The Politics of United Nations  Reform: How US, Russia, China, Britain and France Thwart UN Reform

At the just ended 72nd Session of the UN General Assembly, a key sentiment expressed by the gathering world leaders including US President Donald Trump and Ghana's President Nana Addo Dankwah Akuffo Addo was that the UN has been ineffective in carrying out its mandate of ensuring global peace, security, development, justice and fairness and that there is urgent need to reform the body.

President Akuffo Addo noted that, “Somehow the courage and the will have never been found to reform the United Nations…We cannot continue to preach democracy and fairness around the world, we cannot insist on peace and justice around the world, when our global organisation is not seen by the majority of its [193] members as having a structure that is just and fair. It is, indeed, seen by many as helping to perpetuate an unfair world order…Ghana supports the process of UN Reform, especially of the UN Security Council, as set out in Africa’s Common Position on UN Reform”. On his part US President Trump observed that, “While the United Nations on a regular budget has increased by 140 percent, and its staff has more than doubled since 2000, we are not seeing the results in line with this investment.”

The United Nations was founded in 1945 after the end of the Second World War which destroyed much of Europe, and Asia. The UN was established to be the main body to coordinate world peace and security, avoid another devastating war and bring development to every corner of the globe. The body has six main organs namely the General Assembly, the Security Council, Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the UN Secretariat. These organs have functions, roles, powers, and responsibilities. The General Assembly for instance is the main forum for deliberation, policymaking and representation of all member countries. The Security Council has the most powerful role of maintaining peace and security around the world. In other words, power in the UN resides in the Security Council. The Security Council is populated by five permanent members with veto powers and 10 non-permanent members with no veto power.

While developing countries like Ghana have every right to call for the world's body to be reformed to reflect the aspirations of the global citizenry, it is hypocritical of the highest order for the five permanent Security Council members to also call for reform because it is the same complaining five Security Council members (US, Russia, Britain, France and China) who are responsible for the poor and ineffective performance of the UN.

The five permanent countries are those who have turned the UN into footfall hitting it in a way that pleases them rendering the world's body powerless and ineffective in addressing most of the world's intractable problems. These five countries have been using their veto powers to thwart genuine efforts by the rest of the world to bring security, stability, development, fairness and justice around the world. They have been using the Security Council to pursue their narrow national interest at the expense of global peace, security and development. They constantly veto resolutions that they do not like and frequently use their Security Council membership and veto power to promote policies that endanger the welfare of the global population.

The United States for example has more than once refused to subject itself to the UN and has undermined the world's body through its unilateral actions in Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. For example Washington refused to seek UN mandate when it wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussain in 2003. Despite protest from the chambers of the General Assembly and the Security Council, the US (without UN mandate) went ahead to invade Iraq and succeeded not only in ruining the country for good but by making the Middle East more unstable than ever before. The power vacuum that the toppling of Saddam Husain created in Iraq, prepared the ground for the growth of jihadists, terrorists and other violent non-state actors in the Middle East and North Africa.

Even in cases where the UN had authorised limited military action in other countries, US and her allies have often abused such mandates thereby creating condition for opposition for similar mandates to be authorised in future. In 2011 for example, when the Security Council gave the green light for NATO to enforce a no fly zone in Libya, US, Britain and France overstepped their mandate and went ahead to enforce a regime change by removing Gaddafi from power. In so doing, they created a power vacuum which was quickly filled by terrorists, jihadists and several rebel groups. Gaddafi's fall unleashed his stockpile of weapons that spread to several parts of Africa causing instability, insecurity, destruction, and death in Mali, Niger and other Sahelian countries. It also opened the floodgates of illegal migration with Libya serving as the springboard for illegal migration, human trafficking and slavery. Today, Libya is a failed state courtesy US and her NATO allies. Hilary Clinton's e-mails have revealed that France, Britain and the United States removed Gaddafi from power not because they love Libyans so much, but rather to pave the way for Libya's oil, gold reserves and other strategic assets to be stolen. French leaders in particular made Gaddafi’s removal a top priority because they considered his effort to strengthen the African Union as a threat to their global power and national interest. Particularly then President Nicholas Sarkozy supported Gaddafi’s removal to boost his chances of winning the 2012 presidential election which he eventually lost.

The decision by US, France and Britain to remove Gaddafi from power made it difficult for other Security Council members to support a resolution to end the Syrian crisis. The UN therefore has been used as a platform by Security Council members to pursue their zero sum interest to the detriment of world peace and progress.

The Middle East continues to be politically unstable due to the role of the big beasts of international politics notably the US, Russia, Britain and France acting in cahoots with other regional powers. Indeed, when it comes to the Middle East, the United States and Russia have enviable record of supporting one country against other. The US supported Iraq against Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Russia was a patron client to most Arab countries (Egypt, Syria and Iraq) during their war with Israel. US has also been a key ally of Israel in the country's decades long struggle with the Palestinians. In the ongoing battle between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional supremacy (which is being played out in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen), the United States and Britain are firmly behind Saudi Arabia. In fact, the Saudi-Iran geopolitical struggle has become intense and bloody because of the direct involvement of the United States. The United States and Britain have sold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, weapons which the Saudis have used to turn Yemen into the world's biggest humanitarian crisis. Rather than bringing their influence to bear on both sides, US, Britain and France have rather been fanning the conflict in the region.

UN reform has been vehemently opposed by China because of its long standing geopolitical struggle with Japan and India to be Asia's military and economic hegemon. Particularly, China's territorial disputes with India has emboldened China to thwart any UN reform that will see India as a permanent Security Council member. Similarly, Beijing's maritime disputes with Tokyo over the rocky islands in the East China Sea has blinded China to realise the strategic significance of having two or three Asia powers as permanent members of the UN Security Council. China will more likely veto Japan's ascension as a permanent Security Council member than to see Tokyo elevated to a status that will place both of them on the same global power level. Because of her current dispute with several of its neighbours including Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia over territorial and maritime rights of the South China Sea, Beijing is unlikely to support any reform that would see any of the claimants becoming permanent Security Council member or active player in global affairs. In fact any reference of the disputes to the Security Council for action will definitely be vetoed by Beijing. In other words, UN reform is unlikely to go anywhere so far as Beijing's disputes with her neighbours remain unresolved.

The Russians, just like the United States, have used their permanent Security Council member status and veto power to project their own global ambitions thereby undermining global security, peace and development. Without regard to international law and UN rules, Russia has unilaterally invaded sovereign countries like Georgia, annexed Crimea in Ukraine, backed separatist movements in the Caucasus (particularly in Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and is currently the main power behind the Syrian government in the country's six year old bloody civil war.

The United Nations is not the only body that needs reform. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organisation (WTO) all need reform but reform is unlikely to happen because of how few countries that dominate them resist every reform effort. Since their creation in 1944, the World Bank has always been led by an American citizen while the IMF has always been led by European. Despite the shift of global economic power from the West (North America and Europe) to the East (China, Japan, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong) the two Bretton Woods institutions are still dominated, controlled, influenced and manipulated by US and Europe. For decades Japan was the world’s second biggest economy but no single Japanese ever got to lead the World Bank or the IMF. For seven years now, China has been the world’s second largest economy (China overtook Japan as the world’s second biggest economy in August, 2010), yet the leadership of the IMF and the World Bank has not changed to reflect the changing economic power shift in the world.

China for instance has been calling for the World Bank and IMF to be reformed, but the United States (for geopolitical reasons), has prevented any meaningful reform from taking place. After much agony, China decided to establish the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2016 to rival the World Bank. During the launch of the AIIB, the United States called on her allies in Europe and Asia not to become members of the AIIB but Washington suffered a humiliating diplomatic battle as United Kingdom, Australia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Philippines, and South Korea all signed up to join. The AIIB now has 70 members (expected to reach 85 by end of 2017) with most of them major US allies. In 2014, China also spearheaded the establishment of the New Development Bank also called BRICS Bank to provide much needed funds for infrastructure development in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) member countries.

Unfortunately for the UN, it is too difficult to set up a rival body as the Chinese have done in the case of the World Bank, and the lack of appetite for reform on the part of the five Security Council members means that it will take a long time for reform to happen.

By Lord Aikins Adusei