UN Seurity Council Reforms: An end to Burma's impasse?

By Z.Brake

Unfortunately diplomacy does not always work. There are a number of measures, such as economic sanctions and arms embargos, that the UN can take that send a clear message of disapproval, while still keeping communication channels open. If an internal conflict escalates, UN peacekeeping forces can also be deployed to monitor the crisis. And, as a last resort, the UN can expel a member State from the General Assembly. To date this has never happened.

All of these actions require the approval of the UN Security Council. The Security Council is made up of five permanent members - China, England, France, Russia and the USA - and ten non-permanent members who are elected to serve on the council for two-years by the General Assembly. When a country joins the United Nations it agrees to abide by all decisions of the Security Council. Burma agreed to yield to all council decisions and to observe the UN Charter when it became a member state on April 19th, 1949. Since Burma's leadership has not renounced its UN membership, it is still bound by these principles.

For decades now the situation in Burma has been deteriorating, with one of the world's worst military dictatorships now well established. And, sadly, the Security Council has not taken any action against its rulers. A humanitarian crisis is occurring inside Burma and there is undeniable evidence of systematic human rights abuses. The junta regularly breaches international and humanitarian laws and the militarized disruption of democracy continues. The UN has failed to influence or impede Burma's military government. In recent years Burma has refused to co-operate with UN special envoys, regularly denying them entry visas to the country and ignoring their efforts to improve Burma's democratic and human rights situations.

But this could change. In March this year Kofi Annan proposed a set of UN Security Council reforms to the General Assembly. Annan is hoping for the General Assembly to vote in September to either adopt a new model for the Security Council or to keep the current structure and composition of the council. A two-thirds majority is required from the General Assembly for any proposed reforms to be accepted.

The prospect of reforms has been met with both positive and negative reactions. Kofi Annan announced the reforms would strengthen the UN, making it more powerful in world affairs.

Presently, the power of the Security Council rests in the hands of the permanent members. Each permanent member has three options when considering a motion; they can vote in favour, abstain from voting, or veto. For a motion to be passed it requires nine or more votes from members of the council. However, if one of the permanent members vetoes a motion, it cannot be passed.

Due to strong economic ties between Burma and China, any move by the Security Council against the Burmese junta would likely be met with a veto from China. Russia has also been reluctant to deal with the Burma within the Security Council forum, claiming that it is a matter for the general assembly, not the council(1). Consequently it is difficult, if not impossible, for a motion about Burma to be passed by the council.

However, if the veto power was removed, or if it could be overridden by other members of the Security Council, a stronger international stance could be taken on Burma. Unfortunately, in both of Kofi Annan's proposed Security Council models, the veto power of the current five permanent members remains the same.

In fact Model A, where the number of permanent members would be increase to 11, specifically stated that the new six permanent members of the council would have no veto power. Of the six seats, two will each go to Asia and Africa and one to Europe and another for the Americas. There would also be three new non-permanent seats.

In Model B, there would be no new permanent members added to the council. Instead eight semi-permanent seats would be created. These seats would have a four-year term, which could be renewed at the end. They would not have any veto power. There would also be one new non-permanent seat.

Consequently, all moves by the Security Council under the current system, Model A or Model B, could be blocked by a veto from any original permanent member. The harsh reality is that for Burma the proposed changes will not rectify the current impasse of the permanent Security Council members. Annan said "It is not going to be possible to remove the veto of the permanent five members…Many member states would want to do it but it is not possible. They (permanent members) are not willing to create additional vetoes." Sadly for Burma, this means that China and Russia could still stop any motion being passed(2).

But the removal of veto power has been widely welcomed by the public. The BBC Worldwide conducted a survey of 23,500 people from 23 countries over the proposed reforms. Most respondents want the Security Council to at least be able to override the veto power held by the current permanent members .

Doug Miller, President of GlobScan, the company that conducted the BBC survey, said the "results suggest that the tight control of the United Nations by a few countries may soon be history". Despite the lack of veto reforms, Kofi Annan still believes that his proposed changes to the Security Council will make it more representative of the international community and a more geographically accurate reflection of the world.

If the veto was to be removed, the power of the Security Council would be dispersed into the hands of all the members – not just those who were powerful when the council was formed after World War II. While Kofi Annan proposed two models, he has repeatedly said that it is for the General Assembly to decide upon what changes to adopt. They could choose Model A, or Model B, or any other option which resolves the veto situation.

For Burma, reforms will mean nothing until the veto issue of the Security Council is addressed. In a world where actions speak louder than words, it is time for the international community to take a stance. In September there will be a moment in time, where a choice must be made. It will be a defining moment, where the world will either choose to make real reforms, or to merely create the impression of change.

The UN Charter states: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations of the Charter and in the judgment of the organisation." The people of Burma believe in the UN Charter and its mandate. During many interviews carried out by Burma Issues staff, the grassroots people in Burma express that they want the UN to support them and their country. To prove that we too believe in this, we must advocate and campaign for true reforms that will make a real difference and will, one day, put an end to Burmese people's suffering.

End Notes:

1. "Impacts of US Sanctions felt; UN Security Council involvement viewed", Democratic Voice of Burma, July 18, 2003
   
2. "Poll shows backing for UN reform", BBC News, March 21, 2005