The problem of reforming the United Nations Security Council is akin to a malady presented before doctors — there is agreement only on the diagnosis and not the prescription
Reforms in UN
1 in the world level demand
More than three decades after the debate first started over fundamental reforms at the United Nations (UN), the issue appears to have resurfaced at the ongoing General Assembly session of the world body.
2 President Recep Tayyip:
“The Security Council has ceased to be the guarantor of world security and has become a battleground for the political strategies of only five countries.”
3 Even the UN’s Secretary-General, António Guterres
🌺 issued a stern warning: “The world has changed. Our institutions have not.
🌺We cannot effectively address problems as they are if institutions do not reflect the world as it is. Instead of solving problems, they risk becoming part of the problem.”
4 Politically, it is untenable that the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States)
🌺enjoy their position, and the privilege of a veto over any Council resolution or decision, merely by virtue of having won a war 76 years ago.
🌺Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali declared that Security Council reform must be accomplished in time for the 50th anniversary of the world organisation in 1995.
5 organisation has missed not only the 50th anniversary of the UN, but even the 60th, the 70th and now the 75th.
Left to their own devices, member-states will be arguing the merits of the case well past the UN’s centenary.
An unjust situation in terms of equity
सिक्योरिटी काउंसिल में कितने नए सदस्य जुड़े और कितने कम हुए
1 The problem of reforming the Security Council is example
which a number of doctors gather around a patient; they all agree on the diagnosis but they cannot agree on the prescription.
2 The diagnosis is clear — the Security Council reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 and not of today. When the UN was founded in 1945,
the Council consisted of 11 members out of a total UN membership of 51 countries; in other words, some 22% of the member states were on the Security Council.
3 Today, there are 193 member-states of the UN, and only 15 members of the Council — fewer than 8%.
4 The one change ever made to the original Charter was in 1965 when the Security Council was expanded from 11 members to 15 by adding four more elected non-permanent members.
मेंबर स्टेट क्या चीज फील करते हैं यहां
1 So, many more countries, both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the membership, do not feel adequately represented on the body.
2 The composition of the Council also gives undue weightage to the balance of power of those days.
🌺 Europe, for instance, which accounts for barely 5% of the world’s population, still controls 33% of the seats in any given year (and that does not count Russia, another European power).
कौन ज्यादा पैसा दे रहा ?
1 for starters, to those countries whose financial contributions to the UN outweigh पल्ला झुकना those of four of the five permanent members — Japan and Germany have for decades been the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget,
2 while still being referred to as ‘enemy states’ in the United Nations Charter (since the UN was set up by the victorious Allies of the Second World War).
3 And it denies opportunities to other states such as India
which by its sheer size of population, share of the world economy, or contributions in kind to the UN (through participation in peacekeeping operations, for example) have helped shape the evolution of world affairs in the seven decades since the organisation was born.
Stances by countries
1 The small countries that make up more than half the UN’s membership accept that reality and are content to compete occasionally for a two-year non-permanent seat on the Council.
संयुक्त राष्ट्र की आधी से अधिक सदस्यता वाले छोटे देश इस वास्तविकता को स्वीकार करते हैं और परिषद में दो साल की अस्थायी सीट के लिए कभी-कभी प्रतिस्पर्धा करने के लिए संतुष्ट हैं।
2 But the medium-sized and large countries,
which are the rivals of the prospective beneficiaries, deeply क्रोध / resent the prospect of a select few breaking free of their current second-rank status in the world body.
Many are openly animated by a spirit of competition, historical grievance or simple envy.
They have successfully and indefinitely thwarted नाकाम reform of the membership of the Security Council.
यूनाइटेड नेशंस के चार्टर में संशोधन करना
1 Part of the problem is that the bar to amending the UN Charter has been set rather high.
2 Any amendment requires a two-thirds majority of the overall membership, in other words 129 of the 193 states in the General Assembly,
and would further have to be ratified by two-thirds of the member states.
3 Ratification is usually a parliamentary procedure, so, in other words, the only ‘prescription’ that has any chance of passing is one that will both persuade two-thirds of the UN member-states to support it
and not attract the opposition of any of the existing permanent five — or even that of a powerful U.S. Senator who could block ratification in Washington.
भारत की कहानी
1 That has proved to be a tall order indeed. India’s credentials may seem obvious to us, but China is none too keen on diluting its status as the only Asian permanent member;
2 Pakistan, which fancies itself as India’s strategic rival on the subcontinent, is unalterably opposed;
3 and to some extent Indonesia seems to feel diminished by the prospect of an Indian seat.
और कुछ हद तक इंडोनेशिया भारतीय सीट की संभावना से कमतर महसूस कर रहा है
अन्य जगह की क्या कहानी है
In Latin America, Brazil occupies a place analogous अनुरूप to India’s in Asia, but Argentina and Mexico have other ideas, pointing to Portuguese-speaking Brazil’s inferior credentials in representing largely Hispanic Latin America.
And while Africa, given that it accounts for 54 member-states, insists on two permanent seats, how is one to adjudicate the rival credentials of the continent’s largest democracy, Nigeria, its historically largest economy, South Africa, and its oldest civilization, Egypt?
Another proposal suggests creating a second category of “semi-permanent members” to accommodate such states for, say, 10-year electable terms. It has found no takers among the principal aspirants.
Continuing gridlock
इसलिए, जबकि बहस दशकों से हलकों में घूमती रहती है, सुरक्षा परिषद में गतिरोध जारी है, जैसा कि हाल ही में यूक्रेन संघर्ष पर सबसे स्पष्ट रूप से दिखाया गया है, जब सुरक्षा परिषद के एक स्थायी सदस्य ने एक संप्रभु संयुक्त राष्ट्र सदस्य-राज्य पर आक्रमण किया और परिषद शक्तिहीन साबित हुई। जवाब देने के लिए।
रूस के वीटो के बढ़ते प्रयोग ने यूक्रेन, माली, सीरिया और उत्तर कोरिया पर प्रस्तावों को अवरुद्ध कर दिया है।
पश्चिम की इसी तरह की रुकावट ने 1944 में ब्रेटन वुड्स में स्थापित वित्तीय संस्थानों, विश्व बैंक और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मुद्रा कोष में सुधार के प्रस्तावों को प्रभावित किया है।
और फिर भी यह हमारे पास एकमात्र वैश्विक प्रणाली है जो सभी देशों को एक समान मंच पर लाती है। क्या हम इसे अप्रभावीता और अप्रासंगिकता में बदलने का जोखिम उठा सकते हैं?
Comments
Post a Comment