Beyond the High Level Panel recommendations
Reform of the Security Council and the General assembly
In September 2003 UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, spoke of the need for the Security Council to regain “the confidence of states and world public opinion.”
On 2 December 2004 the United Nations’High Level Panel on Threats , Challenges and Change, which had been appointed by Kofi Annan as a result of his concern, published its 99 page report. The panel of experts, chaired by the former Prime Minister of Thailand, Anand Panyarachun, consulted widely, including governments, academic experts and civil society organisations around the world. The report is wide-ranging, very impressive and likely to make a major contribution towards a world of greater justice, health, prosperity, peace and security.
However, the panel admitted certain limitations and uncertainties and did not discuss, on a number of occasions, how some outcomes they desired should be achieved. The panel was precluded from looking in depth at individual conflicts. This meant that their ability to propose solutions was limited because there was no proper analysis of the problems. The panel desired a more effective General Assembly and made some useful but insufficient proposals. It desired greater transparency and accountability in the Security Council without suggesting how this might be obtained. It recognised that the veto in the Security Council was “an anachronism” but failed to propose its abolition. And whilst emphatically agreeing that the Security Council should be expanded admitted that “members of the panel disagree about the models put forth for Security Council expansion and the method for determining criteria for Security Council membership.”
This brief paper looks at these issues, but for greater analysis of some of the major problems facing the United Nations please see the pamphlet Lessons from Iraq - the UN must be reformed, which is available from Action for UN Renewal.
The most important recommendation of the high level panel was its last one. “All member states should rededicate themselves to the purposes and principles of the Charter and to applying them in a purposeful way, matching political will with the necessary resources. Only dedicated leadership within and between states will generate effective collective security for the 21st century and for a future that is both sustainable and secure.”
Above all else, reform of the United Nations must consist of establishing the commitment of all nations to the aims and principles expressed in the Charter of the United Nations. In addition, and overlooked by the panel, all UN bodies must also work in conformity with UN aims and principles.
In recent years some countries, in furthering their own ends, have waged wars of aggression against other countries or have used sanctions and unfair trading arrangements to the serious harm of millions of people. Some countries have committed human rights abuses and have foreign policies which are in sharp contrast with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. The Security Council, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, in spite of much diligent work, have all been guilty of violations of human rights, unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states and have been forgetful of their duties under the Charter.
If the 191 states which have signed the Charter of the United Nations had all acted in good faith over the last 60 years then the world would have been transformed into a world of peace, friendship and prosperity the like of which has never before been known by mankind. In spite of the remarkable success of UN humanitarian activities, and the fact that nations trade and communicate on a friendly basis within international law and on a massive scale, wars and preparations for wars have never ceased during the lifetime of the United Nations. Desperate poverty has increased and economic incompetence or malice has led to growing imbalance and suffering in the world. A low estimate is that thirty million people have died in wars since the end of the Second World War.
Until we bring all member countries of the United Nations into compliance with the principles expressed in the Charter of the United Nations there is likely to be continuing fear, the wasting of human talent and the world’s resources, a burden on taxation, reduced living standards, international violence and destruction, and premature death and misery for thousands if not millions of people. Meaningful arms control and reduction agreements will continue to elude us. There is the danger, already experienced in a small way, that injustice and violence in some parts of the world will spread violence to regions at present enjoying the fruits of peace. Something more than hope is needed to achieve genuine commitments to UN principles on the part of governments. The pretence that nothing is wrong or that gross abuse of international law or human rights is too sensitive an issue to discuss has got us where we are today. Only when problems are confronted may there be an opportunity to find solutions.
1. Countries which show clear opposition to the principles and aims of the Charter should be investigated and reported to the General Assembly. A country which is in clear breach of the Charter should be rebuked or considered for suspension or even expulsion. Rogue nations should be expected to reform their attitudes and policies. All countries should be expected to act within international law and contribute to the well-being of all mankind.
2. UN institutions must be required to act in conformity with the Charter and countries and individuals, acting in the name of the UN, and responsible for aberrations from the Charter or even crimes under international law must be held responsible.
“The Security Council needs greater credibility, legitimacy and representation to do all that we demand of it.” Statement by the High Level Panel, page 14.
If one translates this diplomatic description of this key council of the United Nations into plain English we can see we are confronted with major problems that requires substantial remedial work.
The Security Council with its fifteen members (including the five permanent members: China, America, Russian Federation, France and Britain), has responsibility for the prime aim of the United Nations, that of ridding the world of the scourge of war. It is seriously dysfunctional. In spite of many successes the general picture is that it has failed in its task and continues to fail. Largely to blame are its permanent members who have been guilty of the very offences they are charged with preventing. Furthermore, the Security Council has silently condoned misdeeds committed by this group of five uniquely powerful nations. The present permanent members have supplied 88% of the weapons to the world’s conflicts, have developed arsenals which are way beyond any reasonable defence need (including massive stocks of weapons of mass destruction), and some are responsible for major acts of international aggression and violations of human rights.
There are three key elements to the reform of the Security Council.
· First, the Security Council structure and procedures must be reformed to make it more democratic and more fairly representative of the people of the world.
· Second, the people of the world need to be honestly informed about what is going on in the Security Council.
· Third, when things go wrong or illegal or unconstitutional action is contemplated, taken or authorised by the Security Council then the world must be unequivocally informed and the nations or individuals responsible must be held to account for their actions.
Permanent members have enjoyed an unjustifiable and unnecessary privilege which contravenes the basic UN principle of equality of nations. That is the power to veto resolutions. This power to veto resolutions has often been used as a gesture rather than used as a meaningful expression of real power. For example, the US blocked a resolution condemning Saddam Hussein’s gassing of Kurds at Halabja. A mere vote against that resolution would have been an equal expression of support for Saddam Hussein. The High Level Panel clearly does not like the veto. It described it as “an anachronism”. So why keep it?
Negative votes can cause nothing positive to happen. Real power and influence in the world does not bear much relationship to voting rights at the United Nations. We know that the United States has more power and influence in the world than France. Yet they both have the veto. So the veto, this long-standing anomaly in the Charter, should be abolished. Giving up the veto would gain for the permanent members the respect of the world for their demonstration of commitment to democratic principles.
This reform can be achieved quite simply. (See Starting the Reform Process.)
Two plans have been put forward by the panel - both having much to recommend them. However, Kofi Annan is open to “any other viable proposals in terms of size and balance that have emerged on the basis of either model.”
The panel suggests that the Security Council should, “increase the involvement in decision-making of those who contribute most to the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically.” It also suggests that it should, “bring into the decision-making process countries more representative of broader membership, especially the developing world.” And, “should increase the democratic and accountable nature the body.” These are all sound ideas in principle but difficulties immediately arise. How are we to balance the various contributions that countries make? How would you measure diplomatic contributions against financial contributions? And how are we to cope with situations in which diplomatic and military contributions may vary greatly from one year to another?
It appears that to achieve the desired expansion the proposed criteria need simplifying. The following proposal is inevitably somewhat arbitrary but would have a simple logic and would deliver a sort of rough justice which might win general assent.
It seems most sensible that those who contribute most to the UN budget should be represented in the Securtiy Council. To arrive at a workable final figure of about two dozen, and bearing in mind the need to improve democratic involvement by another process, the eight largest contributors to the UN budget might be chosen.
It is also important that the most populous nations be represented. In addition to the most highly populated states already present on the first list we add more to arrive at a total of sixteen. This would give us a new permanent membership of the Security Council consisting of (in order of population size) China, India, USA, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Japan, Russian Federation, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Spain and Canada.
All the present permanent members would be included under this allocation. Asia would have six members under this scheme, Europe six, North America two, Africa one and South America one. Approximately two thirds of world population would be represented by these countries.
More can be achieved. The above proposal would leave approximately two billion people without representation in the Security Council.
Yet by setting up regional security councils every country in the world could have a voice in discussions on major issues of international peace and security. Furthermore it could also incorporate another panel recommendation (Paragraph 271). The panel noted, “since the establishment of the United Nations, a considerable number of regional and subregional groupings have been established. Some of these groupings have made important contributions to the stability and prosperity of their members, and some of them have begun to address directly threats to peace and security. We believe the United Nations should encourage the establishment of such groupings.”
It seems sensible, therefore, in the major regions of the world that there should be set up Regional Security Councils to discuss peace and security concerns and make recommendations on major issues. Something similar was envisaged and is authorised in the Charter in article 52. All states in each region would be entitled to send a representative to Regional Security Council meetings. Workable groupings of countries might be as follows: Asia, Europe, North America, Africa, South America, plus the Middle East, South Pacific Islands (including Australia and New Zealand), and Central America with the Caribbean Islands. Regional Security Councils would each elect a representative to the international Security Council for a set period of perhaps three or four years. They would be better qualified to choose their representatives than the General Assembly.
As Africa and Asia would be relatively less well represented in relation to their populations these regions should be allocated an extra seat each in the international Security Council. North America would require no regional seat because it would be represented twice under an earlier proposal and the size of its population makes it seem fair to have no further representation.
With the addition of the nine representatives of regional security councils there would be 25 members in the expanded international Security Council. Sixteen states would be permanent members the other nine seats would be given to the permanent representation of the regions.
A nation which failed to keep up its financial contributions to the UN would forfeit its seat on the Security Council. The General Assembly (or a committee set up by the General Assembly) would adjudicate on any dispute on this topic.
We put the case for greater transparency and accountability of the Security Council to the high level panel. Their report says, “We recommend that processes to improve transparency and accountability be incorporated and formalised in the council’s rules of procedure” (paragraph 258).
A major weakness of the United Nations is its inability to be self-critical. Credibility cannot be restored until it finds a way to cope with major failings.
In recent years the Security Council has failed to work fairly and within international law. Ways must be found to make the Security Council accountable for its actions. Formal monitoring of its work must take place. This might be done by a committee which would itself be accountable to the world and the General Assembly. An annual report would be of no use in the fast moving circumstances of conflict situations. The committee would need to give daily reports in the way that politicians and political commentators do at present. It would daily announce to the press its assessments of the work and workings of the principle Security Council. The committee’s role would be simple but very important: to evaluate and comment on the work and deliberations of the council in the light of the requirements of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Had such a committee existed in 2002 and 2003 it would have urged the Security Council to take action to deal with the threat to peace which was so obviously posed the US and Uk in their proposed attack on Iraq. It would have pointed out, as Kofi Annan did after the event, that such an attack was illegal. It would have drawn attention to resolutions 1441, 678 and 687 to point out that nothing in these resolutions gave any self-appointed pair of countries the right to embark on an attack on the non-threatening people of Iraq.
If took action which it considered to be illegal it would draw the matter to the attention of the president of the General Assembly. It would be the duty of the General Assembly to take appropriate action. In extreme cases, for example, the genocidal sanctions against Iraq, the General Assembly might set up a tribunal to bring to trial, under international law (such as that set out in the Nuremberg Principles) individuals responsible for such a major crime.
The Security Council should meet only in open session. There can be no justification for meeting behind closed doors when issues which concern the entire world are at stake.
In addition to the formal monitoring of the work of the Security Council it is already open to any citizen or citizens’ group to read transcripts of the deliberations of the Security Council and draw the attention of the public to any concerns. The reporting might be done easily through the internet. It would be very helpful if the mass media would take a more responsible and involved role in the business of the UN, informing the public on subjects of great importance and wide general interest throughout the world. It is surprising that no newspaper or news channel in Britain appears to have read for themselves the texts of the SC resolutions which are alleged to have authorised the attack on Iraq in 2003. This sort of thing is a major dereliction of journalistic duty which all supporters of the UN and international law should protest about.
The monitoring and reporting carried out by both the official committee and ordinary citizens should help to ensure that the Security Council works with fairness, integrity and in accordance with the aims and principles of the Charter. It would provide the people of the world with an accurate interpretation of the work of the Council and act as a counterweight to the interpretations given by politicians which may sometimes be misleading.
Under the Charter the Security Council is required to report to the General Assembly (Article 24/3). It should be the duty of the General Assembly to examine matters of concern and take appropriate action, including, if necessary, investigations of suggestions of serious breaches of the Charter or international law that may have been committed by either the Security Council itself, or other UN bodies, or states acting in the name of the Security Council. For example, there were major crimes committed when America bombed civilian infrastructure of Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, and when the UN Security Council itself operated sanctions against Iraq. Under sanctions a great deal of humanitarian aid such as chemicals for purifying water was withheld. The scale of the sanctions had a devastating impact and resulted in the deaths of around 1,000,000 Iraqis. (More details may be found in Lessons from Iraq, the UN must be reformed.)
We put these concerns to the High Level Panel. Whether in response to our submission or not the High Level Panel’s Report says, “Sanctions committees should improve procedures for providing humanitarian exemptions and routinely conduct assessments of the humanitarian impact of sanctions. The Security Council should continue to strive to mitigate the humanitarian consequences of sanctions.” (Paragraph 181)
But this is hardly sufficient. The needless deaths of so many people and the grave damage to the reputation of the United Nations requires that action be taken when such crimes are committed. The General Assembly should take the initiative in setting up appropriate tribunals.
The anomalous power in this matter, granted to the Security Council in Article 6, should be removed from the Charter. In view of the too commonly reprehensible behaviour of states much illegal and inhumane behaviour may necessarily escape censure. However, when of the crimes of States are an affront to the world the General Assembly should act to consider suspension of the State which has shown itself in flagrant violation of the aims and principles of the United Nations. The General Assembly is fully empowered to consider suspension or expulsion of member states under Article 18/2. At the very least, such states should hear a motion of censure passed against them.
The General Assembly already has the right, under GA Resolution 377 (often described as the Uniting for Peace Resolution), to take over from the Security Council if the Security Council fails to act to deal with threats of aggression or actual aggression. In 2002, Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, wrote to members of the General Assembly putting pressure on member states not to discuss the looming war against Iraq. The General Assembly must unite to resist such pressure.
Since these institutions have sometimes been associated with bringing economic disaster to countries a monitoring committee, similar to the one described above, should be set up to assess how far their directives comply with the Charter and the likely impact of decisions of these bodies on human rights and independence in the countries with which they deal.
1. A key step will be the assertion, by the General Assembly of its authority. The General Assembly, consisting as it does of representatives of the world’s governments, is the ultimate authority in the United Nations and the ultimate political authority the world. It carries responsibility for the functioning of its various bodies. It has the right and the duty to carry out reforms when desirable, ensure the proper functioning of UN bodies and take disciplinary action if necessary. There is no higher authority. The first step that the General Assembly should take is to remove from the Charter an extraordinary veto power. This is the veto power on the subject of UN reform and the discussion of reform given to any one of the present permanent members of the Security Council. This matter is referred to in articles 108 and 109 of the Charter.
2. The General Assembly (or a body which it sets up) must take responsibility for dealing with the most serious international crimes and be willing to set up tribunals when the new International Criminal Court is unable to act. It is necessary for the General Assembly to take action because the Security Council has shown itself unable to be impartial or willing to take action in major instances. At present the jurisdictions of the World Court and the International Criminal Court are limited.
3. The General Assembly must particularly address concerns about the behaviour of the United States which has a long record of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states and committing acts of aggression against sovereign states. Another concern is Israel which has a record over several decades of ignoring UN resolutions concerning its actions. There are human rights concerns with these countries and with a number of other states.
4. Citizens, citizens’ groups and the media of the world can immediately develop the monitoring of the Security Council and other UN bodies.
5. Some regional groupings of states which meet to discuss peace and security already exist (for example, the African Union). These might become the bases of some of the Regional Security Councils. Nations not recognised as independent states might also be represented in these councils.
6. Peace groups and all other groups around the world concerned with ensuring that all regions of the world enjoy the fruits of peace can debate how the UN might best be reformed and adopt resolutions calling for the reform of the UN. They can lobby their own elected representatives and governments to comply with international law and the prescriptions of the Charter. They can also lobby their media to report UN events and issues more fully and publicise their own conclusions on the topic.
David Roberts, Member of Executive Committee of Action for UN Renewal. The above suggestions are personal ideas and may not be fully shared by members of Action for UN Renewal. 1 April 2005
The author can be contacted at dave@warpoetry.co.uk
For a fuller account of the astonishing failures of the UN Security Council (as shown by its dealings with Iraq over the past 14 years) see the pamphlet, Lessons from Iraq, The UN must be reformed. This 24 page pamphlet also gives a more detailed account of the reforms that are needed and why. It is published by Action for UN Renewal and can be obtained in the UK from
Action for UN Renewal
46 Brixton Hill Court
Brixton Hill
LONDON
SW2 1QY
Price £1-50 including postage. Cheques should be made payable to Action for UN Renewal. Five or more £1 each including postage.
Why not join Action for UN Renewal
Action for UN Renewal campaigns for a peaceful and secure world and believes this can best be achieved by nations acting in accordance with the aims and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We campaign for the United Nations itself to be reformed so that it can work effectively. This means, in particular, finding ways to ensure that the United Nations Security Council itself complies with the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter.
We regard The Charter of the United Nations as the most important document in international relations and seek to publicise the charter to the public at large and politicians, the media and other opinion leaders. We seek to influence our government to place at the heart of its foreign policy respect for international law and the Charter of the United Nations.
We need supporters to help develop this important work and welcome ideas, money and participation. Do join us.
Membership is only £3, (but will rise to £10 later in 2005 so this leaves scope to send a donation if you can afford more to help fund our work. Please send a cheque payable to Action for UN Renewal at:
Action for UN Renewal, 3 Whitehall Court, London SW1A 2EL
For further information phone 020 8399 2547 (UK)
· The prime aim of the United Nations is the ending of all war.
· All members have promised never to attack another state, and to act in conformity with justice and international law.
· All members agree to settle international disputes by peaceful means.
· No country may threaten the use of force or use force against another country except in self-defence.
· Members are expected to develop friendly relations with other nations based on equal rights and self-determination.
· Members are committed to work in co-operation with other states in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian character and to work to promote the economic and social advancement for all people.
· Members are committed to practising tolerance and respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
· Members are committed to providing military forces, if requested by the UN Security Council, to deal with any country committing an act of aggression against another country.
· The United Nations is committed to reducing armaments and using the human and physical resources thereby saved for the betterment of mankind.