In another article, we referred to the three-day deliberations concluded on November 14th in the UN General Assembly, as regards the impending UN reforms. We quoted the words of Srgjan Kerim, the UN General Assembly President, who in his closing remarks said that: «the debate demonstrated the clear commitment of Member States to embark upon a new stage that offers the prospect of achieving the ultimate goal of comprehensive reform» (see here).
We further analyzed the historical developments that have produced an extraordinarily different international environment over the past 65 years, and we insisted on the importance of the values and principles declared in Charter of the UN for the forthcoming reform. We finally advocated for Japan as UN Security Council Permanent Member, calling for a more representative UN Security Council that will be able to reflect today’s world, and pertinently address the overwhelming aspirations for Humanism, Democracy, Freedom, Justice, and respect of the Human Rights.
In this article, we will advocate for a more representative UN Security Council, suggesting Veto Right for further candidates.
- Rashtrapati Bhavan
- Presidential Palace — Delhi.
Once upon a time, England could not match the riches and the wealth of the Muslim Mogul Empire of India. Shah Akbar’s (1556-1605) contemporary was Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603), but even in her wildest dreams could the “Virgin Queen” not imagine of having possessions similar to those of her Muslim counterpart. Two hundred years later, England had emerged as colonial power, and had already occupied most of India’s territory.
The British colonialism met fierce resistance, but lasted until 1945, when the UN came to existence thanks to the San Francisco 50-nation conference. Smartly and efficiently enough to keep the world’s second largest nation out of the UN Security Council where the colonial powers, England and France, were present. This could be interpreted as an unacceptable justification of their worldwide appalling practices for more than two centuries.
The world’s largest democracy
However, India has crossed most of the way ever since. Today, India is correctly labelled as “the world’s largest democracy”; this will last most probably long, and will not end before China introduces legislation stipulating respect for Human Rights, free multipartite elections, democratic political life, and federal status in the occupied territories of Turkistan, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria.
Despite its large GDP, India is not a member state of the G-8, for reasons related to economic and industrial development that also apply in the case of China. India has an extremely low per capita GDP figure (US $ 3.800), ranking no 154 in the world (out of 229 states and territories considered).
In the same way China intends to become the world’s sole factory, India attempts to be the world’s sole IT workshop, and the remarkable achievements of the Indian IT specialists may help India’s strong upper middle class exploit politically the subcontinent’s great economic progress.
India’s GDP (US $ 4.164.000.000) is the fourth largest in the world, and if the growth’s pace is kept at the same level (9.4% est. for 2006), India is set to become the world’s n° 3 within a year, leaving Japan in the 4th position. Right now, India’s GDP is larger than that of England and France combined!
It is therefore only normal to question why 123 million European citizens of two colonial relics are granted a right that is still not ascribed to a more than 10-fold population.
One shot UN reform: replace France and England by India and Japan
The representativity problem within the UN Security Council would be immediately solved by a single shot: replacing France and England by India and Japan as veto powers’ permanent member states of the Security Council. The new situation would not be ideal, but it would be far more appropriate and acceptable than the current status quo.
Combined together, China, USA, Russia, India and Japan total more than 3 billion people, which means almost half the planet’s population, whereas the present chart (China, USA, Russia, England and France) represents less than 1.9 billion people, leaving therefore the UN Security Council with limited credence only.
If we apply the same comparative approach at the economic level, we find out that there is also a marked difference between the current situation and that ensuing from the suggested change / replacement. Combined, the GDP of China, USA, Russia, India and Japan, amounts to US $ 32.3 trillion.
Contrarily, the present chart (China, USA, Russia, England and France) represents economies with a total combined GDP ca. US $ 28.7 trillion. This means that the present situation is not acceptable for one more reason.
If we consider the consequences of the herewith suggested change and its impact on the diplomatic-political level, particularly within the Iraq 2003 crisis context, we may easily realize that the suggested change / replacement would lead to an overall transformation of the world’s international landscape.
If the aforementioned replacement of France and England by India and Japan had taken place, the major opponent to the US effort of ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical aberration, namely France, would not have been in the Security Council. In such a case, US-ally England would have been substituted by Japan.
However, the US would not have found a staunch opposition from the part of the combined delegations of India, China and Russia, and most probably with one or two abstention votes the just and fair cause of Iraq’s liberation would have been endorsed by the UN. The international body’s credibility would not have fallen that low.
We have reasons to believe that, if our world did not encompass other important countries and economies, except the aforementioned seven nations (US, China, Japan, India, Russia, England and France), the suggested solution / replacement would be the best and the easiest.
However, our world’s realities and dynamic are such that only a positive view and approach can be a possible remedy; instead of excluding and replacing, we definitely suggest only the addition of further UN Security Council permanent members in a way to rectify the current situation, and make of the international body a more representative institution, without however causing rancour and further enmities.
In a forthcoming article, we will examine further cases of countries deserving UN Veto Right, and more particularly Germany, Italy, Brazil and Mexico.