GUYANA’S ambassador to the UN, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, has set aside some harsh words for the nature and functionalism of the UN Security Council (SC). Guyana’s position on the shape of the SC is typical of how most Third World countries see the SC.
Here are the words of the ambassador as reported in the media. “The Security Council is the most undemocratic organ of the United Nations. We sit there now and sometimes I’m amazed that you have five countries with a veto that can scuttle anything that you bring there and you have seen in recent times where you have 13 countries voting in favour and one country says ‘no’ and that’s it. Guyana’s position is that we would like to see the veto abolished but if it’s going to be kept – because we don’t think people give up power – then any additional permanent member should have the same right as well.”

The Ambassador who sits in the Security Council because Guyana has a two-year membership, went on to intone that, on certain issues before the SC, the veto should not be allowed. She mentioned genocide. Since the end of the Second World War and the birth of the United Nations, the Security Council has been a contradiction in world politics. Its functionalism has no logic in the theoretical foundation of power equality.
Four examples could be offered. First, in Guyana, we have Ten Regions, each one sends a member to parliament in national and regional elections. But based on equality of power, Region 4, which has five times the population of some other regions, is allotted one parliamentary seat.

Secondly, in the US, there are 100 senators from the 50 States that make up the US federal system but California and New York which have ten times the population of Rhode Island are assigned two senators, just like Rhode Island, with equal authority in the senate. Thirdly, in the UN General Assembly, the vote of small states with populations under 200, 000 are equal to that of China and India, whose combined population is 2.5 billion.
To select the UN General Secretary, the vote of Antigua carries the same weight as that of the United States. Finally, in the European Union of 27 countries, Malta, with a population of 500,000, has the same voting rights as Germany, which has 90 million citizens.
How come, in a membership of 193 countries, the UN charter gives five countries—the US, Russia, UK, France and China – special powers to stop any and every majority decision of the UN even if 190 members voted for that decision? This is a global caricature that started 80 years ago and now has no importance or relevance in the 21st century.

From the time of its formation, the shape of the SC was questionable with the inclusion of France. After the war, the UN agreed to give the USSR, the USA and Britain veto power in the UN. But there was no reason at the absolute level to give France the veto because France did not play any significantly crucial role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.

The French Government surrendered and cooperated with Nazi Germany and, like every other conquered European nation, it had partisan fighters attacking the Nazis. On what basis then did France get the veto? China was given the veto through the global reach of Henry Kissinger, who wanted China to be in the SC as a counter-balance to the USSR. But when that happened, India should have pressed for inclusion too.
On what basis, China has the veto and not India? It must be noted that China, along with Russia, is not opposed to the veto being given to other countries. A more democratic approach would be the position of the Guyana Government as adumbrated by Mrs. Rodrigues-Birkett- abolish the veto completely. As Mrs. Birkett opined, giving up that power is not likely to happen, so Guyana’s position is for expansion of the five-member club.

One approach could be to have four other countries given the veto for a one-year period, and it should include all countries of the world. So in one year, India, Jamaica, Nigeria, and Cuba could get the veto and it rotates each year. To think that countries that colonised the Third World and lecture to them on what democracy is are the very countries that have the most contorted approach to democratic principles. We see that every day with the perpetuation of genocide in Gaza committed by a country of 8000 square miles and 8 million people but supported by countries that tell us they are democratic.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.