The Constraints of UN
Security Council
Kofi Annan, the UN
Secretary General called for the reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC), that
was in September 2003. This is to make it more effective and representative of
21st century “geopolitical realities”. The issue of the demands of transparency
that have been articulated by a number of the UN member states, that is what actually
the concern over effectiveness and equal representation. The debates have become
particularly vigorous after the end of the Cold War that, as Ofuaku and Ukaga point
out, “ushered in a renewed interest in democratic governance all over the
world”[1].
Initially, the first
formal proposal for the reform in the UN Security Council was made in 1956 by
18 Latin American countries. Then, because of many countries became independent
the pressure for reform increased and finally, the current composition of the
Security Council was ratified by two thirds of UN member states in 1965[2]. The
situation changed after the end of the Cold War. The UN Security Council fully
assumed its functions of maintaining global peace and security.
The matters of the UN
were not only the issue of the UN Security Council reform, but also the issue
on the financial which is associated with the problem of the UN Security
Council reform. The beginning of financial problems occurs
during the Congo crisis of the 1960s. Although it has been done several ways,
including by reducing programs and conducting budget emphasis, apparently the
UN’s financial problem was growing along with many developed countries such as
the United States (US) and Russia which are in arrears to make payments that
has been agreed all this time[3].
The expansion of the UN
member states should incorporate the financial, military and diplomatic be able
to make a major contribution to the United Nations. Many countries that have
good potential financial, diplomatic and the military are a permanent member of
the UN, such as Japan and Germany. Ironically, the various efforts made by
Germany and Japan opposition from Italy and Pakistan, even one of the permanent
members of the UN Security Council, namely China. China rejected Japan’s
involvement in the future in the permanent membership of the United Nations Security
Council concerning that China feels they have a personal problem unresolved with
Japan.
At the end, we can
imagine how big the power is. The power of the Big Five may decide the
decision. Only one vote of them can influence the others. According to data collected
by Global Policy Forum, some 257 vetoes have been cast in the period between
1946 and 2004. As a result, a little over 200 draft resolutions have been
rejected. The dubious honor of having cast the most vetoes goes to Russia
(formerly the Soviet Union), which invoked the privilege 122 times. With 80
vetoes, the United States is entitled to the silver medal. Next in line are Britain
and France with 32 and 18 vetoes, respectively. China used the veto merely 5 times,
which is less than once every decade[4]. Ineffectiveness
or abuse of veto power in every performance of the UN Security Council requires
doing a series of reform process in the Council.
Now, what is the
special burden of the permanent and non-permanent members of the Security
Council have to carry? Here, the founders of the United Nations expected them
to play a major role in all fields of activity of the organization as they
appear in the Charter. The council has many means of performing the task that
has been set. Then, after the ravages of the Second World War one task was
considered paramount, that is the maintenance of international peace and
security. The Charter opens with the words, “We the peoples of the United
Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,
which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”, and one of
the four purposes of the United Nations’ listed in Article 1 of the Charter,
namely to maintain international peace and security is the very first[5].
[1]
Maria Mikhailtchenko, Reform of the
Security Council and Its Implications for Global Peace and Security, Journal
of Military and Strategic Studies, Queen’s University, 2004, Vol. 7, Issue 1,
p. 1.
[2]
Ibid., p. 2.
[3]
Wulan Purnamawati, Kendala Reformasi
Dewan Keamanan PBB, Jurnal Masyarakat Kebudayaan dan Politik, Universitas
Airlangga, 2010, Vol. 22.
[4]
Jan Wouters and Tom Ruys, Security
Council Reform: A New Veto for a New Century?, Institute for International
Law, K.U. Leuven, 2001, p. 8.
[5]
Bardo Fassbender, UN Security Council
Reform and the Right of Veto: A Constitutional Perspective, Kluwer Law
International, Hague, 1998, p. 292.
