The Reform of the Security Council

Or can we prevent the disintegration of the UN?

Following the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the eruption of conflicts,
especially a second Great War, the idea of an association of nations aiming to protect
the political independence and territorial integrity of states, with no regard to their size
and power, had to be revised.
After then end of WWII, as a result of the conferences reviewing the issue, a new
intergovernmental institution was called into being: the United Nations. However, in
order to ensure that world peace is maintained, even at the cost of betraying its very
own principle of national equality, the creation of the Security Council was essential. A
body, ruled by the five big veto-wielding nations (P5) with the right of passing
resolutions that are binding to all Member States was the result of a compromise that
solely served the purpose of providing the greatest powers a forum where they can put an
end to their disputes by reaching consensus.
Unfortunately, global politics proved it in a short time that the vision was wrong. Nations,
especially those of great leverage will not always be able to agree. Thus, in the Cold War
when the powers were split and unable to come to an agreement due to the use of vetoes,
a state of paralysis often occurred to the Council. This happened in particular when the
need for immediate action was the greatest.
Today, we face a new round of polarization. As its nature is identical to the previous one,
exactly the same problem of deadlock arises. As a result of this, we have witnessed
failure in addressing the Syrian conflict, the occupation of the Crimea and recently the
expansion of the Islamic State, which, in a way, all send a message to us: what did not
work then will not work better this time.
Sadly, the situation nowadays is aggravated by another factor: representation issues.
Thirty years ago at least we could say that all those states that had a say in global politics
were there in the Council to negotiate. Since then, the international community has
undergone a massive transformation which has been ignored. Although the emerging
powers, such as coalitions: the European Union, the Arab League and the African Union
or strong economies like Brazil and Japan gain more and more influence, they still remain
missed out of decision-making on the Council.
Essentially, this means that the Council is not at all able to fulfill its purpose of providing
a common ground for the negotiations of the greatest as it actually excludes some of
them. By the time passes, this issue will only grow larger, which will logically lead to an
even more serious problem: those excluded will not continue to support the system that
ignores them.
In this essay, I will focus on the two problems I have introduced above. I need to
emphasize in the first place that I see no real way for an extensive reform, so the title
might be deceiving: transformation is absolutely out of reach for the moment. However, if
things stay in their course, it will lead to the Security Councils further loss of legitimacy,
and thus the disintegration of the whole United Nations system.

Shocking by blocking
It was exposed in many cases that although the Council is often seen as an independent
safeguard of human rights and the sovereignty of nations, sometimes it actually assists
in humanitarian catastrophes and even genocides. That can mostly be attributed to a
mighty feature of the council: the power of veto. What happens when its holders abuse
it or rather use it for supporting purely their own interests?
Aware of the grave human rights violations committed both by Damascus and the rebels,
a plan of humanitarian intervention was proposed in accordance with the third pillar of
Responsibility to Protect. Despite the immense need for action, Russia and China
unanimously blocked every single resolution, as they saw that all were aimed at helping a
western political transition in Syria. Obviously, it was not of Russias national interest
to move the Assad-regime from power, so instead they let the country fall into chaos.
The same happened on the other side as well. In the long history of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict nations called for the condemnation of Israel several times, but the
United States, neglecting UN-principles, always countered their efforts by vetoing the
resolutions that criticized their close ally.
These examples draw our attention to the fact that whatever is disliked by any of the P5s
can be easily blocked causing an instant halt in progress. However, the world of
diplomacy is also the world of persuasion, which means that clashes are natural but
compromise is to be reached when the situation is suitable. If positions are too distant
from one another there is no possibility that the parties can get to a consensus.
So, what is going on when the political powers of the world are repolarizing? Positions
are becoming more distant; there are more conflicts and thus the increasing use of the
veto leads to the loss of belief in the SC. The countries of the international community
will no longer believe in the protective power of the UN and decide to join different
groups that are able to defend them, which, at the end of the day, mean a shift in the
process of political polarization. It is a vicious circle that is really hard to quit. We are
drifting towards a new Cold War on a river that flows faster and faster as the Council
loses legitimacy.
What makes it harder: the question of representation
Although the Security Council has never represented all the countries of the world, at
least, after the recognition of the Peoples Republic of China it had all the nations of great
leverage until the dawn of the post-Cold War era. The composition of seats still reflects
the WWII balance of forces: the winners of the war are unfairly overweight, especially
the western group, while the countries of the southern hemisphere, the African, Latin
American and Muslim states, lack sufficient representation on the Council. Many of the
greatest contributors to the UN-system that are also economic and political world powers
are simply excluded of decision-making.
The Group of Four (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan) think of themselves as the new
permanent members of the body, whilst the Uniting for Consensus movement, under the
leadership of Italy, call for the expansion of non-permanent seats and counter the efforts
of the G4. As another key actor the African Union, according to the Common African
Policy on Security Council Reform, demands five permanent seats, two with veto power,
and the right of the selection of countries representing Africa on those seats.

The last notable effort to bring the parties to compromise was Secretary-General Kofi
Annans 2005 In Larger Freedom report, in which he proposed two models for reform.
Despite the great expectations of the Secretariat, the attempt was unsuccessful: further to
the failure of bringing together the advocates, it was not able to raise sufficient awareness
on the issue.
Although the need for broader representation today is definitely greater than it was in
2005 there is no scenario that would not hurt the UN. Why is that? (This is based on
evidence, however completely hypothetical.)
If there was an increase in the number of permanent seats with veto the process in the
Council would become more unsure because of the supposedly greater number of
attempts to block resolutions. By increasing inefficiency it may further undermine the
Councils reputation. Although the G4 might become even greater supporters of the
Organization, the smaller countries would possibly turn away from it, as then it would
both not represent their interests and not protect them sufficiently.
If an extension was made only among the non-permanent membership the UN may lose
many of its greatest contributors. For example, Japan, the second in terms of financial
contribution, insists on that if they do not get a permanent seat they will reconsider the
amounts given to the UN. Further to that, technically nothing would change as the P5
could still use their vetoes.
What the truth is that neither of even these options is realistic in the current situation.
While the first would certainly be blocked by at least one of the P5s, the second would
probably not get enough support at the General Assembly. A two-thirds majority is
needed to pass a Charter amendment that can modify the Council. The G4, together with
the African Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference that calls for a
permanent Muslim seat, could mobilize enough votes to counter such an effort.
All in all, it is of low probability that the issue of representation can be solved. The
situation may seem hopeless as for the future of the United Nations. Given these
conditions it will lose power, legitimation and support significantly. But before we accept
the prospect of the fall a last question arises: is there anything else that could be done to
prevent it?
An outlook on the future
Understanding the failure of the 2005 reform attempt is essential to draw a conclusion.
Already back then it was realized that in the future the Council could only work
effectively if the veto was abolished and if the membership was made to fit the changed
distribution of power. However, it was also clear that the P5s would never ever agree to
such plans. Kofi Annan proposed two models aiming below what would have been
needed but due to passivity and insufficient political will even these have failed.
Translating it, the nations have voted for the slow death of the UN.
That slow death is caused by the loss of legitimacy and means that the recent system of
international relations that is in a way controlled by the UN will be replaced with a
decentralized one. Is the idea of United Nations and the Security Council that bad that we
should abandon it? But if not, how should it be kept?

If I look at the current situation it seems to me that it would require a political hurricane,
a third bloody world conflict for example, to make governments reform the Council. But
if we would like to give a chance to change we should try to rely on a group that is
fairly uncommon for international politics: the civil sector.
All governments depend on their citizens; if they can exert significant pressure from the
outside they might be able to force their leaders to change their ways. Let us accept that
no official and structural change could be introduced to the Council, what however can be
changed is the informal conduct of work, the extent of openness in terms of involving
more parties in the decision-making process.
Also, by raising awareness through civilian channels in the countries that are not yet
involved in the dispute over the Security Council, it might happen that regional
cooperation would gain strength. Thus new coalitions could emerge which, together with
the civilian support, might be able to influence the course of the UNs future.
Are we able prevent the disintegration of the United Nations? For me, evidence seems to
suggest that there is very little hope that the UN survives in the long run. It seems more
realistic that the Security Council along with the whole organization will lose the trust of
the Member States to other groups, organizations and institutions that are smaller and
more capable of taking action. However, that may further speed up the process of
polarization leading to the creation of a new global and political environment that may
remind us of the Cold War.
We are not permitted to choose the frame of our destiny, but what we put into it is
ours. said Dan Hammarskjld, the 2nd Secretary-General of the UN. Bad decisions are
also our decisions if time gives birth to the will for a peaceful world, we might be able
to correct them.