|
If one applied the proportional formula of democratic elections, it should have been the five most populous states: China (1.3 billion), India (1.1 billion), the USA (250 million), Indonesia (180 million) and Brazil (160 million). In terms of the proportional formula, France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Russian Federation would not be part of the Big Five. Obviously, one of the recognised systems of applied democratic process was not the criterion for picking the Big Five. Another criterion that is normally used, for example in business companies, is majority shareholding. Kaizer Motaung may be a single person holding shares in Kaizer Chiefs Football Limited, but he is entitled to a plural vote, consonant with the value of shares he has invested in Kaizer Chiefs, irrespective of whether there are a million or more, other shareholders. This criterion was not used either, because if it had been applied, the top five contributors to the UN budget programme are USA, Japan, Russian Federation, Germany and France in that order. The USA alone pays 25 percent of the regular programme budget!
What criteria or criterion was used to have USA, UK, France, China and Russian Federation invested with veto power, remains a conundrum. From the documents of the UN, it appears that the five original “sponsors” of the UN Charter were US, UK, France, China and USSR, who presumably appropriated to themselves the entrenched privilege of the veto in their Dumbarton Oaks proposals towards the formation of the United Nations. Nonetheless, intriguing questions persist even here. Since France was represented by a provisional government as she was under Nazi occupation, the representation of France was at best by proxy and one might wonder loudly why Czechoslovakia or Poland were not similarly represented. China was not yet the Peoples Republic. In fact, the People’s Republic of China only took the Security Council seat in 1971. In view of this, the current China’s claim to sponsorship to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals can be, at best, of a dubious nature. The Russian Federation’s claim to original sponsorship is not proven beyond reasonable doubt either. Argument for her succession to the position of the USSR, dismantled with the fall of communism in 1991, is not at all watertight, as her geo-political map has been completely altered. . Besides, the combined populations of the states that hived away at the break-up of the USSR are almost equal to the population of the Russian Federation.
To my knowledge, the substitution of the USSR by the Russian Federation was not given an airing, either in the General Assembly or in the Security Council, which procedure betrays elemental conspiracy among the Big Five, alternatively, woeful dearth of transparency in the UN way-of-doing-things. The legitimacy of the criterion of sponsorship of the UN by the Perm 5 falls by the wayside on interrogating this alleged criterion.
What good has the veto been, in any case? Talk of restructuring the UN Security Council as per the recommendations of Secretary-General Kofi Annan has triggered capital debates within the world forum. Brazil, Japan, India and Germany, clubbing themselves together tinder the “Group of 4”, are fighting to be permanent members of the Security Council. Unlike the African Union (AU), which also supports the expansion of the Security Council, the Group of 4, apparently, is not insistent on the veto. AU members, quite understandably, believe, permanent membership of the Council is unworthy and discriminatory, sans the veto. I would certainly concur, if convinced, that the veto as wielded, by the Big Five, has been a positive process. All evidence about the veto
exercise, shows it has consistently been abused whenever it was invoked. It has systematically been used to score veto points, register strategic support for a wily miscreant to frustrate world community interest. The denial of mainland China to the Security Council seat until 1971, defiance of apartheid South Africa to General Assembly resolutions on Namibia’s failure to intervene to stop the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, failure by the Security Council to intervene decisively against Ian Smith’s white Rhodesia, was due to the veto! The Middle East stalemate is born of the veto! What more evidence can be adduced to prove that the veto has shamefully been for self-satisfying political gimmicks at the expense of the larger community?
One, only conclusion, appears to be the abolition of the veto at the UN! This is the minimum the Africans should demand at the on-going UN reform debate. Africa should not be bogged down by making prestigious demands, which in the context of power relations are hard to achieve and do not enhance prospects for MDGs. While the Big Five engage in mischievous power play, the AU should engage in pragmatic manoeuvres to get Africa out of the rut of poverty.
One is dismayed to learn that though members of the AU are tentatively agreed that only two permanent seats should be reserved for Aflica, almost half of them aspire to be in the two!
Majority of AU members struggle to pay their dues both at the UN and the AU and few can raise a platoon for the plethora of peacekeeping missions in Africa. Come on, Africa! This is not a tiny tots game!
|
