The geopolitical situation in the world makes it increasingly challenging to maintain the current global order. Since Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, invaded Ukraine in 2022, efforts to halt the conflict and maintain peace and security in the region have become nearly insurmountable. Kazakhstan, as a prominent middle power nation, is advocating for reforms not only within the United Nations but also within the UN Security Council to address future conflicts and misunderstandings.
Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, during his speech at the Astana International Forum in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, on Thursday, advocated for a reform of the UN Security Council to amplify the representation of "average states." He emphasized that while the UN remains the sole universal global organization encompassing all nations, it needs comprehensive reform within the Security Council to effectively address the challenges at hand.
According to President Tokayev, the current state of global instability has deep historical roots. He pointed out that the forces contributing to this instability are not solely of a geopolitical nature but also extend to economic aspects. He highlighted how economic policies are now being openly wielded as weapons, encompassing actions such as sanctions, trade conflicts, targeted debt strategies, limiting access to financing sources, and exerting control over investments. These combined factors are eroding the foundations that have supported global peace and prosperity over recent decades, such as free trade, global investment, innovation, and fair competition.
President Tokayev lamented that counteracting these negative trends is increasingly challenging, given the prevalence of misinformation. He noted that growing distrust among nations is leading to heightened defense expenditures, pushing the global order to a critical juncture. He pointed out that, for the first time in half a century, there is a looming prospect of nuclear weapon use.
Akorda.kz
The call for reform echoed at the General Debate of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly. According to President Tokayev, the multiple and often interconnected crises of recent years have exposed significant gaps in global governance. They have highlighted the need to modernize and reform the United Nations.
“The Organization has contributed strongly to the formation and strengthening of independent Kazakhstan. Over that period, we have worked for the aims of the Charter in all major UN organs, from ECOSOC to the Human Rights Council to the Security Council. Kazakhstan will remain at the forefront of advancing a more modern, efficient, transparent, and accountable Organization. Never in history have we had such a need for responsible leadership for the next generations. Remembering our past makes us responsible for our future”, explained Mr. Tokayev.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stands as the world's paramount authority on international peace and security. Since its inception after World War II, this body has played a critical role in managing global conflicts and crises. Yet, the UNSC's structure, particularly the allocation of permanent seats and the exercise of veto power, has long been a source of debate and discontent. The call for reform has resounded throughout the corridors of international diplomacy, prompting discussions, negotiations, and, at times, impassioned disagreements.
The Security Council, established under Chapter V of the United Nations Charter, is composed of fifteen members: five permanent members (the P5) - the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom - and ten non-permanent members elected on a rotating basis. The P5 enjoy the privilege of a veto power, enabling them to unilaterally block any substantive resolution. This structure, designed in the aftermath of World War II, reflects the geopolitical realities of that era, with little room for change or adaptability to modern challenges.
The reform of the UNSC is a complex and politically sensitive endeavor. Finding a balance between the principles of sovereign equality and the practical realities of international power dynamics remains a diplomatic challenge. A fundamental issue at the heart of the reform debate is the call for enhanced representation in the UNSC. Many countries, particularly those from Africa, South America, and other regions, argue that the council does not adequately reflect the world's current geopolitical landscape. They seek permanent seats to ensure their voices are heard.
Also, the veto power remains a contentious subject. States could focus on incremental reforms, such as a voluntary code of conduct regarding the use of the veto, with the hope that over time, trust and compromise might facilitate more substantial changes. Critics argue that it is undemocratic and can be used to protect national interests at the cost of global security. Reform proponents call for a more transparent and judicious use of the veto power, particularly in cases of mass atrocities or humanitarian crises.
The Security Council's mandate has expanded to include addressing contemporary global challenges such as climate change, cybersecurity, and pandemics. Many argue that the council's structure must evolve to better address these issues effectively.
The calls for reform of the UNSC are not new. They have been a recurrent theme in international diplomacy for decades. Various proposals and initiatives have been put forward, yet reaching a consensus has proven elusive. Increasing the number of non-permanent seats or creating a new category of semi-permanent members may be a viable option that does not directly challenge the veto power but can enhance representation.
For instance, the Group of Four (G4), comprising Germany, India, Brazil, and Japan, has lobbied for permanent seats on the UNSC. They argue that these countries represent the economic, political, and demographic realities of the 21st century. The African Union has consistently called for two permanent seats for African nations, in addition to other reforms, to address what they perceive as a historical injustice of underrepresentation. Over the years, several compromise proposals have emerged. These include a voluntary restraint on the use of the veto, more frequent reporting on its use, or an expanded P5 with additional permanent members from different regions to reduce the concentration of power.
Despite the urgency and widespread recognition of the need for reform, the UNSC remains fundamentally unchanged. The main hurdle to reform is the fact that any amendment to the UN Charter requires the unanimous consent of the P5 members. This presents a paradox, as it is the very P5 members who would potentially see their power reduced who must agree to the changes.
The reform of the UN Security Council is an imperative for the international community to ensure the institution remains effective, legitimate, and representative in addressing today's global challenges. However, the path to reform is fraught with challenges, reflecting the deep complexities of international diplomacy and power politics. The debate is ongoing, and while substantive changes may take time, the voices calling for reform are louder and more diverse than ever. The evolution of the UNSC will continue to be a defining issue in global politics, as the world grapples with an ever-changing geopolitical landscape and the necessity for a more equitable and responsive international security apparatus.
The issue of veto power within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has long been a point of contention, sparking intense debate among member states and international observers. The veto power, historically held by the five permanent members (P5) of the UNSC - the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom - has been a cornerstone of the council's decision-making process since its inception. However, it remains a topic of concern for those advocating for reform within the UN system.
The concept of the veto power was introduced as a means to ensure that the P5 members, who were the victors of World War II, maintained a central role in international security matters. The veto power allows each P5 member to unilaterally block any substantive resolution or decision proposed by the UNSC, thereby granting them a unique level of influence.
Critics argue that the veto power can be used to protect national interests at the expense of global security. They cite examples where veto-wielding members have blocked resolutions aimed at addressing humanitarian crises, conflict interventions, and other critical matters, often due to their own geopolitical interests.
Many member states, particularly those not holding permanent seats, advocate for reforms aimed at either limiting or making the use of the veto power more transparent and accountable. Some propose that it should not be used in situations involving mass atrocities or humanitarian crises.
The P5 members, on the other hand, have largely been reluctant to relinquish their veto power. They argue that the veto power remains a crucial tool for maintaining their commitment to international peace and security and protecting their national interests.
Various compromise proposals have been put forward. These include a voluntary restraint on using the veto in cases of mass atrocities, more frequent reporting on its use, or an expanded P5 with additional permanent members from different regions, which could potentially alleviate the concentration of power. The UN Charter, which established the UNSC and its veto power, remains a critical legal framework. Amending the charter would require the consent of the P5 members, which further complicates reform efforts.
The prevailing opinion among most contributors is that the United Nations Security Council's performance and its legitimacy have declined, especially in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It has long been recognized that the council's effectiveness relies on trust among the five permanent members (P5) and their willingness to refrain from using the veto power. During the relatively peaceful post-Cold War era of the 1990s, there was optimism that the council might finally achieve the goals set out in the UN Charter. However, this optimism gradually waned.
Tensions between the democratic and authoritarian members of the P5 resurfaced, exacerbated by events such as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the NATO-led intervention in Libya and its chaotic aftermath, the failure of UN diplomacy in the Syrian conflict, and the fallout from Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, among other disputes. Despite these challenges, the council still managed to insulate many of its activities from these frictions. For instance, it continued to reauthorize peacekeeping missions in numerous conflict zones. However, since February 2022, this compartmentalization has become increasingly challenging, endangering the council's capacity to serve as a platform for P5 compromise in a divided world. East-West tensions are now encroaching on its day-to-day deliberations, including the issuance of fundamental presidential and press statements.
A wide spectrum of voices, ranging from U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to the Biden administration and representatives from the Global South, has called for substantial and formal changes to the membership and powers of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Proposals have included ideas such as expanding the number of permanent members and exploring ways to limit or eliminate the veto power held by the P5 (the five permanent members). Some have even raised the possibility of using Article 109, the formal procedure within the Charter for revising it through a general conference. However, in an era marked by declining multilateralism, efforts to amend the U.N. Charter are more likely to disrupt existing structures of international cooperation rather than create a more equitable institution. As pointed out by Natalie Samarasinghe in a recent article, it seems improbable that a new organization could emerge from the current geopolitical complexities.
Significant reforms would necessitate a complete overhaul of the U.N. Charter and a genuine willingness to cooperate from the very same powerful member states that benefit substantially from the existing status quo. The only significant reform to the UNSC, which occurred in 1963, entailed a relatively minor adjustment when the P5 agreed to increase the number of non-permanent members, responding to pressure from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Importantly, this reform did not entail a relinquishment of their substantial powers.
The debate over the veto power at the UNSC reflects the broader tension between the principles of sovereign equality and the practical realities of international power dynamics. As the world grapples with evolving global challenges, such as humanitarian crises, climate change, and pandemics, the debate on the use of veto power is expected to persist and may play a pivotal role in the ongoing discussions about the reform of the UN Security Council. Finding a balance between the need for reform and the concerns of P5 members will remain a complex diplomatic challenge for the international community.