Are we reforming the United Nations or maintaining the status quo?

05 July 2019 | Opinion

By Alexactus T. Kaure



Reforming the UN is a topic which is on everybody's lips nowadays. At the centre of the debate is the UN Security Council - the body which is supposed to maintain peace and security, but which has been found wanting in recent years, judging by on-going conflicts around the globe. That's why some people now cynically refer to it as the 'Insecurity Council'.

But some naïve souls still have faith in it and apparently all that is needed is to 'reform' this ailing body. I found the reform narrative/agenda to be otiose because it revolves around one singular issue - the membership of the Security Council. Every region/continent now wants to have a (permanent) member on the coucnil with its contentious, contested and controversial veto power which at present is being wielded by China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States, who can veto any “substantive” resolution.

If the reform is singularly centred on the issue of increasing the number of the council membership with both veto and non-veto rights, then I am afraid we are maintaining the status quo because a “no” vote from one of the five permanent members kills the resolution. The “nay-sayers” have always been spoiling the party.

It is thus obvious that increasing the membership with veto power will not solve the problem that has made UN ineffective as a keeper of peace. The veto power is the most un-democratic arrangement in the whole UN system. Here the concept of majoritarian rule has been jettisoned in the Hudson River. The veto system has been misused and abused by those who wield power and the USA has been the main culprit in this game of political chess. There were about 43 times the US has used veto power against resolutions on Israel.

Thus the proponents/exponents arguing for increasing the numbers of veto and non-veto members should tell us how that will change the system which, in my view, is already flawed from the get-go. This debate about the UNSC is pretty much akin to the on-going issue of increasing women representation in politics, national parliaments and other institutions. Last year, for example, President Hage Geingob said Namibia was fully committed to implementing gender equality. Swapo took a principled decision at the 1997 congress to increase the proportion of female delegates to the party's congress up to 50%. According to him, this was the genesis of the now constitutionally mandated Swapo Party, a zebra style 50/50 policy.

As a human rights issue, I have no qualms with the zebra style or even a 60/40 representation in favour of women. But the point that gender mainstreaming activists and their zealots seem to miss is that the 'stream' might already be highly infected/polluted with bacteria. Thus unless one cleans the 'stream' first you are not likely going to change the system in any significant way.

We have had and still have a number of former and current women presidents and prime ministers. They number more than 50 by my count. Lets just cite some that might sound familiar: Teresa May, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Corazon Aquino, Mary Robinson, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, Angela Merkel, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Aung San Suu Kyi, Isabel Martinez de Peron, Benazir Bhutto, Milka Planinc, Joyce Hilda Banda and Sahle-Work Zewde.

Did these women change the social, economic and political order in their respective countries and societies - especially the conditions of women? Prime Minister Thatcher fought Argentina over the Falkland Islands and Aung San Suu Kyi is unable to do anything about the plight of the Rohingya ethnic group in Myanmar because the military holds sway there. The point is that the systems in our societies/countries have been defined and structured from a deep-rooted/dominant patriarchal culture. It is still a man's world.

Likewise, from its very inception, the UNSC has been structured by its framers to suit their own political and ideological interests. The five permanent members gave themselves this right when the UN was set up in 1945 and have clung to it ever since.

The fact that the United States refused to join the United Nations in 1945 unless it was given a veto says it all.

But many uncritical individuals don't seem to grasp that elementary fact. Listen to this screaming headline from last year New Era newspaper: 'Geingob slams UN's exclusion of Africa'.

“The world has moved on; the old and unjust order cannot persist. Africa and its 1.2 billion inhabitants can no longer be excluded from assuming its place on this primary decision-making body,” Geingob said. Of course, referring to the UNSC here. One wonders where is Geingob's crop of advisors on foreign policy?

But who can blame him because even his trusted international relations minister, Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, is in agreement with the president's position on this issue. Here is one headline: 'Lack of UN reforms disappointing - Nandi-Ndaitwah'. This is like the proverbial blind man leading another blind man. Don't get me wrong because they are not the only ones on this issue.

There is a 'common' African position crying for permanent members with veto powers like the big five. But it would be disingenuous of me if fail to say that the debate about expanding the council to include new permanent seats is being debated at the United Nations by all member states, so it's not just Africa.

But what surprises me is that even an academic like Charles Mubita has fallen for this. 'Africa's Demand for a Permanent Seat on the Un Security Council'. That's the title of Dr Mubita's book. Africa is demanding a permanent seat on the UN Security Council to enable it to effectively contribute to the peacekeeping and conflict resolutions of the UN Security Council, whose agenda is dominated by African issues. That is the gist of Mubita's book.

But how will a veto or two by an African country solve African problems? What happened to the much touted 'African solutions to African problems'? Would an African veto have prevented the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 for example? What does this tell us about the African Union's Peace and Security Council or SADC's Organ on Politics, Defence and Security as keepers of peace on the continent? Charity should start at home.

Quo Vadis the UNSC reform agenda? We all agree that the veto makes the council “dysfunctional, unaccountable and undemocratic”. The veto is a violation of foundational principles of the United Nations, namely the sovereign equality of states. Nowadays, the principles of sovereignty, equality and non-interference are openly disregarded by the council and the organ is rife with unilateralism. The only way to achieve reform is to pursue consensus-based solutions.

Yes, you can expand the council, but without a veto in place. Because with or without a veto in place, the three superpowers, USA, Russia and China, can actually take unilateral decisions/actions on their own. Russia's annexation of Crimea and bombings of Syria, USA's total destruction of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and involvement in the Yemen war, and China saying it would annex Taiwan even by military force if necessary. Internationalism, multilateralism and the multilateral institutions are facing serious threats.

Now the month of September is around the corner for the annual UN General Assembly indaba. I urge our president to sing a different song this time - not the veto one which will never 'reform' this world body. Envoi: short of abolishing the veto we cannot talk of reform.



Alexactus T. Kaure is a freelance writer and social critic. He is the author of Angola, From Socialism to Liberal Reforms, published by SAPES Books, 1999.

Similar News

 

Heavy is the head

3 hours ago | Opinion

President Hage Geingob will deliver his State of the Nation Address today during what many have described as the gravest time for post-democratic Namibia.If any...

The contest for hearts and minds

1 day - 03 June 2020 | Opinion

Nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight, when everything remains seemingly unchanged.The above quote by...

Welcoming alcohol back cautiously

2 days ago - 02 June 2020 | Opinion

Beneath the humour and social media memes about lifting the ban on alcohol sales lies fragility and a threat to lives.For drinkers, even moderate ones,...

Namibia too soft on controversial churches

3 days ago - 01 June 2020 | Opinion

Christianity is becoming the butt of every joke lately. Infiltrated by greedy celebrity wannabes who lie through their rotten teeth to steal from the poor,...

Onus on journalists

3 days ago - 01 June 2020 | Opinion

Timo Shihepo and Edward Mumbuu JnrWhen security guards fight for a salary increment, we are there. When Shoprite employees take to the streets to protest...

Communal land must fall

3 days ago - 01 June 2020 | Opinion

Helmut StolzeIs communal land ownership keeping the legacy of colonialism alive? The colonial policy confined the majority of Namibian citizens to former bantu lands (homelands...

A government without empathy

6 days ago - 29 May 2020 | Opinion

Yesterday, the spokesperson of thousands of Walvis Bay fishermen fired in 2015, Matthew Lungameni, visited our show, The Evening Review, to relay a sad story...

Corruption in Namibia: A consequence of political nepotism and...

6 days ago - 29 May 2020 | Opinion

Rukee TjingaeteWindhoekWhenever tribalism in Namibia is debated, people jump aggressively to the notion that one is playing a tribal card without considering the context in...

Thank you, Mr President

6 days ago - 29 May 2020 | Opinion

Jejamaije Kaeno uaMujoroOkahandja Fridays are my favourite days; I enjoy the feeling of being in control of weekend activities, especially during the current time...

Swallowing the volunteerism pill

1 week ago - 28 May 2020 | Opinion

With thousands of Namibian graduates twiddling their thumbs at home, along with hordes of other youth who are bent low by a 46% unemployment rate,...

Latest News

Pupils in God's hands

3 hours ago | Education

ILENI NANDJATOOMUNGWELUMEWhile learners at Omungwelume Senior Secondary School squat in shacks due to an incomplete hostel, their principal has placed the situation in God's hands.“They...

Shimbulu wins first round against...

3 hours ago | Justice

ILENI NANDJATOOSHAKATIThe Windhoek High Court yesterday ordered the Oshakati town council not to implement an order by Swapo to replace councillor Katrina Shimbulu.The court also...

Central hospital gears for corona...

3 hours ago | Health

STEFFI BALZARWINDHOEKPresident Hage Geingob yesterday inaugurated an intensive care and isolation ward at the Windhoek Central Hospital, which will be used as part of the...

Heavy is the head

3 hours ago | Opinion

President Hage Geingob will deliver his State of the Nation Address today during what many have described as the gravest time for post-democratic Namibia.If any...

Fishrot investigators get more time

3 hours ago | Justice

OGONE TLHAGEWINDHOEKThe State has been allowed more time to complete its investigations into the Fishrot bribery scandal. Windhoek magistrate Ingrid Unengu yesterday refused to set...

Ondangwa robbers still at large

3 hours ago | Crime

ILENI NANDJATOONDANGWAThe Oshana police have so far recovered over N$92 000 of the N$200 000 stolen from a woman in front the Ondangwa FNB branch...

Gustavo denied bail

3 hours ago | Justice

OGONE TLHAGEWINDHOEKFishrot accused Ricardo Gustavo was denied bail in the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court yesterday.Magistrate Johannes Shuuveni said in his judgment that the charges faced by...

Let's be positive – Steenkamp

3 hours ago | Education

STAFF REPORTER WINDHOEK The executive director in the ministry of education, Sanet Steenkamp, yesterday encouraged teachers and learners to be positive, saying that...

No community transmission of Covid-19

3 hours ago | Health

ELLANIE SMIT WINDHOEK Health ministry executive director Ben Nangombe has confirmed there has still been no community transmission of the coronavirus...

Load More