inside the glass house

Deep-rooted divisions that beset the United Nations
NEW YORK-- Just before Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's state visit to Sri Lanka last April, an advance team arrived in Colombo to finalize logistical arrangements. A member of that visiting team came up with an unusual request: "When our prime minister is here," he pleaded with a Sri Lankan official, "please do not use the Japanese word tsunami."

And so, in order to respect Chinese political sensitiveness, Sri Lankan officials had to go scrambling for their dictionaries and thesauruses in a mad hunt for alternatives: "natural disaster", "tidal wave", "calamity" and "catastrophe". Fortunately, they never ran out of synonyms.

As far as the Chinese were concerned, Sri Lanka was never hit by a "tsunami" because there is too much of the Japanese in it. The antagonism has reached such a boiling point at the United Nations that China has publicly declared it is opposed to Japan being a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council throwing the UN reform process in disarray.

Last April, there were anti-Japanese riots in China, followed by a "write-in" campaign where millions of signatures were gathered against Japan. And in China, such a public campaign can never get off the ground unless it has government blessings.

Although Japan may have a rightful claim to a permanent seat in the Security Council -- based primarily on its increasingly effective role in the world body and its contributions to the UN and its myriad agencies -- the Japanese are also being slammed by the South Koreans.
Asked about this double-barreled attack, Japanse Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura told a recent UN news conference that such sentiments were "understandable."

"Japan colonized one of those nations and took military action against the other," he said. But still, he pointed out, Japan took the issue seriously, and had stressed its peaceful outlook to those nations on such occasions as the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, and at the Afro-Asian summit last April.

Meanwhile, after nearly 12 years of mostly fruitless discussions and protracted debates, the UN is heading for yet another deadlock as it makes a frantic attempt to radically restructure the 15-member Security Council, the most powerful political body in the Organization.

A three-day debate in the General Assembly, which began last week, has revealed once again the sharp divisions in the 191-member world body over the proposed expansion of the "elitist" Security Council, long described as "a political anachronism". As the only UN body empowered to make war and peace, the Security Council is inequitably dominated by five veto-bearing permanent members, namely the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia.

But a group of four countries -- Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil, along with two still unnamed African countries -- are making a strong push to join the ranks of the privileged five as permanent members.

A five-page draft resolution, co-sponsored by the four countries, calls for an increase in the number of members; from the present 15 to 25, by adding six permanent and four non-permanent members, as against the current five permanent and ten non-permanent members.
But attempts to expand the Council -- which require a two-thirds majority and a revision of the U.N. charter -- are being thwarted by different countries for different reasons.

Last week, the strongest opposition came from two permanent members, namely the US and China, who have threatened to torpedo the resolution even before it gets off the ground. The US has unequivocally voiced the opinion that it is opposed to the resolution. First, moving to a vote on this, or any other resolution involving Security Council reform, is bound to be divisive at this stage, Shirin Tahir-Kheli, a State Department adviser on U.N. reform, told delegates.

She said the UN charter is designed in such a way that reform of the Security Council requires "broad consensus". And that is as it should be, she added. "We do not yet know the actual numbers of countries that may vote for this resolution. But we do know that world opinion is still highly divided on this issue", she added.

In an unusual plea to delegates, she said: "We urge you, therefore, to oppose this resolution and, should it come to a vote, to vote against it".
The voting is scheduled for next week.

The political tone in the General Assembly debate was set by Ambassador Wang Guangya of China who told delegates that unless there is "broad consensus" among member states, there should be no attempt at restructuring the Security Council.

The US and China seem to be on the same side of the debate trying to kill any attempts to expand the Council just now.

Meanwhile, Italy and Pakistan are leading a campaign to block Germany and India from becoming permanent members. Although the US is backing Japan and possibly another unnamed developing country, it has shown no enthusiasm for the rest of the declared candidates. China has expressed strong reservations over Japan's candidacy while Argentine and Mexico are opposed to Brazil being given a seat at the table.

But even amongst Africans there is a visible split. The 53-member African Union (AU), the collective voice of the continent, has decided that Africans should stake their claims for two permanent seats because they are the largest single regional group at the United Nations. But not surprisingly, the AU refused to name names.

The two leading contenders for permanent seats are South Africa and Nigeria, with Senegal and Kenya also throwing their hats into the ring.
But the most formidable challenge to the two leaders comes from Egypt, an Arab country which is not only an integral part of the AU but also a member of both the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), which helps advance its Arab and Islamic credentials. With such a sharp split among member states, the UN may well be heading towards another dead end on Security Council reform.

Back to Columns