Making the Security Council more representative, inclusive, and transparent is a hot topic that is being discussed globally, as the debate over the controversial role of the Council has intensified since it failed to stop Russia's aggression in Ukraine, Israel's occupation of Palestine, or Myanmar's repression of the Rohingya.
The Atlantic Charter was established in 1941 by the United States and Great Britain in response to Nazi Germany's invasion of Europe during World War II. In a sense, this document is essentially a step forward in the establishment of the United Nations. Representatives from 50 nations gathered in San Francisco in 1945 and decided to draft the United Nations Charter, which was formally adopted on June 26, 1945, with a resolute determination to avert war and uphold international peace, stability, and security.
However, in practice, it fell short of respecting the organization's principles. A significant barrier in this approach is the permanent members of the Security Council's veto authority. Any resolution criticizing Israel's misdeeds will be blocked by the United States. On the other hand, China is applying its veto power to protect Myanmar from taking effective measures.
In such a situation, many countries are discussing the need to restructure the UN, particularly through the expansion of the Security Council.
The "Security Council" consists of five permanent and ten non-permanent members from among the 193 member countries of the United Nations. The winners of WW2 -- the US, UK, Russia, China, and France -- were granted veto power in the UN Security Council. A UN bill or resolution is void if any of these five nations exercises their veto power. The power can also be used to send military forces or impose sanctions on a nation.
The primary duty of the council is to safeguard global peace and security. But it is really sad that because of the use of the "veto" (the "power to object"), world peace and security are now imprisoned in the cage of interests. Despite the fact that 10 non-permanent members are chosen every two years, the decisions of the permanent members are regarded final -- since the permanent member countries have the "super power" of veto, which the non-permanent members do not.
It is undeniable that the Security Council has failed to timely act on global crises while carrying out the mandate given to it to settle disputes through peaceful means. Moreover, the veto-wielding nations have also been abusing the UN to further their own agendas. As a result, though the world was shocked by images of mass graves in Ukraine and Russia's bombing of civilians there, it is helpless to the veto power. Needless to say, the veto power has been abused in the past, not just in Russia but also in other countries.
The Security Council recently failed to come up with an effective solution to the Rohingya humanitarian situation, despite widespread global support. China and Russia, the two UN permanent members, support Myanmar in this issue for political and economic interests. As of yet, no legal action has been taken against Myanmar for the genocide of the Rohingya.
The Council's unwillingness to act has emboldened the Myanmar military to commit crimes against humanity and genocide. Again, in spite of Israel's aggression in the Palestinian territories and the continuous violation of human rights in the past years, the Council continues to be unable to unanimously agree to take effective action. This strong council of the United Nations was powerless to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Article 39 of the UN Charter expressly forbids aggressive war. However, the US invaded Iraq in 2003 without the UN's approval and ousted Saddam regime, which was a violation of the UN Charter. Additionally, the US and UK launched airstrikes in Libya in 2011 under the pretext of "interference in the protection of human rights." Gaddafi was overthrown in the attack, and Libya is now essentially a failed state. In Syria, a similar grievance has been raised. These instances only support the claim that a country's violation of UN policy increases with its power.
The reform proposal also proposes reforms in the UN General Assembly. The assembly is passing hundreds of proposals. However, there is no mechanism in place to put these proposals into action. There is no system in place to gauge how well a nation is carrying out the UN's agenda.
Geographically speaking, it is clear that the continent of Europe only makes up 6.6% of the world's total land area. Nevertheless, they are represented by 60% of the Security Council (3 countries are permanent members). 20% and 12% of the world's land respectively are in Africa and South America, yet neither continent has a "permanent member" nation. Once more, the Asian continent has a representation rate of under 20% while having more than 60% of the world's population (one country is a permanent member).
Despite the fact that geographic and regional participation is crucial in many UN forums, it is missing from the expansion of permanent members of the Security Council. Taking into account the region's position, the population of the continent, and the current economic situation, making some nations of Asia, Africa, and the South American continent permanent members of the Security Council is now demanded.
Since two-thirds of the General Assembly and all Security Council members would need to agree reform, it would be challenging. However, given the current state of the world, it is now necessary to either reform the Security Council or increase the number of permanent members.
Japan, one of the largest contributors to the UN, the third-largest economic power in the world, and the biggest donor of aid to developing countries, should be made a permanent member of the UNSC. In addition, countries like South Africa and Nigeria on the African continent, as well as Brazil in South America and India in Asia, can be considered as being eligible to become permanent members of the Council.
There is a suggestion to increase the UNSC membership to 26. It is also suggested that the number of permanent member states be raised to 11. Some favour an expansion of the Security Council with veto powers. Others want expansion without veto power. Another group of member states felt that the veto power should be completely eliminated.
Bangladesh needs to analyze its policy
On September 17, 1974, Bangladesh became the 136th member of the United Nations. The country is determined to advocate world peace and actively participate in all of the UN's economic and social initiatives. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said during the 77th session of the UN General Assembly that other institutional structures, including the United Nations, needed to undergo practical and essential reforms. Bangladesh, however, has not yet expressed a position on Security Council reform.
In this case, Bangladesh must consider the fact that the Rohingya crisis has repeatedly stumbled due to the veto of the super powers. The third committee has approved a number of proposals on the Rohingya issue. It is not put into practice. Despite calls for the appointment of a special envoy on the Rohingya issue, nothing has come of it. The proposal to secure the lives and livelihoods of the Rohingyas in Rakhine State has been passed, but it hasn't been put into action. Bangladesh must therefore determine how UN reform may lead to a mechanism to carry out the General Assembly's demand.
Seven and a half decades after the establishment of the United Nations, reforming the Security Council would be a sensible and necessary move to balance the geopolitics in the modern era. How will the UN talk about democracy and equal rights in every country if there is no representation of global public opinion or equal rights in the largest organization in the world?
Last but not least, the "UN Charter" and Security Council need to be reformatted immediately in order to ensure that global peace and security are not compromised in any way, and that no state is denied justice or forced to accept an unjust decision.
Kamal Uddin Mazumder is a researcher and security affairs analyst.
