UN Security Council was created in the aftermath of World War II. The apprehension was that Nazi Germany might revive at some time in future along with its destructive agenda or that any other country in the world might take the cue from Nazi Germany to embark on a disastrous adventure. We do not know whether the sponsors of the idea of Security Council at that time had any inkling that more countries, besides the USA, would produce atom bomb, the deadliest weapon ever created by human beings. However after Hitler’s Germany was crushed and subjugated in WW-II, a dark shadow, more frightening than that of the Nazis, began to loom large over Europe and the world at large. It was the rising power of the Soviet Union. In all probability, the main actors at the UN wanted to secure Europe from a situation in which Soviet Union was likely to become an atomic power and thus rattle the sword. This threat was uppermost in the mind of those who floated the idea of forming Security Council as the most important organ of the United Nations as early as 1946.
Thus came into existence five permanent members of the Security Council plus ten non-permanent members who would be replaced after every three years. In essence, power and authority remained confined to Big Five only viz. USA, UK, Russia, France and China. Actually in 1949, the US had hinted she was interested in offering permanent membership to India but the then Prime Minister of India, declined to accept and recommended that China be taken in place of India. And today, China is foremost in opposing India’s membership of Security Council.
The world has travelled a long distance since the day when Security Council was created. Big changes have taken place and in terms of geopolitics entirely new scenario has emerged. Along with that perceptions have changed, new alignments have come into existence and old order no more holds good. The most conspicuous of these changes is that the Soviet Union has broken and China has emerged as the economic power of the world. New nuclear powers have emerged — China, India, Pakistan, and more of them like Iran, Israel, and South Africa are heading towards nuclear capability. At the same time some nations are on the threshold of becoming economic giants like India, Brazil, Germany and South Korea. Parameters of international trade and commerce have shifted and continue to shift from one pole to another and nobody can predict what global economic scenario will be a decade from now. Gulf, the great reservoir of hydrocarbon energy, has become the most sensitive flash point where world powers are anchored to protect their interests. Most importantly, the phenomenon of Theo-fascism is standing up to world peace and order with eyeball to eyeball stance. Democracy as political ideology is faced with grave threat from radicalism. The unfolding Armageddon of ISSI Caliphate in Iraq-Syrian region and its sectarian consequences are the phenomenon that could never have been anticipated way back in the days when SC was created.
All this speaks eloquently that the Security Council is faced with new challenges that are not confined to the Western democracies only but have their impact on entire globe. Almost all the five continents of the globe are involved in challenging Theo-fascist tendencies opening its fangs to stifle freedom in all forms. These concerns do not pertain to Big Five only but to the entire humanity the entire globe. The entire free world which has made enormous sacrifices to come to a stage where freedom of thought and expression, of action and initiation, of scientific inquiry and research all have reached the highest level but are threatened from within. The threat is not to a single country or a single society or a single region. It is to the entire world of reason, rationality and freedom. Free and progressive world has to stand up united to this challenge. Therefore no logic will support the idea of Security Council shunning from transparency and larger involvement of humanity in the task ahead.
India along with some more countries in the world has been stressing on the need of reform and rationality in the structure of the Security Council. While the Security Council was submitting its annual report to the General Assembly in NY, Indian ambassador to the UN reiterated India’s view that reform in SC was over due. Actually, reforms in the Council were mandated way back in 2005. Citing the examples of Golan Heights and Mali, Indian envoy asked whether there was rationality in asking India to provide peace keeping force but not seek her consultation in operational matters. On the issue of adequate representation in the Security Council, countries like India, Brazil, Germany and South Africa have been asking why they should not have their seats in the SC as permanent members. What rationale is there in keeping them out of the loop?
Follow our WhatsApp channel