The Misuse of the UN Security Council by
the Big Powers
It is generally acknowledged that the response
of the UN Security Council to the Israeli aggression against Lebanon has contributed
to further lowering of reputation of the United Nations, particularly the
Security Council, in the eyes of the vast majority of people. The United States
and Britain played a most despicable role by opposing the almost universal demand
for a cease fire. Instead, they openly supported the Israeli aggression and
opposed any humanitarian considerations. The Canadian government, even though
it is not a member of the Security Council, took the same position. The
resolution that was finally agreed upon, weeks after the start of the war, did
not even mildly rebuke Israel and actually left the door open for it to carry
out "defensive" military operations within Lebanon. Even the most
ardent defender of the UN Security Council would be hard pressed to describe
its response as an act of upholding international peace and security, let alone
one of defending the sovereignty of Lebanon, one of the member states of the
United Nations.
If it was only a matter of the UN Security
Council harming its own reputation then maybe it could be ignored. Regrettably,
as its stands today, the Security Council is a powerful tool of the big powers.
When the United Nations was conceived by the most powerful of the victorious
allied countries after the Second World War - United States, Soviet Union and
Britain - they created an 11 member Security Council with five permanent
members, including themselves, France and China, which had virtual control over
all matters relating to international peace and security. The UN Charter, the
founding document of the United Nations, did not give the General Assembly any
real control over the Security Council or over matters relating to
international peace and security. The Security Council was empowered to make
decisions and undertake actions against member and non-member states, including
economic, political and military sanctions, without the consent of the General
Assembly. At the same time, the UN
Charter made it obligatory that the member states abide by the decisions of the
Security Council. The rationale was to "ensure prompt and effective
action".
Articles 12, 24 and 25 of the UN Charter
provide the legal basis for this arrangement. Article 24 states: "In order to ensure prompt and effective
action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council
primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security,
and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the
Security Council acts on their behalf. In discharging these duties the Security
Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United
Nations." Article 12 states: "While the Security Council is
exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it
in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation
with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so
requests." Article 25 states: "The Members of the United Nations
agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in
accordance with the present Charter."
Thus, even though the UN Charter declared as
one of its principles that countries have equal rights, it also contained
within it the contradictory provision that the permanent members of the
Security Council would have more rights than other members of the United
Nations. Not only was the Security Council made into a power separate from and
above the General Assembly, but the victorious allied powers also gave
themselves a veto on the Council. Any one of the permanent members could
paralyze the Security Council from taking any action by using their veto, or by
threatening to use it, which some analysts have called the "hidden
veto". Alternatively, the big five
could also gang up against other countries and act against them, whether or not
these countries were in violation of the UN Charter, while the countries
subject to punishment would have no legal recourse. Given the political
realities after the Second World War, the United Nations could not have come
into existence without the UN Charter making this exception to the equality
principle in its organization. Albeit for different reasons, the allied powers
would not have agreed to any other form of organization.
Both things have happened regularly over the
past 60 years. The permanent members use their veto power to control the
Security Council's agenda and prevent it from discussing crises that fall
within their spheres of interest. For example, the Security Council never
debated the Algerian war or the partitioning of India because of the hidden
vetoes of France the Britain, nor did it take up the U.S. aggression in Vietnam
or the Soviet war in Afghanistan, or the British occupation of Northern
Ireland. On the other hand, the UN Security has ganged up on various countries
over the years. For instance, it recently passed a resolution against North
Korea for its testing of ballistic missiles. A few days later India conducted
its own ballistic missile test but the Security Council did nothing about it.
The question arises in many people's minds why the Security Council views the
missile tests by North Korea are a threat to international peace and security
while the same activity by India, USA, Russia, China, Britain and France are
not threats to international peace and security. There are hundreds of other
cases just like this which give rise to the perception that Security Council
has a double-standard - one standard for the big powers and their friends, and
another standard for everyone else - and the standard is not based on upholding
the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
In 1965 the United Nations added four
non-permanent members to the Security Council bringing the total membership to
15 with five permanent members with veto power and ten rotating non-permanent
members that are elected for a term of two years and have no veto right. Even
though it was a positive step to enlarge the Security Council, this reform did
not improve the situation. Even though the UN Charter does not provide a right
of veto on procedural matters, the big five insist on their right to set the
boundaries of what may and may not be said in the Security Council. The elected
members are discouraged from raising certain topics. Even when elected members
challenge the veto system they are put in their place. For example, when Ambassador
Peter Van Walsum of the Netherlands, one of the
elected states on the Council for 1999-2000, interjected a statement about
Chechnya in a Council debate on another subject, Ambassador Sergey Lavrov of Russia immediately interrupted the debate to make
clear that, as a veto power, he would block any further discussion on the
topic. The president of the Council ruled that Van Walsum
was out of order and the matter never arose again.
One rationale for the Security Council having
such great power is that it needs the freedom to act promptly and effectively
in emergencies. This rationale has failed the test of time. For example, on
August 1, the Security Council passed a resolution giving Iran until August 31
to stop its nuclear research and development, even though, as a signatory of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is entitled to engage in this activity.
There was no urgency for such a resolution. Iran poses no danger to
international peace and security. There is no evidence that it is building
nuclear weapons. The only issue was that Iran had announced that it would only
be ready to reply to the proposal from the Group of 5+1 on August 22. The Security Council could not wait three
more weeks to hear what the Iranian government had to say. In contrast, when a
real breach of the peace occurred with Israel's invasion of Lebanon, the UN
Security Council was paralyzed by the United States and Britain. It took 33
days for the Security Council to agree on the terms for a "cessation of
hostilities".
All of this is not to say that the founding of
the United Nations was a mistake. One of the positive aspects to the founding
of the United Nations lay in its proclamation of a universal standard for
relations among states based on respect for the equality and sovereignty of all
member states irrespective of their social systems. It also proclaimed the
right of all nations and peoples to self-determination including their right to
choose their social, economic and political system. Finally, it proclaimed a
system for the peaceful resolution of disputes between states. All members
states, particularly the allied powers, were supposed to be bound by these new
standards that arose out of the anti-fascist and anti-colonial struggle against
Germany and Japan during the Second World War. Instead, the United States,
Britain and France, and later the Soviet Union, took over from where Germany
and Japan left off. From an instrument that was supposed to protect
international peace and security, the UN Security Council became a tool of the
big powers to interfere in the internal affairs of many countries and to wage
war against others.
Clearly there is an urgent need for the UN
Charter to be revised so that the Security Council is truly accountable to the
General Assembly. Firstly, the General Assembly should have the final say on
all matters relating to international peace and security. These issues are far
too important for humankind to leave in the hands of a few countries to decide
based on their own narrow interests, especially since the current permanent
members of the Security Council have proven themselves unfit to defend the
principles and purposes of the United Nations. Secondly, all members of the
Security Council should be elected by the General Assembly. The status of
"permanent member" should be abolished along with the veto. The
number of seats on the Council should be
expanded, with equal representation for all regions of the world, in order to
ensure a wider participation and a global perspective. The domination of the
Security Council by Europe and the United States should be eliminated. Thirdly, due process must be guaranteed for
any state charged by the Security Council with violating a provision of the UN
Charter. The accused state must be afforded the right to be present, and the
right to defend itself, through all stages of the process. This should not be
interpreted as a privilege granted at the discretion of the Security Council as
it is today. A fair and impartial hearing based on strict rules of evidence
must be guaranteed in front of the Security Council with a right of appeal to
the General Assembly. Finally, any member state or group of states of the
United Nations, even if they are not members of the Security Council, should be
allowed to initiate an action within the Security Council. Such proposals must
be accorded the same status as those originating from the members of the
Security Council itself. Only in this way can the original spirit and intent of
the United Nations be implemented.