While the UN Security Council tried to prevent a war against Ukraine, Russia’s President Putin unapologetically sent his troops. The UN Security Council has no significant influence because of the veto power of individual members. Many are therefore pushing for a reform.
The powerlessness of the UN Security Council has again been obvious in the Ukraine crisis. Just as the UN’s most important body was holding an emergency meeting on the conflict, Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin announced the start of a military offensive against the neighboring country. The UN Charter does not provide for the expulsion of members who incite war. And the UN Security Council, as the central organ of the United Nations – unlike the UN General Assembly – can indeed pass binding resolutions and thus also impose sanctions. But any attempt to hold Moscow accountable through the Security Council inevitably failed : as a veto right holder, Russia can block any critical resolution. The hard facts are that Russia has nothing to fear on earth at the hands of the United Nations without a reform of the Council.
“Paralyzed as during the Cold War.”
There has long been criticism of the Security Council, its structure and functioning. Countries like Germany have been pushing for reforms for years. The veto rights of the permanent members is considered untouchable anyway. That’s why the Security Council’s hands are tied when one of its permanent members is the aggressor, as U.S. President Joe Biden puts it about Russia in the Ukraine crisis ; or if the aggressor is an ally of one of the permanent member, just like Israel is for the United States…
“It’s basically like foxes guarding the henhouse,” sighs political scientist Pamela Chasek of Manhattan College in New York. “Because of Russia’s veto power, the Security Council cannot pass a resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, authorizing sanctions, or threatening a military response. Thus, the Security Council is back to its Cold War paralysis”.
The veto has been used more than 265 times since the creation of the UN. This veto paralyzes the UN, as many examples are showing : 1976 when France was interfering in the island’s of Mayotte independence ; during the Vietnam War the United States vetoed a lot of resolutions. They have used its veto extensively again since the 1970s, on the Israeli issue, in order to defend its ally Israel, which has hindered the UN’s resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Russia did the exact same regarding the Syrian conflict in 2015.
Moreover, the veto is a non-democratic mechanism. It is not justified that 5 countries have this exorbitant power to say no to a decision taken by the majority of the 193 member states of the UN. Today, these 5 powers represent only 30% of the world’s population. The UN must be reformed to make it more democratic. The General Assembly, where each of the 193 member states has one vote, is a democratic body, but the Security Council, composed of 15 states including the 5 permanent members with their veto rights, is less so. However, it is the Security Council that has the executive power, while the General Assembly has only a consultative power. To legitimise the UN, the General Assembly must be given more power and perhaps its voting system must be weighted according to the involvement and the population of each country. Indeed, China, regardless of the government in place, with a population of 1.3 billion, should legitimately have more votes than very small countries like Vanuatu with only a few thousand inhabitants.
In recent years, there have been calls for a veto-reform. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN from 1997 to 2006, called at the end of his mandate for the suspension of the veto in cases where mass crimes are being discussed. France itself has officially carried this proposal since 2013. This initiative is supported today by the majority of UN member states.
Without an adaptation of the Council to the geopolitical realities of the 21st century, meaning in particular an adequate representation of the global South as well as of the central contributors to the United Nations system, the Security Council runs the risk of losing legitimacy and authority.
The discussion on a Security Council reform gained an impulse in the early 1990s, after the end of the East-West conflict. By 2005, an agreement was within reach. Negotiations, which have been taking place in informal plenaries of the UN General Assembly since 2009, have so far failed to produce tangible results. But it is important that the Security Council has these powers. It is at the heart of international security. For its resolutions to be respected and followed by all states, it must have the necessary authority and legitimacy. This requires that it be representative.
However, the Security Council in its current composition reflects the geopolitical circumstances of 1945, and the 1963/1965 expansion to include non-permanent seats has not fundamentally changed this. The Council is no longer representative. Africa, in particular, is not represented in the Council according to its current weight and therefore demands that the composition of the Security Council be adapted to the new realities.
The G4’s reform draft
As an informal plenary of the UN General Assembly Germany, together with India, Brazil and Japan (G4), drafted a resolution for Security Council reform, including the following elements. The Expansion of the Security Council by six permanent members (two seats each for Asia and Africa and one seat each for the Western Group and the Latin American-Caribbean Group). Another expansion four the Security Council to include four-five non-permanent members (one seat each for Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and one or two seats for Africa). So a total of 10 or 11 new seats on the Security Council. And finally a reform of working methods.
Wouldn’t Europe be overrepresented with one more permanent seat?
Reform as envisioned by the G4 proposal would not increase the relative share of seats held by EU member states. Currently, up to four EU member states max can be members of the Security Council at the same time. Adding France, it makes 30% of the Council representing Europe. After the reform, they would probably take up to six or seven of what would then be 25 or 26 seats. This would not be an increase, but even a slight decrease to less than one-third of the seats.
Article 23 of the United Nations Charter provides that the Security Council should be composed primarily of those states that make significant contributions to the work of the United Nations. Only in second place comes the criterion of geographically balanced distribution of seats. The EU member states are some of the strongest contributors of the United Nations.
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/A_59_L64.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
