An Applicable Proposal
Let the world decide and scream that the world is bigger than five.
An Applicable Proposal
The first line of criticism against such a fundamental reform proposal would presumably be related to the challenges of implementation. In other words, critics would claim that the established patterns of behavior in the international arena would get in the way of comprehensive reform –specifically, abolishing the veto power – and that the member states would not consent to the restructuring of the United Nations. Surely, we do not expect all states to endorse such a fundamental and comprehensive proposal immediately. One cannot reasonably claim, however, that this proposal has no chance of being implemented. If there is any proposal with the potential to be implemented, it is a proposal that will spring out of the veto power’s abolishment, widen the powers of the General Assembly, and identify certain responsibilities for the great powers that seek to enjoy certain privileges as Security Council members.
The proposal, which was outlined above, does not represent a violation of the sovereign rights of individual states. Quite the contrary, it aims to prevent the exercise of undeserved sovereign rights by five states and to safeguard the sovereign rights of most states around the world. Indeed, demanding a restriction on the sovereign rights of all nations is not an acceptable or practical plan. Such efforts did not yield results in the past either. In particular, the League of Nations represents a suitable case in point. Originally outlined by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, the project was left without a champion when the United States left, and later, rendered ineffective by the carelessness of the great powers. States are reluctant to transfer an important portion of their power to a higher authority. It is obvious we stand to face those same inclinations.
Such a proposal would only disturb a small number of stakeholders. The permanent members of the Security Council stand to complain about the idea of parting ways with their veto powers and the restrictions on the Security Council’s authority and privileges. This proposal will not deprive member states of their sovereign rights. It merely recommends the United Nations become fairer and more active. It focuses on positive outcomes rather than negative results.
That is why this proposal has a chance of gaining acceptance. As mentioned above, it is possible to identify three distinct approaches to a United Nations reform: The five permanent members constitute the first group. The second group, the G4 nations, demand permanent membership and believe that they are close to that goal. The third and largest group, in turn, consists of all member states except those nine countries. Those nations do not exercise or dream of veto power.
To implement reforms from the bottom, that large group of nations must set aside their minor disagreements over the nature of reform, which are divisive and detrimental, and concentrate on abolishing the veto power altogether. Uniting for Consensus, of which Türkiye is a member, has the potential to forge a coalition to bring together all nations that do not dream of the veto power. Indeed, the G4 nations, too, will be compelled to join the rest, if the members of that large group can disregard their disagreements and join forces to abolish the veto power. After all, those countries, which will conclude that the five permanent members won’t make any concessions, would rather join Uniting for Consensus than let those five states enjoy a privilege that the G4 nations cannot. To accomplish that goal, however, the Uniting for Consensus group must settle all disputes among its members.
To make the United Nations fairer and more effective, it is crucial to limit the Security Council’s mandate and to empower the General Assembly. To implement that reform plan, however, it is necessary to focus on the question of veto powers. No reform will be possible unless and until the Security Council’s permanent members are stripped of their veto powers. The most recent developments have clearly demonstrated that abolishing the veto power is legally challenging, yet politically possible, if we do not lose our focus. The overwhelming majority may find it difficult to agree on a positive agenda, yet it is entirely possible to scrutinize the privileges that only five nations enjoy. That is why the veto power must be the first item on our agenda. The majority must come together and endorse the following message: The world is bigger than five.