Do Not Reform the United Nations Security Council
The United Nations Organization was established in a civilizational moment of truth – immediately after WW2, which was the biggest anthropogenic tragedy in human history so far. That circumstances contributed to make the design of the UN Security Council, as stipulated in Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations stipulates: “In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf” perfect. It implies the undeniable reality that the UN Security Council permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States had, in aggregate, all the necessary resources: political influence, economic tools, and military power, to ensure that any of the Security Council resolutions could be unconditionally materialized, and to quickly and uncompromisingly resolve any disturbance of security character anywhere in the world. They had this capacity 70 years ago, and they have this capacity now. And giving them the power of veto was an expression of trust, as well as an instrument of authorization for these five countries to maintain international peace and security. So, there is no reason to change anything in regard to how the UN Security Council functions.
If our human civilization wants to have a powerful and highly efficient UN Security Council that maintains international peace and security in real time and in real terms, however, there is a crucial need to change something that is beyond the United Nations Organization.
It was very unfortunate that just a few months after the United Nations Organization was established, all major countries got engaged in ideological confrontation and in struggle for world domination. As a result, the Security Council permanent members abandoned their duties to guard international security. Betraying the trust of the international community, the “Big Five” practically nationalized the extraordinary powers they were given in order to maintain international peace and security and started illegitimately applying them as a powerful extension of their own national foreign policy. Most of the other countries were involved on the newly formed battlefield by allying, through proxy politicians, proxy revolutions, proxy democracies, proxy oppositions and proxy governments, waging proxy wars. Consequently, the world degenerated back to where the WW2 began. And is still there, with the only difference of new, very sophisticated and extremely destructive military technologies.
If everybody agrees that something has to be changed, then the only urgent and radical reform that must be done in order to bring peace and eradicate political violence worldwide, is to denationalize the decision making process on foreign policy issues related to international security within the UN Security Council permanent member countries themselves. The current practice through which UN Security Council member countries form their foreign policy positions on issues of international security in branches that are integral part of their respective departments or ministries of foreign affairs must be completely abandoned because those national government organs are by definition designed to protect and advance exclusively the national interests of that country. Because if you have an apple tree you cannot expect mango fruits to be growing there, all Security Council members must establish new independent national structures – Agencies for global security policies. With temporary status for the Security Council non-permanent members.
An Agency for global security policies will have to work with visions beyond the narrowly defined national interests of its own country; to state firmly and in transparent mode how exactly that particular position of the country will contribute to prevent violence, save human lives and avoid destruction of material values; and to resist the consequences naturally coming from disregard of immediate national interest. Its priority focus must be on long-term and indirect benefits for the country, including the by-products coming through the existence of stable, peaceful and predictable international political environment. For such a structure there must be a well functioning sophisticated system of subordination with its own government, and in regard to the traditional foreign policy service of the same country. A mechanism that can process, evaluate and separate two complexly intertwined, imaginary and most possibly contradicting models of state behavior: one with the classic national foreign policy line, and one associated with the same country’s positions as a member of the Security Council. Even if such dual foreign policy exercise has never been comprehensively done yet, in a world where global and nationally relevant processes and interests are becoming more and more interrelated, the corresponding methodology should naturally come into existence.
Would that be a price too high to pay for humanity willing to live in a civilized world?