Is the Reform of the Security Council in the United Nations Necessary?

The Security Council maintains the obsolete post-war format

Is the Reform of the Security Council in the United Nations Necessary?

From the end of World War II (SGM) in 1945 and from the Bretton Woods Agreements, the International System in which we live today was built. This System also gave rise to an organization that seeks defense, peace, cooperation and security among nations: The United Nations Organization (UN).

Leer en español: ¿Es Necesaria la Reforma del Consejo de Seguridad en Naciones Unidas?

The UN, like every international institution, contains in its bosom various organizations, of which the most important are two: the General Assembly and the Security Council. The General Assembly is the main organ where all the Member States that voluntarily join are represented (one of the great errors of this body) with one vote each on topics of relevance in the international arena and, the Security Council, which we will develop and we will fix a greater analysis in this regard.

The Security Council is the body in charge of maintaining the "peace and security" of the world (that is, it is the most powerful body within the UN). The Council is made up of 15 members: 5 permanent members (United States, China, France, United Kingdom and Russia) with veto rights and 10 non-permanent members who are elected 5 in 5 each year by the Assembly for a period of 2 years without right to vote.

But what is the right of veto? Referring to the Charter of the United Nations, in its article 27, it is affirmed that any of these five nations can exercise their right to veto any proposal or resolution of the other four members. What this article does not mention is that the right to veto is made according to the "interest" that one of the members has to reject the resolutions according to a specific purpose.

If the reader distinguishes the members of the Council, he will note that it is the participants who "won" the SGM, that is, it is an archaic and bureaucratic system with more than 70 years in office, where decisions of international interest can be approved. or discarded according to the particular interest of one of the five members of the omnipotent Security Council.

No doubt there have been efforts to remedy this situation but they have not achieved the fruits (and the necessary votes) for the renewal of this organism. The G4 (Germany, Japan, Brazil and India) are 4 countries that have demanded greater openness and increase of the members of the Council to "balance the balance" between the nations that decide the World Order. Your demand as a group are legitimate in terms of the importance that weighs within the body. Germany together with Japan, are two of the countries that most fund the UN (but it was a loser of the SGM, punishment that remains intact, like Japan) Brazil and India, meanwhile, are two of the countries that most it participates sending military to the blue helmets for the promotion of "defense and peace", for example in the earthquake that shook Haiti in 2010. Again, it has been Council that have vetoed the G4 to accede to the status of permanent members.

On the other hand, there is also the United Consensus Group (UPC) formed by 40 nations that promote the enlargement of up to 25 members of the Security Council. Again, for this to be approved, the approval of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly is necessary for the possibility of enlargement. Therefore, the right of veto is extremely relevant.

The countries demand greater democratization in the Security Council and the complete elimination of the right of veto before what is called (and with a certain truth) the "Dictatorship of the Security Council". These two elements of intent of reformism in the Council in particular and the UN in general, address the need to establish the functions of which was the direct origin of the UN, safeguard peace and exploitation of cooperation between the nations that have been damaged, violated and attacked by only five countries that have decided that it is done and that is not done in the international arena according (again) to their particular interest.

The UN, according to the words of the current Secretary General, António Guterres, is a "bureaucratic, inefficient and deficient mastodon that requires changes".


Latin American Post | Roberto Viesca

Translated from "¿Es Necesaria la Reforma del Consejo de Seguridad en Naciones Unidas?"

More Articles