It is the time of state final examinations and in the field of security and security policy, questions concern, among other things, the United Nations.
Doubts about the effectiveness of the UN are often heard. Some students cite as a problem the expansion of the world organization's membership from the original 51 states to today's 193. I do not believe this represents a significant political change for the worse. What has happened? Former colonies were represented by colonial powers at the UN's founding, and after the collapse of the colonial system, European countries no longer speak for African and Asian states, but newly independent states act in their own name. We should actually welcome such development.
A problem does exist and lies in the fact that the form of governance in many African or Asian states does not follow the European model of governance, and that certain powers, such as China or Russia, are successfully seeking to exert their direct influence on numerous states that have liberated themselves from colonial rule. Europe strives for the democratization of former colonies; Russia and China do not lecture. This suits many authoritarian rulers.
The UN General Assembly is not responsible for the changed policies of former colonies; it is merely a reflection of the world as it truly is. We should be grateful – where else would we learn how African and Asian countries think?
Furthermore, students mention the need for reform of the UN Security Council (hereinafter SC). They are particularly troubled that Russia remains among the permanent members of the SC even after attacking Ukraine. They would like the Russian Federation to be replaced by another state in its position as a permanent member of the SC. It should be added that other permanent members of the SC also have "skeletons in their closets." They too have initiated wars in the past or actively participated on the aggressor's side.
There are five permanent members of the SC (USA, Russian Federation, China, United Kingdom, and France), which were the victors of World War II. The composition of the SC is therefore "unjust" because it reflects the balance of power in 1946. Thus, there is no state from Africa or Australia and Oceania among the permanent members, and the entire American continent is represented by only one country.
How should the composition of the SC be newly and more justly arranged? If we were to seek a new arrangement, we would have to consider some generally justifiable criterion, such as population size, GDP magnitude, possession of nuclear weapons, or regional representation. Let us consider the possible outcome. According to population, among European states, Turkey would have a chance to be a permanent member of the SC at 18th place and Germany at 19th place. The United Kingdom and France would not make it into the top twenty. According to GDP size, Germany, India, and Japan would surpass the current permanent European members. If possession of nuclear weapons were decisive, then India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea should be among the permanent members. If the size of continents played a role, then among seven continents, Europe would be in sixth place. If religion were to play a role, then it is evident that more than a billion Muslims do not have "their" state among the permanent members.
Regardless of the perspective from which we examine the possibility of a new arrangement, we must conclude that any solution would come at Europe's expense, at our expense. The UN was created at the height of European state power, and that former strength of Europe is gone. Perhaps it is not, if we consider defense expenditures, then Europe is strengthening. Germany is in 4th place, the United Kingdom in 6th place, and France holds 9th position. It should be noted that Russia is in third place and Saudi Arabia in 7th place. Therefore, we Europeans should strongly lobby for maintaining all UN institutions as they are.
We may ask what legitimacy the opinion of some of the five states has for the entire planet to follow. The answer will not resolve the question of legitimacy – why should India, for example, follow France's opinion. Even so, everyone benefits from this unjust arrangement. The SC is able to reach agreements, and quickly at that – neither can be said about the entire General Assembly.
Therefore, we Europeans should strongly lobby for maintaining all UN institutions as they are.
Cyril Svoboda
