the security council

At the aftermath of the bloodiest war in human history , as the central ideas of the United Nations were fabricated , certain essential aspects of the power distribution across its confines were decided by the then superpowers – China, USA , UK, France and Russia . Essentially these countries were thought to represent the geopolitical elite of the world – they were said to have the maximum influence, economically, geographically and politically on the world. The United Nations Security Council was essentially constituted to have a multilateral governing force that would be able to intervene in situations of conflict all over the world and find a more peaceful and civilized way to deal with it. However , the initial selection of the members was done keeping in mind the state of the world in 1946; since Africa at that point of time wasn’t a major shareholder in the international political and economic arena it was completely ignored. Other factors which were considered was the bilateral power differences which existed in the world – Germany and Japan, the defeated “evil” powers , were totally and justifiably ignored from the Security council. The permanent members of the security council enjoyed certain privileges which often made the responsible for deciding the fates of millions of people all over the world, these included – the right to bear nuclear weapons under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and also the right to supply resources and support to the projects or resolutions they favored by exercising their power of veto.
A lot has changed since 1946 and the Second World War, Japan has been he second largest contributor to the U.N. regular budgets. Its payment even surpasses the sum of those of the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China and Russia. Japan has been one of the largest ODA donor countries. India is the world's fourth largest economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity and is also the second highest contributor of troops to the UN after Pakistan. Germany has emerged as a dominant European state and forgotten the ghosts of the world wars, to add to this is the fact that the 1.6 billion across the globe feel as if their issues aren’t well represented in a security council that is well nigh bereft of any Islamic representation. Since the permanent members of the security council work on a very unilateral set of motivations which have their origins in their national interests the resolutions passed often reflect a picture that is more representative of the one the “security council” wants , rather than a just one. the USA’s constant vetoing of security council resolutions against Israel or China’s rather vigorous policy against letting India be a part of the permanent membership – are examples of nations pursuing personal goals rather than working towards a global agenda.
The African union, which lacks representation in the council, feels as if its issues of conflict and political significance don’t seem to find a place on the Security Council agenda. This is in light of massacres in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Liberia and the on going genocide in Sudan. Therefore there are some rather compelling arguments in favor of restructuring the Security Council , most of which focus on obvious under representation of certain continents and countries based on their current effect on global economics, politics and culture. It almost seems as if the composition of the Security Council is following a power distribution that existed half a century ago. The presence of this disparity has brought about widespread criticism, mostly due to the fact that the permanent members of the Security Council have time and again focused on issues that were of national interest to them.
On the flipside a reform in the security council would entail opening up a Pandora’s box. Resolution making is tough enough when five permanent members are trying to reach a consensus , but with an expansion the process will be even more cumbersome and less effective .the realist school of thought accounts for the membership of the council as being a rather viable set of nations based on their access to power and resources , however in a world where differences in power are massive and huge discrepancies exist within the social fabric , this idea has found appeal only in the “realist” realm. The existence of regional rivalry among states could get exacerbated due to the reform. Thus states that have had conflicts with each other in the past and that understand that a seat in the permanent “circle” of the UN will give their enemies a rather huge advantage would oppose this decision.
The USA has reason to worry if this “silent revolution” carries through. A big reason for that being that the majority of the prominent countries making a bid for the security council permanent members have voted against US resolutions and decisions most of the time. Brazil, the only contender from Latin America, voted with the U.S. just 29 percent of the time, while India, often touted as a major future ally of the United States, voted with the United States just 20 percent of the time. Nigeria and South Africa voted with the U.S. just 25 percent of the time, while Egypt—a huge beneficiary of American aid—sided with the U.S. in only 18 percent of the votes. Therefore Japan with 50 percent and Germany with 55 percent are two most promising allies to the USA in the UN among the states most clamoring for reform. Therefore an expansion of the council would mean a loss of support for the US encouraged policies and in essence the reduction values of the US vote. The USA’s present “war on terror” their initiatives and workings have come under sever scrutiny and criticism from most of the above mentioned states , thus their inclusion in the permanent membership of the security council might lead to a hindrance in the plans that the US has for dealing with terrorism around the globe.
However with growing displeasure and reduction of US support in the General Assembly in the past few years added to the rise of economically and politically strong nations it might be a good idea for the USA to acquire a few allies. Among the G4 countries (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan), due to the growth of economy and development, the pull they have on geopolitical workings is changing. Thus as these countries become major players in the global arena it is imperative that the USA “keep them close”. This could potentially help them achieve some of their personal objectives and also increase economic and political advantages. However since most of these benefits would be in the form of trade alliances and help with intelligence , the US situation in the UN as it seems to most will in no way improve; infact there is a marked chance of US resolutions getting less favorability.
Expansion of the Security Council is not the only answer to the creation of a more effective governing body. On the other hand equal representation of the nations of the world not just in respect to their rank on the list of power, but to create a more egalitarian organization seems like a necessity. The permanent members of the Security Council at the moment enjoy a great amount of privilege and power which often times lacks accountability and is very nationally biased, however what is to say that the incoming nations on expansion will not follow suit with the current trend. As of now it seems as if a change in the nature of the council is not very eminent, however there is an absolute need for the way policy is made in the council. If not by representation then by some other form of reform, the effectiveness of the UN Security Council has to be increased , before nations give up on the very idea of a just governing body in the world.