On December 17, India's Prime Minister S Jaishankar delivered a speech at a meeting in Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka, criticizing the UN Security Council, saying that the council did not want to admit any new members. As a reason, he mentioned that the powers exercised by them might be challenged. They don't want to give up power.
Commenting on the growing role of the United Nations as a failed and ineffective organization, the Indian Minister said that the United Nations is completely ineffective in settling global disputes. The whole world is suffering from this. He believed that there was a need to reform the United Nations.
One might argue that this is not possible because India has been trying to gain a permanent seat on the Security Council for a long time, as the current permanent members do not agree.
Jaishankar may have said this in this way. Notably, in September last year, Jaishankar also said that despite efforts to carry out reforms, those with more power at the UN had repeatedly rejected the request. He further added that over time, the organization will lose its role and many will try to solve their problems in other ways.
India may have a reason. But why are the peace-loving people of the world so frustrated with the role of the UN Security Council in protecting people's lives?There is no doubt that the Security Council, in carrying out the mandate entrusted to it to settle disputes through peaceful means, has failed to act in a timely manner on global crises.
Even the Security Council has failed to maintain international peace and security, which is one of the four major responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter of the United Nations. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq without UN authorization, the Security Council's failure to take action against Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and Israel's ongoing genocide in Palestine are some examples.
When Palestinians were killed by Israeli soldiers (already more than 18,000), the UN had nothing to do but remain a silent bystander.
On 8 December, when the United States exercised its veto, the Security Council failed to adopt a resolution on a ceasefire in the Israeli-Hamas war. However, on 12 December, the 193-member UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution was adopted, with 153 countries voting in favor, 23 abstaining (including the United Kingdom) and 10 countries voting against, including Israel and the United States. While the resolution is non-binding, it is a global benchmark. But will this resolution force the Israeli military to stop innocent Palestinians?
Bangladesh has yet to repatriate the Rohingya who have taken refuge in Bangladesh to its own soil, although it has been working on all fronts. Despite widespread global support for the Rohingya, the Security Council has failed to find an effective solution to the Rohingya crisis. About six years have passed, and the United Nations has been unable to persuade or force Myanmar to reclaim the Rohingya. How can the United Nations protect the security of the world's people if it acts only on the dictates of the permanent members?So far, no legal action has been taken against Myanmar for committing genocide against the Rohingya. Any development that the developed countries show us is nothing more than a whitewashing.
In fact, we can see that when there is a large-scale** or invasion anywhere in the world, the United Nations cannot function as recommended by the majority of its members. That is the aspiration of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Even if a permanent member of the Council exercised the right of veto, no resolution would be adopted. This means that the five permanent members run the UN as they please, and the rest of the member states only implement or follow their decisions. As a result, veto-wielding countries have been abusing the United Nations to advance their own agendas.
So, what is the role of other Member States in the UN system?Are they used according to the will of these five permanent members?If that is the case, let the United Nations be the only organization in which these five countries can take care of their own interests. Otherwise, the veto system should be abolished and it would become a democratic organization in which every member state could exercise equal rights in the adoption of resolutions. How can the UN talk about democracy and equal rights in every country if the UN itself does not have a global** or equal rights representative?
Aware of the reality, there are calls for reform of the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular. In December 1992, the General Assembly established an open-ended working group to review the question of equitable distribution of seats on the Council. In the absence of substantive results, in October 2008, the United Nations formally authorized inter-governmental negotiations on "equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council". After 15 years of futile discussions, the diplomatic impasse remains, in part because member states have never agreed to negotiate on the basis of a single rolling text. Based on this experience, it was rightly said that, therefore, every year at the opening ceremony of the UN General Assembly in New York, the futile diplomatic merry-go-round is repeated.
It is true that the veto can be dissuaded, but it cannot be removed. No provision of the UN Charter is more repugnant than the veto, which not only allows the permanent members to block collective action, but also protects themselves and their allies from accountability. However, the removal of this privilege is highly unlikely, as this decision requires the approval of all permanent members. And that will never happen. Therefore, the protection of other countries will depend on the benevolence of these five Member States. It's real estate, and we have to accept it.