ONE of the most atrocious things that exist in the world is the shape of power at the United Nations. This power shape is immoral, undemocratic, demonic, and calls into question countries that preach to the world that they are democratic.
At the UN, five countries have veto authority over everything the UN does. These five countries sit in a small enclave named the Security Council (SC). The SC is the highest forum at the UN. The five-member club in the SC with veto powers is the final arbiter at the UN.
The five permanent veto holders make absolutely no sense in the world. If there is anything on Planet Earth that makes no sense, it is the inner five veto holders of the SC. To make it graphic, one can say just how it makes no sense to put five wheels on a car; it makes no sense to have the particular five veto powers at the UN.
Two countries ended World War 2 (WW2) – the US and the USSR. The US did not fight Germany on its own like Russia. The US was part of a canopy named the Allied Powers. Without the input of the US, Nazi Germany may have lasted longer. What should have happened after WW2 is that the Allied countries should have decided among themselves who should have veto powers.
The choice would have been the US anyway, so the US deserves the veto power. So does the USSR, which is now Russia. That leaves China, France, and the UK. It is impossible to understand why the UK and France have veto licences at the UN. There is no logical explanation for this. The UK played a minor role in defeating Germany in the war. It was the US arsenal that was decisive.
France played no crucial part in the defeat of Nazi Germany. In fact, the Government of France supported the German occupation of France during the war. It is illogical, stupid, and ignorant to have France exercise veto authority at the UN. Why are the UK and France invested with such a decisive licence and not the second largest population in the world and the world’s largest democracy – India?
Democratising the SC is extremely simple. Offer the veto privilege to three more countries on a rotational basis that involves geography. For a period of two years, offer Africa, Asia, and the Americas plus Mexico and Canada the veto privilege. After two years, it rotates among those continents without representation from Europe because Europe has two veto members. The rotation must always be the same geography – Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
This arrangement is so commonsensical. The five veto nations cannot quarrel with that innovation because it does not dilute their veto status. The UN was formed in 1945 after WW2 and since then, 80 years later, this appalling unfair distribution of power remains. There are three countries in the SC with permanent veto sanction that since WW2 have preached to the world that they form the bastion of global democracy – US, UK and France.
If they were so instinctively driven by democratic yearnings, why is it that they continue to ignore the reshaping of the SC? France, the US, and the UK enjoy the privilege the post-WWII world bestowed on them in the UN, and they are not going to give up that coveted position. But they do not have to lose it. They can keep it. Simply extend veto power to other nations.
The veto has been abused since 1945, and that function of the UN cries out for modern thinking. Just one country at the UN can scuttle a vote that a huge majority agreed on. Here is a suggestion as to how the UN can better serve global democracy. One way is to render the veto by one nation ineffective if there is a two-thirds approval of an issue in the General Assembly.
The US has such a regulation. If there is a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the House of Representative on a law, the president cannot refuse to sign it into being. In Guyana, a two-thirds vote in the House cannot make changes to the constitution. Why not do the same in the UN?
Another democratic change that should be looked at after extending the veto to eight countries is that if one country vetoes a motion, the other seven veto powers should be allowed to say that they do not agree with the single casting of a veto. Once the other seven disagree, then the single veto exercise becomes null and void. The lack of democratisation of the UN is one of the world’s biggest tragedies.
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.