UN Security Council Reform: Veto Right for Brazil
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
November 18, 2007
We briefly analyzed the historical developments that have produced an extraordinarily different international environment over the past 65 years, and we insisted on the importance of the values and principles declared in Charter of the UN for the forthcoming reform. We then called for a more representative UN Security Council able to reflect today's world, and pertinently address the overwhelming aspirations for Humanism, Democracy, Freedom, Justice, and respect of the Human Rights.
We subsequently advocated for Japan, India, Germany and Italy as additional UN Security Council Permanent Members for historical, political, and economic reasons. We include here the links to four articles: (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43169 -
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43175 -
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43181 -
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=43225). We insisted on comparisons to prove that there is no obvious reason to accord Veto right – in 2004 – to Russia, UK and France, without also extending it to the aforementioned four countries.
In the present article, we will go on, advocating for a more representative UN Security Council, suggesting Veto Right for further candidates, and more precisely Brazil.
Assuming that our earlier suggestions were a matter of final acceptance, the UN Security Council would have 9 permanent members, all privileged with a Veto right. Taking into consideration the population of the suggested four (4) democratic countries, the UN would be increased by almost 80%, as the incumbent five (5) member states total ca. 1.8 billion people, and the suggested four (4) candidate states' population amounts to 1.4 billion people.
Totaling 3.2 billion people, the UN Security Council permanent membership would thus acquire – for the first time in its history – a substantial proof of representativeness, as the nine (9) countries in total represent more than half of the world's population. But would that be enough for the international community?
The Relative Importance of Numbers
Would a Security Council with nine (9) permanent members be the ultimate embodiment of global representativeness? We have reasons to believe that it would not. This article will thus shed more light on the dramatic changes that the UN has to undergo, if importance is still to be attached to the international body.
Continuing with the same, comparative approach, we should question the feasibility of an international organization where Russia is given the veto right, but Brazil is not.
Then, the discussion would successively be extended to Mexico, to an Islamic country, to an African nation, and even further on. Through this approach, we have to admit that no conclusive result can be obtained, as there is no theoretical – philosophical concept and principle involved. The numeric and comparative approaches have their own limits; these limits are formed by the lack of philosophical ideals that are irrelevant to numbers; yet, an international body has by definition the task to diffuse and promote ideals.
Although we live in times of reproachable relativity of almost all values, a hopefully brief period that can be characterized as Era of Relativism, we have to honestly admit that there was an explicit, theoretical – philosophical –ideological – political background that ultimately led to the formation of the UN.
The organization was conceived as a continuation of the League of Nations, and as reaction against the violation of the (then embryonic as concept) International Law by the Axis powers. It is always important to bear in mind that the UN was an expression of the Allied Victory over Nazism and Fascism.
Furthermore, it has to be clarified that it was not Stalin who prominently supported and wholeheartedly contributed to the inception of the UN; it was mostly Churchill and Roosevelt. This reality should not be forgotten.
UN - Epitome of the Final Victory of Democracy and Humanism
The UN was conceived as the main tool to help the victorious Allies, mostly USA and UK, to propagate the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, Free Market, and Development. Despite the setback of Democracy in China in 1949, the UN became the international body that recorded the collapse of the colonial powers, the rise of numerous young nations, the emancipation of small countries, the collapse of various totalitarian regimes (notably that of Spain), and last but not least, the downfall of the Soviet and Socialist dictatorial system in Eastern Europe, Russia, Asia (Cambodia, Vietnam) and Africa (Abyssinia, Angola). Who can attempt a military coup today in Greece (as in 1967) or in a Latin American country?
Of course, this positive record is counterbalanced by terrible tragedies in Africa (Uganda, Abyssinia - notably Ogaden, Sudan - notably Darfur, Somalia, Nigeria, Algeria and Zimbabwe) and in Asia (Tien An Men, East Timor, the Taliban of Afghanistan, the extremists of Kashmir, the narco-generals of Myanmar, the totalitarian regime of Saudi Arabia, the Ayatollahs of Iran, and the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad). A lot is still left to be done. A lot is at stake. Democracy, Human Rights, Political Rights, Social Rights, Cultural Rights, Economic Rights, Free Market economy, Freedom of Expression, Speech and Faith have been consolidated and truly expanded, but serious, real threats encapsulate an unsafe future.
The UN Security Council reform has to be viewed within this context; the international body has to be used, times and again, as the best tool for expanding and consolidating the numerous, valuable acquisitions of the Mankind. To achieve further success in this direction, and to reduce the injustice, the tyranny and the fanaticism, the leading democratic nations of the world must leave aside their differences and polarizations, and work out together a plan of UN reform that will enable the international body to play the same role within the new environment more effectively.
Termination of Colonial Structures: still a Priority in 2007
To successfully use the UN as a means for the propagation of Democracy, Human Rights, and Multiculturalism, the leading democratic nations of our world have first to specify the basic political – ideological concepts that they have to be promoted and diffused through the UN. They have to define the concept of ‘representativeness’ within our world; they have finally to examine very well how their decision to extend the UN Veto right to this or that country will serve best the aforementioned basic political – ideological concepts, and their propagation.
It has to be made understood to all that the concepts and the principles of Humanism, Freedom, Human Rights, Justice, and Democracy apply to, and are to be shared by, all peoples and nations allover the world. They are not to be preserved for a supposed ‘elite’ of Northern peoples, as it seems to fit the colonial, elitist perception of supposedly democratic stateswomen who find it normal to engage democratic countries of the Western World with tribal dictators, who are good enough to only perpetrate tyranny, economic marasm, and political barbarism.
Within the Western World - whereby all the aforementioned concepts are considered as acquired and undisputed 'normality' - a new, genuine Human Rights' movement must be born to stretch a hand of Solidarity and Help to many oppressed peoples and tyrannized nations in numerous lands still living under fully colonial structures. Biyya Oromo, Ogaden, Sidama Land, Beja Red Sea coastland, Berberia, Darfur, Tibet, Eastern Turkistan, and Baluchistan demand their freedom with the same right and by the same strength as the peoples of Chechnya and Ossetia, Polynesia, Catalonia, Corsica, and Scotland.
The basic ideological – political principles of the democratic world evolve around Freedom of Speech and Press, Freedom of Faith and Cult, Freedom of Vote, Electoral Representation, Multipartite Parliamentary system, Human Rights, Multiculturalism, and Respect for Minority Groups' Rights, Eradication of any sort of discrimination, Free Market Economy, Economic Development and Technological Progress.
The model countries of our global world are economically developed and interconnected, multicultural societies of Information and Services; they consist in a realm devoted to Literacy, to Free Art and Research, as well as to Advanced High Tech and Education, whereby any sort of discrimination has already been successfully eradicated.
This type of society represents the aspiration of several billions of people, who still suffer under anachronistic, dysfunctional and criminal regimes that have to be obliterated as soon as possible, and in the most definite and irrevocable way. It is the primary duty of all the people living in the Developed World's democracies to assist the rest of the world in this ultimate effort of emancipation and liberation.
Basic Criteria for UN Security Council Permanent Membership Eligibility
In this regard, the correct evaluation of a country's ability to represent a valuable and sizeable, laudable and exemplary part of the world, and its subsequent eligibility for UN Security Council permanent membership, hinges on the following parameters:
A. Population – it cannot be under 40 million people.
B. Economic Power – GDP cannot be under US$ 500 b.
C. Democratic Administration
D. Social and Technological Development
E. Cultural and Religious Identity
F. Surface – it cannot be under 100000 km2, and
G. Literacy – it cannot be under 60% of the total population of a country.
To be more precise in this regard, we should specify that parameters A, F, and G are single indicators of figures and percentage, whereas parameter C is rather relevant of the Constitution, the prevailing Law system, and the political practice in every country.
As far as parameter B is concerned, basic indicators to be taken into consideration are the GDP, the foreign investment (as percentage of the GDP), the budget (income and expenditures), the trade (exports and imports), the public debt, the external debt, and the Foreign Exchange and Gold reserves.
Furthermore, parameter D can be evaluated through many indicators, notably per capita GDP, as well as fixed line, mobile line, and Internet penetration, railways, and paved highways network.
As far as parameter E is concerned, the total number of people sharing the same culture, religion and/or language - at the global level - consists in the basic data; in addition, the area inhabited by the ethnic-cultural-religious-linguistic group, and the degree of differentiation of the group from the rest have to be taken into consideration.
Brazil
We should therefore now consider whether the UN Security Council reaches a proper level of representativeness with nine (9) veto right powers, namely USA, China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, India, Germany and Italy.
Brazil is the world's 5th largest country in terms of surface (following Russia, Canada, the US, and China), and represents the world's 5th largest population (following China, India, the US, and Indonesia).
Brazil’s surface (8.5 million km2) is just half the Russian territory, but the country is more populous (190 million people compared to Russia’s 141 million).
Brazil is the world's 10th largest economy, following the aforementioned nine (9) countries, namely the UN Security Council's incumbent members and the four countries we advocated already. Brazil's GDP (US $ 1.655.000.000) is slightly smaller than that of Italy's (US $ 1.756.000.000) and Russia's (US $ 1.746.000.000).
However, is it logical to expect the UN Security Council to become just the top 10 GDP Club? Certainly not! We cannot afford to exclusively view our societies in simple terms of economic productivity. If we accord Veto right only to the aforementioned nine (9) countries, we automatically leave big groups of people (ethnically, linguistically and religiously viewed) outside the top decision making international body.
The Hispanophone world represents a sizeable portion of our world with more than 420 million people in America, Europe, and to lesser extent Asia and Africa; in the US, Hispanophones totaled more than 10% in the 2000 census.
Portuguese - the third most spoken language of the West
Furthermore, the Lusophone world includes approximately 250 million people scattered in Latin America, Africa, Europe, and to lesser extent Asia (Macau). Portuguese is the eighth most spoken language on the planet, and after English and Spanish, the third most spoken language of the West.
The South American giant represents best the Lusophone world. In that case, as within the context of the Anglophone world, the colony became much larger than the old metropolis! As the USA is larger than the UK in terms of population, Brazil is far larger than Portugal which turned out to be the world’s fourth Lusophone country (after Mozambique and Angola)!
Brazil attracts equally important foreign investment (16.8% of the GDP) as Russia (17.9% of the GDP), and has a more robust budget (income US $ 244 billion) than Russia (US $ 230.7 b).
When it comes to exports, Russia leads Brazil (US $ 303.9 b and 137.8 b respectively); Russia imports more than Brazil as well (US $ 164.7 b and 91.4 b respectively). In addition, Russia outperforms Brazil in terms of Foreign Exchange and Gold reserves (US $ 303.7 b and 87.2 b respectively).
As far as ICT development is concerned, Russia leads Brazil in terms mobile line users (120 m and 100 m people respectively), but Brazil, being no 5 in the world in Internet users, has almost twice as Internet users as Russia (42.6 m and 25.7 m people respectively).
With commitment to democratic ideals far better stressed than in Putin’s Russia, Brazil has every right and every reason to demand permanent membership in the UN Security Council, where it would represent the Lusophone world, a cultural – linguistic community definitely larger than the entire Francophonie, Japan, the Germanophone world or Italy. In a forthcoming article, we will examine further cases of UN Security Council candidates.
Note
Picture: Planalto Palce – the residence of the President of Brazil