As we have seen the crumble of colonialism and the collapse of communism witnessed almost across the four and a half decades of last century from 1945 to 1991, we have also seen the emergence of a new order of global power and the escalation of unexpected worldwide terror during the first decade of this century. The arguments and the counter arguments for the reformation of the UN and the expansion of the Security Council have been there for a while, but they have taken predominance in the recent time with the enthusiastic countries of Germany, Brazil, Japan and India forming a group of four being expedient for the expansion, and their jealousy neighbors Italy, Spain, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Pakistan forming a coffee club being determined to maintain the status quo. The imbroglio of the UN reforms is thus likely to continue for a long time and an international consensus can be hardly assumed.
The focus on the UN reformation should not be reduced just to the expansion of the UNSC, but it has to be dissected to how many nations within and to how many nations without the exclusive club of this global BIG B’s deserve this aristocratic status. In the case of the present members as national entities, The United States definitely as the largest economy, Russia obviously as the biggest geography and China naturally as the greatest demography deserve, but what about Britain and France? These erstwhile empires are nothing but the antediluvians in the museum of history, their B-5 status is merely for the colonial legacy and their influence on the various measurements of global dominance is limited to the alliance with the United States. Any reformation of the UN is just not the expansion of the UNSC with permanent membership for the new members who deserve it, but with the expulsion of those existing members who don’t deserve it; and this will never happen.
Among the aspiring countries, their thirst for the permanent membership is scrutinized not alone with merit, but as well anatomized with the balance of International domination, geographical representation and demographic dividends. The Japanese cause is substantial for its economic might and as it does not alter the geographical factor as Asia is currently under represented in this exclusive club, India’s case is justifiable as the largest democracy and that one/sixth of the humanity cannot be kept out of this elite group for ever and the Brazilian quest is logical given that the amalgamation of two great civilizations, the Latin American and the Red Indian, has a say in the international matters, but what about Germany? On his merits and credits, he is on par with the current permanent members Britain and France, his admission to the UNSC without an omission for ever will result in the over representation of Europe, his membership for NATO will put that organization in an advantageous position over the other balancing sources of global power, and his envious neighbors of Europe will not be willing for a compromise or for a consensus on his credentials. Expectedly the envious neighbors are there on the way of other natural candidates such as India, Japan or Brazil the way Germany has.
The track record of the UNSC and its resolutions concerning the commitments to global amity, stability and human harmony is regrettable. From the issues of democracy to human rights to nuclear disarmament to global warming, to all the issues pertaining to humanity, which should have otherwise been approached with utmost responsibility, were treated by its members only from the narrow minded perceptions of the individual’s short term interests, Forgetting the responsibility that the International community has vested in them and the maturity that is expected from them in granting an irrevocable privilege of veto power. The same members of the UNSC, who insist that other members outside this council are absolutely liable to abide by the resolutions of the council, have sometimes deliberately defied world opinion for their convenience. The moral authority of the “self-appointed front runners“like India, whose foreign policy is claimingly formulated on the basis of the peaceful international coexistence of nations of the earth, was the first and the only UN member to forcefully divide another UN member and sovereign state, Pakistan, in1971 with utmost contempt to the concerning UNSC resolution.
The Security Council could have taken corrective measures in 1971 against India, but the popular support that India enjoyed from the then East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, made it virtually impossible. Here it was people’s will that designed the course not the UNSC directives. The Iraqi aggression by the US and its supporters is another example where a theoretically responsible UNSC member with veto power itself was unwilling to respect the world opinion. In all these instances the UNSC has proven itself to be a weak body with exclusive memberships only for the supposedly most powerful countries. On the reform’s part, that Germany’s self appointment as a natural candidate to the council is not linked with his defeat in the II nd world war or his notorious past of the holocaust, and that Italians here affirm that they also had lost the war seeking parity with the Germens, unambiguously remind that the order of 1945 is not applicable in these days. The order of days to come is unlikely to be as that of days past. No brilliance is needed to capture these fundamentals of history. Given the powerless nature of this UN body in maintaining international peace, unmentionable contributions to preserving global stability and its undemocratic manner of functioning, what all the countries must aim is neither the reformation nor the expansion of this council, but an abolition of its current structure and vesting power in the UN general assembly. Unless initiatives in these directions are not taken, it is the same destiny of the League of Nations that awaits the United Nations.