P1, P no-one, P Reforming the Security Council

Transcription

1 P1, P no-one, P Reforming the Security Council Buongiorno Security Council!!! My name is Michelangelo Chini and I ll be one of the chairs for the Security Council this year together with Robbie Travers. I will therefore have the honour to help you in preparation for, and during the conference, this March. It is my second time chairing and my third conference here at Watson s, so if you re a new delegate and this is your first MUN conference, do not panic! Nobody will force you to do anything and your first priority should be to enjoy the experience. If you are from abroad or just arrived on the island, let me tell you that English is not my first language either and many times before I ve preferred not to speak out during debates, considering my English not to be good enough. Please do not enter this kind of paranoia! We ll after all be in a very international environment, and I m sure your English is better than that of hundreds of real-life UN delegates who manage to struggle even with translators. I am now going to present one of the topics that will be debated in the Security Council. It will explain to you what the issue is all about and will give you a few questions to get you started on your resolution. These should basically try to find a solution to the problems presented and, at the same time, defend your country s interests. The rest of the research will naturally have to be done by you (there are some useful links at the end of the BP). You especially will have to find what is the position of the country you are representing on the issue. But let s get onto the real topic of debate... The power of the Security council Fifteen countries that, for a couple of years at least, will hold the reins of the UN and, consequentially, of international politics. An international disaster or emergency? A major disagreement between two great powers? War? The Security Council, with its mandate to safeguard international stability and, unsurprisingly, security has powers more extended than any other UN committee, investigating any situation or crisis that might lead to international conflict and being able to intervene, in a multitude of capacities, even militarily or paramilitarily in given situations. To pass any given resolution (except procedural ones), the Security Council must have a majority of at least 9 out of 15 members but, attention, not all of the votes bear equal power. The Security Council, as you will know, has 15 members. Ten of these change every two years (5 one year, 5 the other) and are randomly chosen from geographical groups. The 5

2 remaining members are permanent (P5), and these are the UK, France, the USA, China and the Russian Federation. Not only that, but if any one of them votes against a resolution, that is sufficient to strike the whole resolution down due to what is know as power of veto (if you're a friend of Caecilius and his hortus, you'll probably know it is the first person singular present indicative of the Latin verb vetare to forbid). In fact, when the UN were created, they arose out of the ruins left by WWII, with the mission of protecting the world from further destruction and spilling of blood. It is natural that the main countries in its creation would have been those who had fought and won against the axis (our P5). The two main international players (the US and the USSR) insisted for this power of veto; and this explains both the choice of countries and the presence of this veto. Should we reform the Security Council? Indeed, on the one had, we must accept that all these countries (during the two world wars) played a vital role in the stopping the expansion of imperialistic powers (being they already enough, you could even say!), and yes, even today they are vital players in the maintenance of stability on the global stage, due also to them being the main possessors of nuclear weapons and constituting the bulk of the world's industrialised economy. But the world has changed! It is an undeniable truth that the power balance has widely shifted from the 1950s. The fall of the Soviet Union greatly diminished the threat felt from Russia and relations with the West have improved, both France and the UK have lost their colonial force and gone back to an influence more in line with their geographical size and economic power; and while it seemed for a while that the world had become monopolar and centred on Washington, the recent economic crisis and incredible growth of the Chinese economy have proven that actual power is shifting out of the Western world. This fact, has further been illustrated by the continual growth of previously underdeveloped (and underestimated) economies. This is especially true for the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), three of which have no representation within the SC. Alongside these, in the list of notably excluded countries, we must note the major European economy (Germany) and numerous other regional players from parts of the world which still find it difficult to have a proper representation within the international community (namely South America, the Middle East and Africa). Furthermore, if we think more concretely about recent events, we see how Russia's and China's vetoes at intervention in Syria has rendered the UN powerless during the conflict. In addition, consider Rwanda. Could we perhaps say that the intervention there was arguably non-existent because P5 countries had no interests in the country, while measures for conflict in Kuwait and Libya were more effective because of the oil resources present in those countries? Are the P5 monopolising international politics for their own gain? Are they

3 slowing conflict resolution when it is convenient for them? Let s remember France s veto on resolutions referring to nuclear weapons in Asia, the UK s veto on intelligence sharing and the US vetoing all resolution critical of Israel. Key issues The main questions you will have to pose yourself as a delegate are, due the change in the geopolitical reality of the planet, is a reform of the Security Council needed? What should this involve? What are the criteria required to be included within the permanent states? Should certain countries be excluded from the P5 and how? Should there be no permanent members or only permanent members? What about the power of veto? Do we need a Security Council at all or can the UN function exclusively with the normal committees and general assembly. You could even consider whether extra-un organisations, such as the G8, could replace it. Numerous lobbies have been developed between countries to ideate and propose reforms to the Security Council. One of the best known is the Italy lead Uniting for Consensus (nicknamed the Coffee Club ) created in the 1990s by the then Italian ambassador to the UN in coalition with other key regional players around the world. Having found out your country's position on such groups, you could consider their ideas and mention them in your resolution and points during debate. Little adversity there has been against a reform of the Security Council, and all the P5 members have stated (some with more caution than others) to be favourable on a reform of it. However, the Security Council still hasn't experienced any change since its creation, which proves once again the enormous difference between intentions and actions. The key aspect, anyhow, is that you look up your country's view upon the issue and you develop an argument either for or against any reform and, if for, develop a bit on the how as well. What to do now? Now that you are ready to go and prepare yourselves for the conference, I like to point out two things: First, if you wish to be considered for an award, you must send me a position paper by the 14th of February!!! This is a short statement (about 50 words) of what your country thinks about this topic and, therefore, what position you ll be inclined to take in the debates. Send this to me, by the deadline, at mchini08@gwc.org.uk. However, please remember that you must also send a position paper for the other three topics debated in the committee to Robbie and I (his address is on his Briefing Papers).

4 Second, even though you aren t forced to, you are very, very, very much encouraged to write at least one resolution (you ll find how to do that on our website) since, it won t only allow you to be fully participating in the conference, but it will also broaden your understanding of the topic and help you during the debate. E adesso... al lavoro! E in bocca al lupo per quando ci rincontreremo in marzo!!! Useful links On this topic (it's Wikipedia, be cautious!!!) For Country Profiles and lots of other useful information: For issues of current international debate

5