With the UN in session, we have again heard calls from India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for reform of the UNSC. This annual ritual has been going on for years without any realistic reform in prospect.
It should be clear to most seasoned observers that any meaningful reform is highly unlikely in the near future for various historical reasons. One of these is the understandable unwillingness of the existing P5 countries to give up their seat or veto power.
The current set up suits them fine so why would they support reform which would adversely affect their current status.
Even if their status remains the same, the mere fact of having additional 4 permanent members with veto powers has the effect of reducing the weight of their individual veto in an expanded UNSC.
Japan’s membership is opposed by both China and South Korea. Brazil’s bid is opposed by Argentina. Both China and Pakistan are opposed to India’s bid for a seat at the top table. We have to accept therefore that a serious and radical reform of the UNSC is a remote prospect. The best we can hope for is tinkering of the system. So what is the alternative?
An alternative is to set up a New UN with a New UNSC along the lines of the New Development Bank (NDB) set up by the BRICS nations. The NDB was seen as a competitor to the World Bank (WB) but has quickly established itself as a complementary to the WB.
The New UNSC would be more representative with its HQ in in one of the BRICS nations or Germany, Japan.
If other countries support this new institution by joining the New UN in significant numbers, the current UNSC will get the message and either seriously reform itself or become less relevant as an authority on maintaining global peace. Its legitimacy is provided by member countries who can withdraw that legitimacy by leaving to join the New UN.
Will this idea ever fly?
Dinesh Rai
By email
