UN reform calls for strong resolution

India is already trying to become a permanent Security Council member, and it’s on the agenda of a growing number of nations also to become permanent members and have the benefit of the veto power to save themselves from the foreign threats.

It is interesting, however, that the present permanent members are unwilling to see any new permanent members.

On his visit to India in December 2003, Russian president Vladimir Putin said expanding the Security Council to include more members with the veto power was not a good idea, despite Russia having close ties with India, Japan, Germany and Brazil, which are all aspiring to permanent seats and the veto power.

Last March, British Prime Minister Tony Blair also called for radical reform of the Security Council, saying the organisation was now out of touch with the world’s needs. Canada’s ambassador to the UN backed Blair’s comments, and also called for a shakeup of the Security Council.

In the past three decades or so, many countries have grouped together on the basis of historical, religious or regional ties - for example, the Organisation of Islamic Councils, the European Union, ASEAN, theG-8 and G-20 countries, and so on.

The creation of these groupings is acknowledgement by their members that the UN cannot meet their needs and objectives. Today, platforms like the EU and the OIC are more effective than the UN.

The UN with its present imbalance in favour of the Big Five is nothing more than a meaningless debating platform, producing resolutions that serve only the interests of the superpowers, or that are declared impracticable.

Only when all its members - especially in the Security Council - possess equal power, and every decision and resolution is dealt with democratically, will the UN be effective and forceful.