Does permanent membership in the UN Security Council matter?
Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his Zimbabwean counterpart Mugabe recently have urged for reform in the UN Security Council. Well, their calling for reforms may not egg on the world community into serious consideration but the issue for some nations has become of extreme importance, undoubtedly. Germany, Japan, Brazil, India along with South Africa, Egypt and many others are fighting wholeheartedly to secure permanent membership in the Security Council. Japan's former PM Junichiro Koizumi, his Indian counterpart, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Brazilian President Lula urged nations to support them. This, invariably, creates an impression that they are in a rat-race, well, but for their betterment?
One side of the story is countries like India are suffering from countless severe issues from internal instability, terrorism, poverty and others. Thus, permanent membership in the Security Council may seem simply foreign policy glamour. The other side of the story is that domestic issues are of serious concern and need immediate domestic policy interventions. But then, can that be at the cost of foreign policy concerns? The People's Republic of China joined the Security Council in 1971 when it didn’t have economic prosperity as it has today and it had the same problems that India still suffers from.
Reforms in the UN Security Council are important to bring more democracy into the world's most powerful body as Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General said, “We are the ones who go around the world lecturing everybody about democracy. I think it is time we apply it to ourselves, and then show that there is effective representation.” More importantly, influential nations should join the Council for the interest of the world community to oppose US hegemony. The world might not have seen devastating wars like that in Iraq or Afghanistan, had India, Brazil, Japan or Germany been able to use a veto power. Moreover, even if permanent membership doesn't directly guarantee that age-old plights of developing countries in the IMF and WTO would be removed overnight, it will definitely enhance global integration. It might not give India or Brazil a status equal to that of the US or Russia, but it will certainly guarantee the end of a colonial attitude prevailing within and without for centuries. It’s clearly unfair that only 5 out of 191 nations enjoy the liberty of veto power and dictate the terms of world affairs while 186 nations wait for their two-year term of the non-permanent membership. If a nation is responsible to take care of the plight of its citizens, it also has the responsibility to take care of the poor, hungry and homeless Afghanis, who are victims of vulnerability. Ergo, the Security Council membership should be targeted not to fulfil one’s ego, but to ensure global equality.
But will the above mentioned nations be allowed to join? Japan is the 2nd largest donor to UN projects. Germany is a strong economy, donor and more importantly, a much more open nation than many western countries. Even India and Brazil fulfil all ‘written’ possible criteria to join the Council. But then, there’s much a slip between the cup and the ‘written’ lip.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his Zimbabwean counterpart Mugabe recently have urged for reform in the UN Security Council. Well, their calling for reforms may not egg on the world community into serious consideration but the issue for some nations has become of extreme importance, undoubtedly. Germany, Japan, Brazil, India along with South Africa, Egypt and many others are fighting wholeheartedly to secure permanent membership in the Security Council. Japan's former PM Junichiro Koizumi, his Indian counterpart, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Brazilian President Lula urged nations to support them. This, invariably, creates an impression that they are in a rat-race, well, but for their betterment?
One side of the story is countries like India are suffering from countless severe issues from internal instability, terrorism, poverty and others. Thus, permanent membership in the Security Council may seem simply foreign policy glamour. The other side of the story is that domestic issues are of serious concern and need immediate domestic policy interventions. But then, can that be at the cost of foreign policy concerns? The People's Republic of China joined the Security Council in 1971 when it didn’t have economic prosperity as it has today and it had the same problems that India still suffers from.
Reforms in the UN Security Council are important to bring more democracy into the world's most powerful body as Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General said, “We are the ones who go around the world lecturing everybody about democracy. I think it is time we apply it to ourselves, and then show that there is effective representation.” More importantly, influential nations should join the Council for the interest of the world community to oppose US hegemony. The world might not have seen devastating wars like that in Iraq or Afghanistan, had India, Brazil, Japan or Germany been able to use a veto power. Moreover, even if permanent membership doesn't directly guarantee that age-old plights of developing countries in the IMF and WTO would be removed overnight, it will definitely enhance global integration. It might not give India or Brazil a status equal to that of the US or Russia, but it will certainly guarantee the end of a colonial attitude prevailing within and without for centuries. It’s clearly unfair that only 5 out of 191 nations enjoy the liberty of veto power and dictate the terms of world affairs while 186 nations wait for their two-year term of the non-permanent membership. If a nation is responsible to take care of the plight of its citizens, it also has the responsibility to take care of the poor, hungry and homeless Afghanis, who are victims of vulnerability. Ergo, the Security Council membership should be targeted not to fulfil one’s ego, but to ensure global equality.
But will the above mentioned nations be allowed to join? Japan is the 2nd largest donor to UN projects. Germany is a strong economy, donor and more importantly, a much more open nation than many western countries. Even India and Brazil fulfil all ‘written’ possible criteria to join the Council. But then, there’s much a slip between the cup and the ‘written’ lip.
Read these article :-
No comments:
Post a Comment