What Is Nepal’s Stance On UN Reforms?

Come September every year, world leaders and diplomats rub shoulders in the UN headquarters in Manhattan, New York. The annual gala event of the UN General Assembly kicks off on the third Tuesday of September, where rhetoric is more of a common phenomenon than concrete actions to tackle the complex global issues.  As the 78th General Assembly of the world body is already underway, Prime Minister Puspah Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ is set to join this global annual jamboree leading a Nepali delegation where he will address the plenary session. This has been a ritualistic phenomenon every year since Nepal joined the United Nations in 1955.

The United Nations was created in 1945 in the wake of the World War II that killed nearly 60 million people and caused devastation of epic proportion. The League of Nations had earlier been formed immediately after the World War I but it failed in its objectives owing to multiple reasons, thus requiring another global body to prevent future wars. 

The leaders of Allied powers, which were the victors in the World War II, announced the United Nations seeking not only to prevent another devastating war but also to create a just and rule-based international order, maintain peace and stability in the world. 

The Charter of the United Nations in its preamble explicitly states: ‘We the people of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of human persons, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small’. The creation of the United Nations was, thus, guided by noble intention. Although the world war III has not occurred but the United Nations has failed miserably in multiple fronts. It has not been able to achieve and promote what its Charter visualises.  

UN relevance  

In the first place, the world has witnessed dozens of wars and conflicts and Ukraine war being the recent manifestation. Secondly, the structure, power and decision-making process of the United Nations represent the constellation of international power structure of the mid-20th century. Thirdly, UN is often criticised for being too opaque. Although the United Nations has failed in multiple fronts, there is still no alternative to this global body. Former Secretary General of the United Nations Javier Perez De Quellar has said, “Those who chasten the World Organisation for not having totally prevented conflict seldom pause to consider how much worse the situation might be if there had been no United Nations”. 

The United Nations is the forum of multilateral diplomacy. Countries that either do not have bilateral mechanism and representation or cannot resolve issues bilaterally, the United Nation provide them a suitable platform for discussions seeking to settle the complex matters. The world, thus, cannot be imagined without the United Nations. However, this organisation cannot effectively respond to the needs of the present day world without effecting necessary reforms and restructuring the United Nations. But question remains where exactly it needs to make reforms. Many countries have their own agenda and proposals for its reform and there has been politics in the name of UN reforms. 

The five permanent representatives may not want to change the present structure of the world body for fear of losing their pre-eminence in the decision-making. However, newly emerged powers and other small countries seek to make the United Nations Security Council more representative and democratic. The world has undergone a sea change since the United Nation was created. The nature, structure of international order and balance of power have changed dramatically. The existing structure of the United Nations does not represent the present day reality of the world and thus requires change and reform in this global body. 

There are multiple complains on the structure and its functioning. The most grievances are centred on the structure and power of the Security Council -- the most powerful executive body of the United Nations. The United Nations General Assembly is a democratic forum with all members having equal voting right. But UN General Assembly is a toothless tiger having no authority to take any far-reaching decision on pressing international issues. The five permanent members — United States, China, Russia, United Kingdom and France control the UN and dictate its decision-making. These countries have veto power which is often abused if their interests are at stake even at the expense of the rest of the humanity rendering the rest ten non-permanent members mere mute spectators.

Moreover, Europe with less than 755 million population and less than 6 per cent of world’s land area has three permanent members, whereas Asia with 30 per cent world’s land and over 4.75 billion population has only one seat. United States represents North America whereas South America and Africa do not have representation as permanent member in the Security Council. This arrangement is undemocratic and unjust. Reforms in the Security Council’s structure are a must to make it more representatives of all continents, regions and groups. If justice has to be done, Asia needs more representation as several countries are rising in leaps and bound. Similarly, there has to be representation from South America and Africa. 

Criticism 

Similarly, the functions and internal management of the UN system are also subject of criticism. As UN system is too bureaucratic, its activities need to be made more transparent and accountable. As former UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold has said “The UN wasn’t created to take mankind into paradise, but rather, to save humanity from hell, UN’s role is equally relevant in the present context. However, it needs to be made more active, effective and action oriented to address the present reality. For this, a clear vision, joint efforts and commitment are necessary on the part of all members. 

The United Nations is, thus, needed more for weaker and smaller countries like Nepal, which should play proactive role in its reform process and make this world body more active and assertive to be able to respond to complex problems facing the world. While members and experts are debating on reforms in the United Nations, different countries have come up with their own agenda of reforms guided by their narrow national interest and perspective. It is now high time that Nepal too come up with clearer views on its position in the agenda of reforms in UN system and its structure. 

(The author is former ambassador and former chief editor of this daily. lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)