VETO power given to permanent members of Security Council have been exercised several times in the past by one permanent member or the other for self centred purpose,creating a road block for peace process.
by N.S.Venkataraman
UN Security Council has 15 members, of which USA,UK,France,China and Russia are 5 permanent member states and 10 other member states are elected periodically for specific period as members of the Security Council.
In the last several decades after formation of UN Security Council, 5 permanent members have not shown any better quality of wisdom or better commitment for world peace, that distinguish them from other countries and justify their permanent membership . Compared to other over 190 member states of UNO, permanent members of UN Security Council have not exhibited any superior and pro active approach to the world issues.
Many people have started thinking that UN Security Council is not serving useful purpose for the cause of peace. On the other hand, in the last several decades it has created hindrance for the efforts to promote peace and harmony in the world.
By and large, UN Security Council has not been really useful, since any one of the permanent members have VETO power to prevent unanimous decision on any issue, if it would not meet the demand and need of any permanent member.
Certainly, providing VETO power to the permanent members is one of the worse forms of anachronism in the organizational structure and decision taking process of Security Council and this is an extremely severe flaw made at the time of formation of UNO.
VETO power given to permanent members of Security Council have been exercised several times in the past by one permanent member or the other for self centred purpose,creating a road block for peace process.
Obviously, permanent members of the Security council have not been able to take holistic view on most matters with global interests in view and have shown self centered attitude to protect their interest and that of the allies. Their strategies have often been guided by their narrow political and sectarian approach with least concern for world peace and welfare of the global community.
Often proceedings of the Security Council are marked by acrimonious debates and counter productive arguments with hate speech and mutual accusations not being uncommon . In such situation, with self interests of individual permanent member receiving the highest attention and priority, Security Council has not been able to emerge as productive wing of UNO to promote peace in the world.
Original decision, when UNO was conceived, to give special VETO power to five permanent members in Security Council was an attempt by the five permanent member states to enhance their importance and exercise control over UNO and the world events.
Today, countries like Japan, Germany, South Korea, India are all advanced technologically to a high level and they conduct themselves with dignity.
Japan and Germany have technological capability even better than a few permanent member states.
With the world situation changing dramatically now compared to the time when UNO was formed after World War II,why should the countries like Japan, Germany should be treated as less important countries than the five permanent member states to become eligible for becoming permanent members of UN Security Council ? There is no logic or reason in this. There is no justification to treat Japan and Germany as “lesser countries”, in view of their role in World War II several decades back. Today, the commitment of Japan and Germany to world peace is total, perhaps even greater than a few permanent members of UNO.
It is very important that the UNO should not only be fair in taking decisions with regard to peace process but should also appear to be fair and democratic and the decisions of UNO should be world decisions and not that of five permanent members.
The urgent need is that UNO should remain as an organization of member states in all respect with equal status for every member state. This can happen only with the abolition of UN Security Council.
By abolishing Security Council, there would not be any vacuum. On the other hand, all major decisions towards protecting and restoring peace in the world can be taken with participation of all member states and taking decisions, with majority world opinion being ascertained by voting process.
Non existence of Security Council would enable the UNO to take decisions, in which there would be transparency with nobody complaining about any decisions, since majority views would prevail.
It appears that abolishing Security Council is a pre condition for restoring genuine and lasting peace in the world today.
Further, this would pave way as forward step towards forming some sort of world government, as far as peace process is concerned.
Post a Comment