SECURITY COUNCIL DECISION MAKING: for them or us?

BY: EDETANLEN STEPHEN (ESQ.)

With the establishment of the United Nations in the last century, the world had hoped to have an organized global forum and pseudo-executive system within which the nations of the world would find some common grounds, creating a sort of fellowship and sense of oneness which when harnessed would prove a strong enough platform for meeting of the minds, trashing out militating differences in national policies of members and moulding a paradigm for enduring global peace and security. The paramount basis for this arrangement was the fostering of global peace and security, together with the enabling structural and logistical prerequisites. To be effective in its purpose, five principal organs constitute the UN –though the continued relevance of one is uncertain. These organs are the General Assembly, Security Council, the Secretariat, International Court of Justice, the Trusteeship Council and Economic and Social Council.

The objectives of this multilateral global organization, the UN, were very desirable and quite laudable, to say the least. For the successful realization of these laudable objectives, however, it is pertinent for the organization to enjoy the trust of, at least, its members. The organizational machinery has to be dependable, effective and efficient. It should be capable of being relied upon. Due to the national and regional dynamics of the membership of the UN, a minimal level of trust will guarantee the functionality of this world organization. With a multi-national organization of this nature as the UN, with its large membership each of which has some “national interest” to protect, maintaining trust amongst them requires a high level of transparency and accountability.

Of the primary organs of this gigantic organization, without doubt, the two most important are the General Assembly and Security Council. Necessarily, therefore, it is in these two organs that transparency and accountability, which are foundational for the requisite trust, are most imperative. A review of the works and actions of these two organs discloses gross deficiency of trust, which is more pronounced in the Security Council! A simple and generally recognized means of attaining and manifesting trust is the adoption of open and democratic processes in decision-making. By and large, democracy is synonymous with transparency and accountability. Due to the sensitive responsibilities and significance of the Security Council, it is very important that it be seen as truly focused on the peace and security concerns of the global community and responsive to the interests of all its members. The General Assembly, on the other hand, could pass for a democratic plenary body. The representatives, apparently reach decisions based on consensus of the majority. The same cannot be said of the Security Council. Unfortunately, the Assembly cannot make decisions that are mandatory or binding on the members, whereas the Security Council can. The poser is: can the Security Council afford to be democratic? This would mean acceding to the views of the majority, irrespective of the reasonableness, sensitiveness or otherwise of the question for determination.

Understandably, the founders of the UN did not think it wise to trust the maintenance of international peace and security in the hands of every member of the organization, nor subject the matter to the democratic deliberations of the whole body. Besides the necessity of efficient running and prompt decision-making, it was easier to trust global peace and security in the hands of a few allied powers that prevailed against the axis powers in 1945—nations which had proved their military might and share similar political ideologies. That may have been the case then. But the world has moved on since then. The leaders of the axis powers then, Germany, Japan and Italy, are now major players in recent peace and security initiatives. Indeed, Japan and Germany are second only to the United States, with regards to financial contributions to the UN. This goes to show that the dispensation of 1945 is much different from what obtains now. Furthermore, it is unthinkable that the founders of the UN intended for the decisions by the Security Council be reached for purposes other than the genuine maintenance of peace and security in the world. Sadly, this is often the case today. Instead of taking decisions based, primarily, on maintaining global peace and security, “national interests” of members of the Security Council are the principal considerations, with lots of lobbying, arm-twisting and manipulation being employed to attain selfish national goals. Tens of thousands of people could be perishing in a region or country and the Council will not lift a real finger, because the “national interest” of its powerful members is not threatened or affected. This is so even where the disturbing development has been extensively deliberated by the General Assembly.

It is not in dispute that the circumstances of this day are not the same as those prevailing during the formation of the UN. What is not agreed upon is whether this changed circumstances sufficiently necessitates altering the decision-making process of the Security Council. Naturally, leading the pack of the proponents of maintaining the status quo are the current permanent members of the Council. Whatever position may be found agreeable to individual or group intellectual or political leanings, a factor that cannot be disregarded is that the current procedure and process of arriving at decisions in the Council cannot continue. The reason for this is the gross misplacement of priority in Council deliberations by its members. The system must be reformed so as to be transparent. The UN was not founded, ex facie, to protect the “national interests” of certain nations merely, but for the peace and security of every nation of the world. The overly politicization of the decision-making apparatus of the Security Council is unacceptable. It must be open, transparent and made accountable.