UN Security Council Reform: Veto Right for Brazil

In four earlier articles, we referred to the three-day deliberations (on the impending UN reforms) that have been concluded on November 14th in the UN General Assembly. To highlight the developments, we quoted Srgjan Kerim, the Assembly President, who stated that "the debate demonstrated the clear commitment of Member States to embark upon a new stage that offers the prospect of achieving the ultimate goal of comprehensive reform" (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24665&Cr=general&Cr1=assembly).

We briefly analyzed the historical developments that have produced an extraordinarily different international environment over the past 65 years, and we insisted on the importance of the values and principles declared in Charter of the UN for the forthcoming reform. We then called for a more representative UN Security Council able to reflect today’s world, and pertinently address the overwhelming aspirations for Humanism, Democracy, Freedom, Justice, and respect of the Human Rights.

We subsequently advocated for Japan, India, Germany and Italy as additional UN Security Council Permanent Members for historical, political, and economic reasons. We include here the links to four articles: (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/un-security-council-reform-veto-right-for-japan.html / http://www.buzzle.com/articles/un-security-council-reform-veto-right-for-india.html / http://www.buzzle.com/articles/un-security-council-reform-veto-right-for-germany.html / http://www.buzzle.com/articles/un-security-council-reform-veto-right-for-italy.html). We insisted on comparisons to prove that there is no obvious reason to accord Veto right – in 2004 – to Russia, UK and France, without also extending it to the aforementioned four countries.

In the present article, we will go on, advocating for a more representative UN Security Council, suggesting Veto Right for further candidates, and more precisely Brazil.

Assuming that our earlier suggestions were a matter of final acceptance, the UN Security Council would have 9 permanent members, all privileged with a Veto right. Taking into consideration the population of the suggested four (4) democratic countries, the UN would be increased by almost 80%, as the incumbent five (5) member states total ca. 1.8 billion people, and the suggested four (4) candidate states’ population amounts to 1.4 billion people.

Totaling 3.2 billion people, the UN Security Council permanent membership would thus acquire – for the first time in its history – a substantial proof of representativeness, as the nine (9) countries in total represent more than half of the world’s population. But would that be enough for the international community?

The Relative Importance of Numbers

Would a Security Council with nine (9) permanent members be the ultimate embodiment of global representativeness? We have reasons to believe that it would not. This article will thus shed more light on the dramatic changes that the UN has to undergo, if importance is still to be attached to the international body.

Continuing with the same, comparative approach, we should question the feasibility of an international organization where Russia is given the veto right, but Brazil is not.

Then, the discussion would successively be extended to Mexico, to an Islamic country, to an African nation, and even further on. Through this approach, we have to admit that no conclusive result can be obtained, as there is no theoretical – philosophical concept and principle involved. The numeric and comparative approaches have their own limits; these limits are formed by the lack of philosophical ideals that are irrelevant to numbers; yet, an international body has by definition the task to diffuse and promote ideals.

Although we live in times of reproachable relativity of almost all values, a hopefully brief period that can be characterized as Era of Relativism, we have to honestly admit that there was an explicit, theoretical – philosophical –ideological – political background that ultimately led to the formation of the UN.

The organization was conceived as a continuation of the League of Nations, and as reaction against the violation of the (then embryonic as concept) International Law by the Axis powers. It is always important to bear in mind that the UN was an expression of the Allied Victory over Nazism and Fascism.

Furthermore, it has to be clarified that it was not Stalin who prominently supported and wholeheartedly contributed to the inception of the UN; it was mostly Churchill and Roosevelt. This reality should not be forgotten.