Reforming the UNSC with veto power only for the Secretary General and
introducing new article "On rights of nations, national and ethnical minorities on
self-determination" to the UN Charter shall extinguish violent eagerness of the
empires and countries to fight new regional and world war on the Earth.
Raiis Gassanly.
1-st part: Reforming the UNSC and giving the veto power only to the UN Secretary General.
The humankind of the Earth is at the edge of direct conflict between the USA and Russia or China because of conflicts in their geopolitical and geostrategic interests in their regions and countries. Actually, the UNSC has been standing for long on a position of Chinese observer on implications of attacks by the world empires, the USA and Russia preceded by the SU starting in the 1950-ies to countries all around the world and starting in the 21 century to the Middle East countries, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Georgia and others. These lead to fatal damages of infrastructure in these countries, a large number of civilian fatalities, and refugees flooding the rest of the world. The bloody world-wide process has been active since 2000. Finally, in 2015, imperial interests of the USA and Russia smashed head-on on the Middle East in order to explicitly demonstrate their monopole geopolitical interests in the specific world regions. In his turn the current Russian president acutely needs such smashing because of regime and economy cracking, prosperity of population decreasing and country infrastructure going to pieces. In order to arouse Russia-as-the-empire world view and patriotism in new generations born in the 1990-ies, Putin explicitly shows his aggressive geopolitical interests. First, in the counties of the former SU under slogan of "historical justice", as Mr. Putin says, in order to cover the whole territory of the former Russian Empire, the Baltics countries and Poland included, and, second, the Middle East countries.
I want to ask a rhetoric question: what is the leading role of the UN and its main body the Security Council as the international organization for all the world countries? The UN was established, first, in order to prevent world and local catastrophic human-made wars and, second, in order to prevent such large natural disasters as explosions on nuclear power plants, earthquakes, meteoritic impacts, landslides, tsunamis, and others, and their consequences for the humankind.
A well-known fact is that in 1945 countries of anti-Hitler and anti-Japan coalition – the SU, the US, the Great Britain, China and France- established the United Nations Organization (or the UN for short) following consequences of the largest military catastrophe which induced human losses of about 50 million people and destroyed economies and infrastructure of many world countries and which they failed to prevent just at the beginning. Therefore they have become permanent members of the UNSC as the main body of the UN with veto power for discussions and resolutions not complying with their interests.
The UN has been founded to inspire international cooperation between world countries in political, economic, scientific, cultural, sport, and other aspects, irrespective of their political, social, national, and religious conditions.
The UN includes six main bodies: the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the Secretariat, the Economic and Social Council, the Trust Council, and the International Court of Justice based in Hague, the Netherlands.
The UN SC is responsible for maintaining peace and security in world countries, restraining religious and world wars and religious and national separatism, and the UN SC decisions are mandatory for all UN members.
I want to ask another rhetoric question: why the UNSC since its foundation to now, i.e. for over 70 years, hasn't been fulfilling its obligations on maintaining peace and security given that regional wars are unending from 1950-ies till now in various countries of the world? Why does the UNSC not review and appraise countries leading aggressive murderous wars leading to massive deaths among civilians, refugees and devastations to their cities by such empire states as the USA, Russia, and former SU and other world countries? Why does the UNSC not monitor for years the actions undertaken under its resolutions for specific countries and does not impose sanctions? Who and why are interested in this, when these wars cost not millions and billions, but trillions? When total debt of the USA is about 20 trillion USD, when the Soviet empire passed into nothing, and Russian economy is merely cm from oozy bottom.
According to the UN Charter, any country in the world gave the UNSC authority to "investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security". Even now the UNSC ignores every murderous event in the world. What is the reason for the UNSC failing to fulfil its commitments?
As an example, the ending in the WWII was predetermine by defeat of the Nazi Germany and aggressive Japan in early 1945, but the USA in August, 1946 atom-bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with merely scientific purposes to study atom bombing impact on civilian Japans. However, the UNSC did not review and appraise the atom bombing of the USA with massive killing of 200 thousand people and full devastation of two Japanese cities. In its turn it allowed the former SU to draw on the USA in the 1961 Cuban Missile Crisis and the modern Russia, the European countries with nuclear weapon.
Actions by the Great Britain authorities which ruined a beautiful city of Dresden with museums of historic significance, like Stalingrad in 1943, merely because of bombings which ruined cities in England by Adolf Hitler, world criminal and leader of the Nazi Germany.
Therefore, with no objections from the UN SC, from 1945 wars not only not ended, but became more frequent in various world regions; in my opinion, due to the following reasons. They are: prevalence of various political and strategic priorities of nuclear super-powers in various world regions; division of the world with demolishing social systems opposing to capitalism and previously communism and now merely Putin system; interventions to autocratic countries with their age-old Muslim ways and traditions in order to introduce European "democratic values"; realization of "historic justice" in order to restore age-old empires such as Russia; emerging two or more independent countries for the same nation, while there is no provisions in the article "On rights of nations on self-determination" in the UN Charter for the situation while world countries maintain contradictory and two-track policy; and others.
Once the SU collapsed, the unipolar world with the USA policy dominating the Western and other world countries is established. This, in its turn, allows the USA to establish and implement its own world policy ignoring reviewing and solving the issues by the UNSC.
As a brilliant example of such, in response to the tragedy of September, 9 2001 in New York when about 3,000 civilians died in skyscrapers blasted by the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization, the USA like the SU in 1979, without resolutions of the UNSC, bring their troops to Afghanistan under the slogan of establishing democratic institutions in an old Muslim country. The process continues for over 15 years as of now as a civil war in Afghanistan.
Without corresponding resolutions by the UNSC, in 2003 the USA united with European countries started aggressive war in such Middle East countries as Iraq, Libya, and Syria inviting Russia in 2015. As a result, self-styled state of ISIL is born bringing primeval Sariah laws back to life, razing cities, killing millions of civilians, and transforming another millions of civilians to refugees.
All these speak for real powers of the UNSC to settle peace.
This implies that it's high time to reform the UN Security Council unless the Third World War is set with nuclear weapon devastating the Earth brining world-range fatal consequences to all the mankind, and standing at the brisk of killing it. If this proposition came true, the Secretary General would be presented in person during all discussions in and adopting resolutions by the UNSC as the only person with the veto power as the responsible person for the future of all world countries that are UN members, in order to bring real protection for international rights of all world countries regardless of their social structure and whether country is autocratic or democratic.
The UNSC has the right to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security". The UNSC also has the right to enforce powers to state which break security and peace, including introducing military forces or certain sanctions according to the Article 25 of the UN Charter.
INCREASING NUMBER OF THE UNSC MEMBERS AND DEPRIVING THEM OF VETO POWER
All the what I have stated above on aggressive actions of superpowers and world countries can be elucidated, in my opinion, by the only reason that the five permanent members of the UNSC have veto power to review, discuss, and adopt resolutions contradicting their internal or external policies, which pushes their geostrategic or geopolitical interests that are in conflict with protection of rights of civilians and preserving their residence.
That's why since 1991, the USA used its veto power for over 14 times, and the Russian Federation, for over 13 times, which ultimately lead to world catastrophe on examples of the Middle East countries, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
Both countries from all over the globe and Kofi Anna, the former UN Secretary General, have made numerous requests to reform the UNSC but their requests were limited to changing number of its permanent members, not mentioning removing their veto powers.
In my opinion, taking the above-mentioned into account, the UNSC reform should include the following steps: 1. increasing number of the UNSC permanent members to 15 embracing strategically important and responsible countries from all over the globe; 2. increasing number of the UNSC non-permanent members with 3years rotation to 10 counties while taking their responsibility and importance in various Earth regions into consideration; 3. depriving of all the UNSC members of their veto powers; 4. all issues and resolutions of the UNSC under discussion are voted by all its members and adopted by simple majority; and 5. make the UN Secretary General take an active part in the UNSC activities as the only person possessing the veto power on all issues and discussions of the UNSC.
At the same time, I would like to express my opinion on which countries should be the permanent members and which shall be non-permanent members with their three-year rotation (they will be presented in parenthesis), in order to make, on the one hand, submission process for issues and resolutions regulated by majority of votes complying with requirements of the UN member countries. On the other hand, make UN budget covered by all the UNASC members instead of being filed by donations from the USA, which, on its turn, starts promoting its interests in activities of the UNSC. One might say: "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
As usual, the UNSC should include its current members as the members of anti-Hitler and anti-Japan coalitions and the countries where the World Wars were fought. Next, countries which are located in various Earth regions, important for the regions by population, religion, economic stability, and number of armed forces should be included to the UNSC. Therefore:
А. the UNSC permanent members, in my opinion, should include: USA, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, India, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Brazil, and Argentina, i.e. 15 countries; and
B. the UNSC non-permanent members rotating each three years: Greece (Belgium, the Netherlands); Poland, Switzerland (Romania); Denmark (Sweden, Norway, Finland); Azerbaijan (Belarus, Georgia, Armenia); Uzbekistan (Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan); Japan (Philippines, Malaysia, Australia, South Korea); Pakistan (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq); Israel (South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria, Tanzania); Chile (Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Panama); Mexico (Canada), i.e. 10 countries rotating every three years.
Therefore, in my opinion, the UNSC should embrace 15 permanent members and 10 non-permanent ones. None of them should have the veto power.
In my view, the neutral person of the UN should only possess the veto power on submitted issues to the UNSC and adopted resolutions on them. The person who shall have the whole responsibility on activities and adopted resolutions of the UNSC is the UN Secretary General. This is similar to the fact that in all individual countries the President or the Prime minister or other first person in the country makes the final decision on war and peace. This is my answer to newly elected USA 45th President Donald Trump, who in one of his speeches on 13.12.2016 noted: "As for the UN, the organization will make a drastic change starting January 20, 2017". On January, 20th in his inauguration speech he made his view on the future: "America is the first". The statement is too vague and ambiguous. At the same time, he did not mention any cooperation, including the NATO where the USA is the leader. Therefore, the EU countries must realize that they should no longer rely on close cooperation and endorsement of the USA. But they must look for ways to increase their power in the Europe for one, while still remembering that the reform of the UNSC shall help them, given their majority, influence the world policy if they take active and joint steps.
It's noteworthy that in 2000 the administration of the former US president Bill Clinton agreed to increase the number of the UNSC members up to 23 with only five constant members of the UNSC to have the veto power. The UNSC have been criticized from the moment of the UN was born till now because its five permanent members have the veto power for any decisions that may have any negative implications on their countries.
In my opinion, reforming the UNSC including a rise in number of its constant members will lead to: 1. reducing privileges of the current five permanent members of the UNSC; 2. increasing representation of other leading world countries including developing ones; 3. reducing dominant powers in the unipolar or bipolar world both for the USA and Russia; 4. solving the issue of the UN financial stability through providing permanent or semi-permanent membership of the UNSC to rich and developed countries; 5. decreasing the fees the USA pays to the UN budget, thus, decreasing the USA dominance in solving actual issues; and 6. widening consideration of humanitarian, social, public, political, military, and other problems by all countries of the world.
Therefore, on the one hand, widening the range of the UNSC permanent members without veto power strengthens and improves the role of the UN General Secretary as the most important UN body with veto power granted to him as the responsible one for the United Nations as an international agency. On the other hand, implementing the above-mentioned together with developing and adopting a new article "On rights of nations, national and ethnical minorities on self-determination" in the UN Charter shall remove the need to set wars including regional and separatist conflicts in all world countries.
To be finished.
Raiis Gassanly.
Denmark. Copenhagen.
