UN Security Council Under Fire for Back-Room Dealing

• by Thalif Deen (united nations)
• Wednesday, April 28, 2010
• Inter Press Service

The longstanding criticisms that have focused on the politically lopsided composition of the Security Council were accentuated further by charges of lack of transparency, ironically, in a world body which preaches openness in its own backyard but practices the opposite behind closed doors.

The provisional rules of procedure for the Security Council state that meetings shall be held in public, says Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Vanu Gopala Menon.

'But this premise of transparency, unfortunately, has been eroded over the years in favour of so-called effectiveness and functionality,' he said.

'It is supposed to be easier to broker deals to save the world in back rooms rather than boardrooms,' he told the 15-member Security Council, as it held an open meeting to review its 'working methods'.

Despite a 16-year-long futile exercise to reform the Security Council, the five veto-wielding permanent members, namely the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, have refused to concede any of their self-sustaining privileges, including the right not only to hold key politically sensitive meetings in secrecy but also outside the precincts of the United Nations.

New Zealand's Permanent Representative, Ambassador Jim McLay, 'rejects outright' the suggestion that the Council's working methods are for the Council alone to decide.

'That is not more legitimate than arguing that citizens have no valid interest in the proceedings of their courts, or in the rules and procedures of the legislatures they elect,' he said.

Besides the permanent five (P-5), the 10 current non-permanent members, elected on a two-year geographical basis, include Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Turkey and Uganda.

The Council's powerful role is predicated on the fact that it's the only body in the United Nations mandated to declare war and peace.

Ambassador McLay pointed out that the Council's five permanent members are there by agreement of the international community, as embodied in the U.N. charter, and the remaining 10 members are elected 'to serve the 187 member states who do not enjoy the privilege of permanently sitting in this room, often behind closed doors'.

Over time, he pointed out, an opaque and insular Security Council will lose credibility and will not enjoy the support of the wider membership, and its role in maintaining international peace and security could diminish, and even be usurped, as a result.

He warned that such a Council is in danger of being viewed as 'irrelevant, at worst illegitimate'.

A proposal to increase both the permanent and non-permanent members has remained in limbo due to a sharp division of opinion among the 192 member states.

As a result, Germany, Japan, Brazil and India have been unsuccessfully knocking at the Council door for more than a decade, for seats as non-veto wielding permanent members.

A proposal to abolish the veto never got off the ground primarily because of the implicit opposition by the five veto-holding members and also due to logistical problems in trying to revise the U.N. charter.

India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri, points out that 'real progress' in trying to reform the Security Council has been 'minimal, despite years of efforts'.

'Some permanent members continue to argue that reform of working methods cannot be discussed by non-members,' he said. 'This only strengthens our view that the many flaws in the Council's working methods are only symptoms of a deeper malaise that lies in its structure and composition.'

Speaking on behalf of the 118-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest single political body at the United Nations, Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt accused the Security Council of also arrogating to itself the powers of the General Assembly.

'The Non-Aligned Movement believes that the Security Council should stop encroaching on the functions and powers of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council through addressing issues which traditionally fall within the competence of these organs,' he said.

He also cautioned that the Council 'should avoid resorting to chapter VII of the U.N. charter (relating to action against acts of aggression) as an umbrella for addressing the issues that do not necessarily pose a threat to international peace and security'.

Meanwhile, Ambassador Menon told IPS that over the years, member states have pressed the Security Council, in particular the P-5, to reform its working methods so as to allow for greater transparency, accountability and efficiency.

'This is arguably the least contentious of all the issues related to reform of the Security Council, given the shared interest of all parties in making the Council more accessible, accountable and effective,' he said.

To this end, the S-5 group (comprising Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland) has tried to make useful suggestions 'which we believe are implementable, particularly in the short to medium term'.

However, it is evident, particularly from occasions such as last week's open debate, that member states continue to be frustrated over the glacial pace of reform.

'A key reason for this is the P-5's belief that efficiency should not be sacrificed at the altar of transparency, and that they alone should be masters of the Council's working methods,' he said.

In fairness, the Council has not completely ignored calls from member states for some reform in its working methods.

'But this is due more to the determined efforts of non-P-5 Council members, who have pushed for some improvement in the areas of briefings by Council members and increased interactive discussions with non-Council members, in particular troop-contributing countries,' Menon declared.

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on issues relating to the Security Council, told IPS, 'In an era where there is a notable diffusion of power in the international community away from the once-dominant states, it is ironic that discussion of some of the most important issues before the United Nations remain under the effective control of just five states.'

© Inter Press Service (2010) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Where next?

Advertisement