UNITED NATIONS: Like Lilliputians trying to pin down Gulliver, a group of small nations launched an effort this week to pressure the UN Security Council to change its ways. Their proposed reforms would have the exclusive power club interact more with the rest of the UN members and follow up on resolutions it passes. The proposal even takes on the council’s most sacred symbol of power — the veto. So far, the permanent powers are treating the small states like a swarm of gnats, but if the General Assembly adopts the resolution, as looks likely, the Security Council will be under pressure to respond.
While a separate reform effort has focused on adding more seats to the 15-member Security Council, five small UN countries — Switzerland, Singapore, Jordan, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein — say that it is just as important to make the council more accountable and open.
“Bigger is not better,” said Christian Wenaweser, the UN ambassador from Liechtenstein. “Better is better.” Their effort reflects the United Nations’ struggle to reform itself: How can the power holders be convinced to dilute their control? “It’s like asking a turkey to vote on Christmas dinner,” said Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s former foreign minister, at a conference on UN reform earlier this year.
But the small states insist the changes would be in the council’s own interest: The Security Council can legislate for the world, but it depends on the rest of the member states to implement its decisions. If the others don’t feel involved, the sponsors point out, the resolutions may simply be ignored.
“More than half of the UN membership is made up of small countries that normally only get a chance at a seat in the Security Council every 10 or 20 years,” said Swiss Ambassador Peter Maurer. “So it is important for the council to interact more with the general membership and to be more representative.”
The small states point to a raft of resolutions having to do with Israel, Sudan and especially Iraq, that languished for years without enforcement and ultimately exacerbated conflicts rather than helping solve them. Most contentious, the new proposals touch on the hallowed veto.
Only the permanent five members of the Security Council — the US, Britain, China, France and Russia — have the right to unilaterally reject any proposal that comes before the council. The small states say that with that power comes responsibility: They want to require the permanent members to explain every veto to the General Assembly and not to use the veto on humanitarian emergencies, such as intervention against genocide or war crimes.
So far, reactions to the proposal have been dismissive. US Ambassador John R. Bolton has said he wouldn’t even look at the resolution. “I believe that the Security Council needs to reform,” he said. “But it should come from the Security Council.” Bolton told a US Senate committee hearing on UN reform last month that the permanent five members should work more closely together to decide issues rather than opening up the process.
Russian Ambassador Andrey Denisov feels the same way. “I don’t like the idea of discussing it because there is no matter to discuss,” he said. “If we raise such issues, it means that the GA (General Assembly) has doubts that we apply the veto in a proper way.”
“I don’t like it,” British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said of the reform resolution, which will be debated Thursday by the General Assembly and is expected to be voted on early next year. “It presumes the General Assembly should tell the Security Council what to do.” He said he agreed that the council should be more accountable but has his own ideas how to bring about change. French diplomats have echoed this sentiment.
Even aspiring members to the Security Council, such as India, Japan, Germany and Brazil, are wary of the idea. Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen said that the proposals may create the illusion of reform when nothing has really changed. “If they are really serious about reform, they should move directly to amend the charter,” Sen said. “That would also be a test of the General Assembly’s effectiveness.”
The proposal appears to have solid support among most of the General Assembly’s 191 members, who think it will make the Security Council more responsive and accountable. But even if the General Assembly votes to endorse the measure, the Security Council doesn’t have to change — the assembly’s votes are nonbinding. Still, the sponsors hope it will create moral pressure on the Security Council to adopt some of the recommendations. —Dawn/LAT-WP News Service
