Democratisation of the UN

Yesterday, our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called out for reform in the UN Security Council in his first address at the UN General Assembly. Clearly calling out India's bid for a seat in the Security Council, Dr. Manmohan Singh carefully, and I think intelligently, avoided drawing out too much attention to Kashmir, much as Parvez Musharraf did the same in his address the day before. "What is missing is our sustained commitment to the democratisation of the United Nations," he told the UN's general assembly in New York. Here is the transcript of the speech by Dr. Singh.

Nitin had a very informative recent post on India's bid for a UN Security Council seat, including the international politics happening between India, Japan, Brazil, and Germany. Obviously, Pakistan is against India's bid, China is hesitant about both India and Japan, but has apparently indicated that it might side India, if India opposes Japan.

Within the General Assembly, all nations regardless of wealth, military power etc., have one vote. The same is true in the specialist agencies (Economic & Social Council, International Court of Justice, etc.) - one nation one vote. In contrast is the veto system at the Security Council for its permanent members (US, GB, China, France, Russia). This has been challenged by the newer members of the UN who want one nation one vote in the Security Council as well. The five permanent members of the Security Council have fought to keep the system as it is claiming that as the five permanent members invest far more money into the UN’s budget and, as a result, should have more sway than nations that pay far less into the UN’s budget.

Some numbers here: in 1985, America provided the UN with 25% of its budget; the USSR provided 10.5%; Angola 0.01% and Saudi Arabia 0.86%. If the ‘Big Five’ withdraw their financial support or reduce it to the level of other nations in the UN, then the UN itself would face near bankruptcy. Throughout the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s, the UN run up debts nearly totalling $1 billion. America pointed out that 85% of the UN’s budget was paid by just 20 nations yet many smaller nations were trying to reform the way the UN was run (especially its voting system) without making the same financial commitment to the UN.

So now, the UN appears to have split in two: the richer old established nations that essentially funded the UN on one side and the newly established but poorer nations on the other side. Within just 60 years of its birth, the UN is at a crossroads. If it divides into rich and poor nations, where does this leave the whole concept of all nations working for one common goal?

Related Links: Vijay Dandapani's guest column, BBC's analysis of India's bid