result from the fact that the UNSC
today still reflects the global power structure of 1945, though its non-veto
membership was expanded from eleven to fifteen in 1965. The four WWII victors
and China have held on to their privileged status. They are permanent and can
veto any UNSC decision that affects their respective interests. Considering the
current geopolitical context, it is no longer possible to conceive of and
implement an international peace and security which is restricted to the
maintenance of order stricto sensu. Hence, in a bid to adjust the UNSC to new
global governance and geo-political realities, consistent calls for reform have
become louder.
Objectives and Purpose of the Study
The quest for reform of the UNSC has been an integral part of
the life of the U.N since its earliest days. Since its establishment in 1945,
the organization has experienced an array of proposals, some of which have been
adopted and implemented, and others have remained to gather dust. Considering
the role of veto power in the management of international politics and the
preservation of the veto wielding states' interests, the study examines the
possibility of amending Article 108 of the U.N Charter and allocating two
permanent seats with veto power to Africa. The researcher assesses the picture
of the future world political behaviour, prospects and challenges the expanded
UNSC is likely to face in the next generations.
This study examines how the unilateralist approach to global
challenges exercised by veto- wielding countries militates against the
objectives of the U.N Charter. The study analyses the extent to which this
unilateralist approach has polarised and paralysed the current global political
landscape, as claimed by Third World Countries, mostly African. The research
also projects the prospects and challenges of a reformed UNSC in maintaining
international peace and security. The study also assesses whether or not new
permanent members, if granted veto powers, will result in the UNSC achieving
its core responsibility.
This study may assist decision-makers in Governments,
international organizations and members of international community on how these
reforms will affect their activities in areas of foreign policy and diplomacy.
Arguing from an idealist perspective which advocates unity of purpose in the
U.N, cooperation between states, poor and rich, that international peace and
security may be achieved, this study examines the practical possibility of this
idealist's view and assesses whether or not having more permanent member states
with veto power, would result in less tragedies at a high scale. The researcher
also examines whether or not the inclusion of new permanent veto-wielding
members will result in powerful states being limited in taking a unilateral
military action without the express endorsement of the UNSC. The study further
assesses whether or not any other state or combination of states will consider
taking unilateral actions in their own interests such as the controversial
invasion of Iraq in 2003 as Adekeye Adebayo [2005:17] notes, «when the
world's most powerful state, the U.S, discovered it had power without
legitimacy, while the U.N rediscovered it had legitimacy without
power».
Literature Review
Few aspects of U.N reform have attracted as much political
interest and academic attention as the projected reform of the UNSC. Since
January 1994, UNSC reform has been tabled in the UNGA without any progress. As
Robert J. Art [2002:38] argues, «In September 2000, Heads of State
attending the Millennium Summit called for the rapid reform and enlargement of
the SC making it more representative, effective and legitimate in the eyes of
everyone in the world». The High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and
Changes, was appointed in 2000 by the U.N Secretary General, Kofi Annan. As
John Shiva [2004:30] notes, «The Panel presented two models of expansion
of the UNSC which involved a distribution of seats between four major areas:
Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and America». Nevertheless, while the
expansion of the UNSC's membership pointed in the right direction, the veto
power, which is critical, remained unchallenged in the report. Commentators
from the Great Powers argue that the veto is crucial to the operations of the
U.N: «It keeps the big players in the game and there is no game without
them» [Berlie Macknara, 1986:40]. The U.N reform, in the sense of changing
the organization so that its capacities to fulfill the goals of its Charter are
strengthened, has been a continuing matter of concern and the object of serious
research. According to Salmon C. Trevor [2000:81], «The U.N's failure to
fully understand and doctrinally adjust to the new
circumstances surrounding global politics brought the world
body to the point of outright strategic failure». As Nicholas Hopkinson
[1998:50] has put it: «The world balance of power has changed dramatically
in the years since the United Nations was established but the composition of
the Security Council has not». Hence the need for reform has persistently
been suggested.
Over the years, a variety of proposals to amend the structure
of the UNSC, to bring it more into line with the current geopolitical
realities, have been proposed. However, the veto power aspect has become a
stumbling bloc, as the five permanent members have been ever ready to quash any
attempt that may lead to the amendment of Article 108 of the U.N Charter. As
John T. Rourke [1995:363] argues, «The continuing importance of the veto
in practice, its value as a symbol of big power status, and the difficulty of
amending the Charter mean that the veto authority is likely to continue without
major revision despite arguments that its existence is in the hands of an
unrepresentative few countries and is undermining the legitimacy of the
UNSC». Advocating the overhaul of the U.N, John Galtung [2000:98] observes
that,
Abolishing the Security Council, revising the contribution
structure, significantly reducing the level of the United Nations salaries, the
dewaldheimization of the United Nations system, greatly reducing the power and
authority of the executive heads, and moving the United Nations headquarters
out of New York will make this international body more efficient and
reliable.
The special status enjoyed by the Permanent five [P-5] of the
UNSC has become a simmering issue in the U.N. As John Rourke [2002:169] argues,
«The most common argument against the arrangement is that the existing
membership has never been fully realistic and is becoming less so as time goes
by». Many global and regional powers that do not have the veto power have
been pressing for changes in the UNSC structure. In the same vein, less
powerful countries have jumped on the bandwagon. This can be illustrated by the
Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga who once called on the UNSC «to
become more representative and more responsible to the general membership of
the United Nations» [John Rourke, 2002:169]. The Sri Lankan President's
sentiments were echoed by Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa who emphasised that
«The Security Council can no longer be retained like the sanctuary of the
hollies with only the original members acting as high priests, deciding on
issues for the rest of the world who cannot be admitted» [John Rourke,
2002:169]. In his report [March 2005], titled
`In Larger Freedom: Development, Security and Human Rights for
All», the U.N Secretary General Kofi Annan, stated that, «No overhaul
of the U.N would be complete without reform of the Security Council».
Dissatisfaction with the UNSC has spawned many plans to revise it. However, any
change in the membership of the UNSC requires an amendment to Article 108 of
the U.N Charter which needs the consent of all the permanent veto-wielding
members. As such, it is highly unlikely that any formal changes concerning
membership of the permanent members or their veto power will materialize.
Theoretical Framework
The world's political behaviour is dictated by the struggle
for self-centered national interests. It has long been argued that world
politics is characterized above all by egotistical states operating in an
anarchical environment. David Forsythe [1989:30] argues that, «From the
celebrated works of Hans J. Morgenthau to the much-praised restatements by
David Franklin and Hedley Bull, commentators have stressed the power drive of
nation-states operating without higher authority». In these classical
treatments emphasis has been placed as David Forsythe [1989:40] argues,
«on the independence of states, on their drive to maximize power as both
ends and means, and even on the morality of normally evil action when done in
pursuit of national interests». In this study, which examines power
dynamics, competition, and unilateral exercise of power within the UNSC,
realist and idealist theories of international relations were examined. These
theories were chosen because they do help a great deal in understanding the
current anarchical power struggle-ridden international system. As Bruce Russett
[2001:25] observes, realist philosophy postulates that «international
politics is a continuous struggle for power among nations and these nations
always seek to dominate each other in the conduct of their own
affairs».
This assertion finds expression in the UNSC structure and its
permanent members' résistance to proposed reforms. Since the foundation
of the U.N, there have been some insurmountable obstacles that have prevented
Charter amendment to Article 108 of the U.N, which requires the affirmative
concurrence of the five permanent members of the UNSC. Practically, this means
that none of the five will approve anything that removes them from the UNSC or
takes away their veto power privileges. In the history of the U.N, much more
has been achieved by changes
in practice, rather than Charter revision. Thus, one may observe
that any reform will have to maintain the status quo.
More recently, there has been renewed attention to the subject
of cooperation in world politics, whether through emphasis on regimes or on
other forms of collaboration. According to David Forsythe [1989:30],
«Joseph Nye, Robert Keohane, Ken Oye, Robert Axelrod, and others have
sought to modify Morgenthau's `realist' school of thought by emphasizing the
possibilities if not the extent of cooperation under anarchy and trying to
clarify the dynamics of that cooperation.» Arguing from the idealist
paradigm, Bruce Russett [2001:25] contends that, «states' behavior over
each other can be modified and states act in harmony rather than always in
conflict with each other». In some cases as David Forsythe [1989:31]
argues, «Focus on international regimes has been blended with the use of
game theory to analyze the start, duration, and decline of international
cooperation». In these analyses emphasis is especially placed on
development of a long-term view of interests, and restriction of the number of
actors involved in the quest for agreement.
As Paul Hightower [1999:40] argues, «A number of states
have been satisfied to share power rather than constantly strive to maximize
it; others have reduced unilateral power in the interests of order and friendly
relations». Thus, as David Forsythe [1989:31] notes, «The U.S entered
a new treaty arrangement with Panama to provide for the security of the
important waterway, even though the U.S appeared to be giving up
prerogatives». He adds that, «Under this doctrine, it has been
demonstrated that less can mean more; less assertions of unilateral advantage
may mean more maximization of national interests». It is this mix of
cooperation and anarchy which constitutes the environment in which the UNSC and
the entire U.N system exist.
It is this recognition of cooperation rather than struggling
for self-centered national interests, at the beginning of the twenty-first
century, we are witnessing a transition from the classical Westphalian world
order to a world order where regions and their organizations such as the
European Union [EU], the African Union [AU]...next to states are playing a
central role in global governance. As David Forsythe [1989:31 argues,
«Processes of regional integration are indeed increasingly affecting and
even shaping international relations». However, it is poignant to note
that we are not entering the era of post-Westphalian world order in which
nations are
disappearing or becoming irrelevant, on the contrary
nation-states remain important for identity and local governance.
Hypothesis
For the UNSC decisions to command worldwide respect and
advance international political progress as well as international law, restore
the entire U.N legitimacy and credibility, granting veto power to new permanent
members remains the sole option.
Methodology
The bulk of this study is confined to the analysis of library
materials. Reference was made to various articles on international law and
international politics. Legal instruments such as International Covenants,
Declarations, Charters and the International Court of Justice's decisions were
examined. The researcher analysed several resolutions adopted by the UNSC and
the UNGA. The internet was used to supply relevant information on the subject
matter. The proposal presented to the 60th UNGA Heads of State
Summit by AU on U.N reform was analysed. Where necessary, tables, diagrams and
figures were used. It is reiterated that all media information public and
private were used with caution to avoid politically persuaded opinion and in
some instances patriotism which clouds the relevant issues for the discussion.
Data is presented in a discussive and narrative format.
| 
