Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 4:56 PM
The U.N. General Assembly today elected Germany, India, and South Africa to two-year, rotating seats on the 15-nation Security Council. The election provides these emerging powers, all of whom aspire to become permanent members of the council, with an opportunity to show their stuff on the global stage. But it also poses a challenge to the United States. New members India and South Africa, as well as current member Brazil, differ sharply from the United States on everything from the use of economic sanctions to constrain Iran's nuclear program to the importance of human rights in international affairs. And they plan to be assertive about that opposition.
Today's election -- which also voted Colombia and Portugal into rotating seats -- comes amid an ongoing debate about whether and how to expand the Security Council to include more and more diverse permanent members. Middle powers, including such countries as India, Brazil, and South Africa, will look to make the case for such an expansion by exerting greater influence in the council's deliberations.
"We're probably going to have the strongest Security Council in history," said Colin Keating, a former New Zealand diplomat who heads the Security Council Report, a Columbia-University affiliated think thank. "It's a huge opportunity for those guys who have been arguing for 15 years that the Security Council isn't [representative of] the modern world. All of a sudden, they are all there. Now, what use do they make of their presence -- that can make a convincing case that being there makes a difference."
Evidence of this new assertiveness has already been manifest, for example in Brazil and Turkey's failed effort earlier this year to halt the imposition of U.N. sanctions on Iran. "If you are just a passive member then your presence in the Security Council is meaningless," Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, told Turtle Bay in an interview last month.
"Naturally, all of us will try and use the time that we have during this two-year tenure to also give our partners a sense of confidence and build trust so that they are comfortable with our membership of the sec council on an extended basis," India's U.N. ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri said after the vote. "We bring the voice of one-sixth of humanity. We have 63 years of experience in national building and I think that's what the UN can use."
For decades, the council's five permanent members, the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia have held a near monopoly on power, meeting among themselves to carve out the critical agreements on the world's key security challenges. More recently, however, U.N. member countries seem to have reached a broad agreement that the Security Council -- which reflects the balance of power following the Second World War -- needs to be expanded to better mimic a multi-polar world. But various attempts to reach a deal on an expanded council have failed. A campaign led by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan to enlarge the council has stalled, prompting these countries to build their case by demonstrating that they can make a contribution to the council's work as temporary members. (Japan, which is serving out its second year in the council, will step down at the end of the year.)
Earlier this year, Brazil and Turkey tried a different tack to upend the established order, challenging a deal brokered by the five big powers to impose sanctions on Iran . But the council's veto-wielding powers rallied together, pushing through a sanctions resolution despite no votes from Brazil and Turkey.
The council holds elections each year to fill five of the 10 seats for non-permanent members. The five new members will replace Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda beginning on January 1. Bosnia, Brazil, Gabon, Lebanon and Nigeria, will stay on the council through the end of 2011.
Most of the victors of the rotating seats -- of which there are two for each region -- had been decided long before today's formal election. Canada, which has served on the council six times, was the only country that lost in a contested three-way race with Germany and Portugal for two seats reserved for Western countries. After the vote, Canada's foreign minister, Lawrence Cannon, blamed the defeat in part on Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the opposition Liberal Party, who had pointed out that Canada's support for U.N. causes such as U.N. peacekeeping had waned under the country's conservative government.
Keating said the shift in the council's dynamic reflects a world in which the "U.S. role isn't quite as powerful as it used to be." But he continued, "there are still huge opportunities for American leadership when they chose to use it. In the end, the US has demonstrated that it can get important things done." He cited U.S. led efforts to impose sanctions on North Korea and Iran.
Still, the dispute over Iran holds some important lessen for the United States and other key powers, Keating argues. "If Turkey and Brazil had been dealt with as serious partners in talks earlier than later, maybe they would not have been so tempted to play middle men." Perhaps, he added. "the lesson is that you need to involve them as serious partners. All of the p-5 [veto wielding members] will have to start thinking about how to relate to a more powerful new group on the Security Council -- and not just in 2011, but for a very long time to come."
Follow Me on Twitter @columlynch
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Great ! This will teach Harper a good lesson ............
UNSC and hence UN are controlled by five Brahmins
While Colum Lynch bemoans UNSC getting complicated for US, let us look at the five Brahmins who really drive UN agenda through their UNSC seat with veto power.
Thanks to its UNSC seat with veto power, China was able to water down US resolution successfully to protect its own massive projects and investments in Iran’s petroleum industry while US pressured India successfully to stop supplying refined petroleum products to Iran and stop Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.
With its UNSC seat, China also successfully watered down US resolution against Chinese puppet North Korea.
UNSC member with veto power can just as easily make UN itself irrelevant too, like US did in 2003. When UNSC refused to back US on its Iraq invasion due to French veto, US just decided to ignore UN and create its own so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ and invaded anyway. Later on when US needed the fig leaf of UN, US successfully got UNSC to pass resolutions for UN operations in Iraq after creating its own ground reality.
Basically UN is not a democratic institution - five Brahmins of UNSC drive UN agenda and UN General Assembly just rubber-stamps the agenda agreed to by these Brahmins.
"We're probably going to have the strongest Security Council in history. . . " said a US think-tank.
Multilateralism is the way forward.
The US treasury secretary emphasised this at the weekend meetings of important UN agencies, the IMF and World Bank, by pushing for multilateral solutions to global financial problems. And on Monday the US defense secretary said in Hanoi that Washington needs "multilateral institutions in order to confront the most important security challenges in the region".
This is indeed a U-turn for the US.
In 1994 a former US secretary of State wrote: "Empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to be the international system. Empires have no need for a balance of power. That is how the United States has conducted its foreign policy in the Americas, and China through most of its history in Asia."
Is China prepared to make a U-turn too?
Longtime Washington Post correspondent Colum Lynch reports on all things United Nations for Turtle Bay.
Read More
(3)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE