
Priyalina Basu
For a country, a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is to declare that it has ‘arrived’. But the elite club that controls world politics, especially its permanent members, the P5 (Britain, the US, France, Russia and China), is far from rolling out the red carpet for the arriveste powers like India and Brazil or for that matter even Germany and Japan.
The emerging powers, rather than push their way in with a bang, are willing to go slow and steady and compromise on the distinguishing feature of the power seat – the right of veto.
Anachronistic Approach
At a time when other multilateral set-ups like the IMF (International Monitory Fund) or the World Bank are going through reforms to be in touch with the new realities and shifting power-dynamics of the world, the UNSC prefers to be frozen in the past. This despite there being constant calls for its reform.
In 2004, a team of advisers came up with recommendations for reforming the UNSC. The G4 nations issued a joint statement to back each other’s claims for permanent membership. In 2006,
Most of the permanent members do realise that the time has come to accept that the emerging powers cannot be kept waiting or away from key decisions that affect them. According to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “A UNSC without
William Burns, the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, favoured
But in all the support, there has been no mention of
Necessity or Not?
Now the question is: Do we really need to have a veto power? Yes. Being an UNSC permanent member without the veto is like fighting without a weapon. It gives an edge during negotiations.
· Investigate any situation threatening international peace.
· Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute.
· Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations.
· Enforce its decisions militarily or by any means necessary.
· Oversee workings of the Counter Terrorism Committee (sets the benchmarks of counter terrorism practices at the global level) and the Military Staff Committee (that plans UN military missions and assists in the regulation of armaments)
However, all these are useless without the veto. Any of the UNSC’s permanent members can prevent the adoption of any (non-‘procedural’) UNSC draft resolution they dislike by using the veto. Even the mere threat of a veto may lead to changes in the text of a resolution, or it being withheld altogether (the so-called ‘pocket veto’). Therefore, it is probable that
But as the veto is not likely to be given up by the P5, a more realistic approach would suit