Published on May 23, 2020
1. A Chance for Global Future: Reforming the UN. Part II This article sheds more light on the dramatic changes the UN has to undergo, if importance is still to be attached to the international body. Herewith I stress the need for extending the Security Council Permanent Membership to Brazil and Mexico. A Chance for Global Future: Reforming the UN. Part II Yes to Veto Right for the 13 Leading Countries in the World. By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis In a previous article (Avoid the French Trap in Reforming the UN. Part I /https://www.academia.edu/43038240/Avoid_the_French_Trap_in_Reforming_th e_UN_-_2004), we examined several issues related to the long awaited reform of the UN, and we advocated the extension of the veto right (Security Council permanent membership) to India, Japan, Germany and Italy for historical, political, and economic reasons. We argued that this would help the international body reflect today's realities best and meet a reasonable level of representativeness. This is condition sine qua non for a democratically organized international community. 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. But would that be enough for the international community? 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 shed more light on the dramatic changes the UN has to undergo, if importance is still to be attached to the international body. Going on with the same, comparative approach, one could question the feasibility of an international organization where Russia is given the veto right, but Brazil is not. Then, the discussion would be extended to Mexico, to an Islamic country, to an African nation, and so on. One has however to confess that no clear conclusion can be drawn through this approach. It would be truly honest to admit explicitly that there was a theoretical, ideological, political background, which ultimately led to the formation of the UN. This organization was conceived as a continuation of the Society of Nations, i.e. as 'revenge' against the violation of the International Law – then still embryonic – 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.
2. UN: the Epitome of the Final Victory of Democracy and Humanism The UN was viewed as the tool, which would help the victorious allies, mostly USA and UK, to propagate the ideals of democracy, freedom, liberal economy, 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, UUSR, Asia (Cambodia, Vietnam) and Africa (Abyssinia, Angola). Who can attempt a military coup today in Greece (as in 1967), Turkey (as in 1980) or in a Latin American country? Of course, this positive record is counterbalanced by terrible tragedies in Africa (Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Nigeria, Algeria, and Sudan – Darfur more recently) and in Asia (Tien An Men, East Timor, the Taliban of Afghanistan, the extremists of Kashmir, the narco-generals of Myanmar, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, and Bashar Assad, the ominous Ayatullahs of Iran, and the tenebrous 'theo'- satano-cracy of Saudi Arabia). A lot is still to be done; a lot is still to be propagated; and a lot is still at stake. Democracy, Human Rights, Liberal economy, Freedom of Speech and Faith have been consolidated and truly expanded, but serious, real threats encapsulate an unsafe future. UN is to be viewed within this context, and to be again used as a supreme 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; they must work out a plan of reform for the UN that will enable the international body to play the same role it did in the past more successfully within the new environment. Penalize France, if France createsan obstacle! 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 want to promote and diffuse through the UN; they have to come to terms with what is and what is not 'representativeness' in our world; they have finally to study how their choice in extending the veto right to this or that country will serve best the aforementioned basic political – ideological concepts, and their propagation. If the colonial, racist and criminal state of France does not want to reason and cooperate, a real crusade must be undertaken by the US and the non- colonialist Western democracies in order to eliminate the persistently
3. murderous French regime, which spread disaster and genocide, misery and pestilence, poverty and starvation from Africa to Guyana, from Vietnam to the Pacific, and from Corsica to Lebanon. Polynesia and Brittany demand their freedom with the same right and by the same strength as the people of Chechnya and Ossetia. It has to be made understood to the bogus-democratic regime of the French – at all costs – that the concepts and the principles of humanism, freedom and democracy apply to, and are to be shared by, all peoples and nations all over the world; they are not to be preserved for a supposed 'elite' of northwestern European peoples, as it seems to fit the French perversion of elitism and as it has been notoriously expressed by the uncultured and pseudo-civilized French politicians, the likes of Fabius, Jospin, Juppe and Chirac. The basic ideological – political principles of the democratic world encompass freedom of speech, press, faith and cult; freedom of vote, electoral representativeness, multipartite parliamentary system; human rights, multiculturalism and respect for minority rights; eradication of any sort of discrimination; free markets, 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 every type of discrimination has already been successfully eradicated. This model of society represents the aspiration of 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 way. It is the primary duty of all the people living in developed democracies to assist the rest of the world in this ultimate effort of emancipation and liberation. The Criteria for the UN Reform In this regard, the consideration of a country's global representativeness and eligibility for Security Council membership is to be based on following six parameters: A. Population – it cannot be under 40 million people. B. Economic power – it cannot be under US$ 400 b (GDP). 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 in figures and percentage, whereas parameter C is rather relevant of the country's constitution, of the prevailing law system, and of the political practice in the country. As far as parameter B is concerned, basic indicators to be taken into consideration are the GDP, the foreign
4. investment (as percentage of the GDP), the budget (income and expenditures), the trade (exports and imports), the public debt, the external debt, and the forex and gold reserves. Furthermore, parameter D can be evaluated through many indicators, notably per capita GDP, as well as fixed telephone line, mobile telephone line, and Internet penetration, railways and paved highways network. As far as parameter E is concerned, the number of people sharing the same culture, religion and/or language consists in the basic data; in addition to it, we have to also take into consideration the area inhabited by the ethnic-cultural-religious-linguistic group and the degree of differentiation of the group from the rest worldwide. 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. A first point of consideration is that these countries are the world’s top nine economies in terms of GDP. Or almost! Brazil has replaced Russia in the 9th position with US $ 1.3 trillion, leaving therefore the world’s territorially largest country at the 10th position (with US $ 1.2 trillion). But is it logical to expect the UN Security Council to be the top 10 GDP Club? Certainly not! We cannot afford to view our societies only in terms of economic productivity. Furthermore, if we accord veto right only to the aforementioned nine (9) countries, we automatically leave big groups of people outside the top decision making international body. The Hispanophone world represents a sizeable portion of the international community with more than 400 million people mostly in America and Europe. The Lusophone world includes approximately 250 million people scattered in Latin America, Africa and Europe. Brazil and Mexico for Security CouncilPermanentMembership The two Latin American giants represent best the Lusophone and the Hispanophone worlds. In their cases, 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, Mexico is larger than Spain, which already is also smaller than Colombia, being furthermore expected to become soon the fourth Hispanophone country (with Argentina rising in the third position). Similarly, Brazil is far larger than Portugal, which is the world’s fourth Lusophone country (after Brazil, Mozambique and Angola)! Brazil’s surface (8.5 million km2) is just half the Russian territory, but the country is more populous (184 million people compared to Russia’s 143 million). With larger GDP than that of Russia, Brazil attracts equally important foreign investment (18% of the GDP), and has a wealthier budget (income US $ 147 billion – instead of Russia’s US $ 84 b, and expenditures US $ 172 b – instead of US $ 74 b). Certainly, Russia outperforms Brazil in trade, as well as in forex and gold reserves, but on the other hand, Brazil seems to
5. advance faster in high tech (mobile line users: 46 million people – instead of Russia’s 18 million people, and Internet users: 14 million people – instead of 6 million people). With commitment to democratic ideals better stressed than in Putin's Russia, Brazil has all the right and every reason to demand permanent membership in the UN Security Council, where it would represent the entire Lusophone world, a cultural – linguistic community definitely larger than the entire Francophonie, the Germanophone world, Japan or Italy. As a consequence, Mexico too has a fully-pledged right to UN Security Council permanent membership. With a surface larger than that of France, Japan, Germany, Italy and the UK combined, Mexico has a population slightly smaller than that of Japan. Mexico took profit of its vicinity with the USA, and by now it is clear that the 10-year old NAFTA agreement helped that country to grow economically and to develop its trade performance fast. That is why Mexico (with 105 million people) outperforms Russia (143 million people) in exports (US $ 164 b instead of US $ 134 b), and – having grown faster as a consumer society – it imports more than Russia and Brazil combined (Mexico US $ 169 b, Russia US $ 75 b, Brazil US $ 48 b)! With a budget equal to that of Brazil, Mexico has higher per capita GDP, and attracts foreign investors more than Russia and Brazil do. With lower figures for its public and external debts, Mexico achieved a mobile line and Internet penetration higher than Brazil's, and although its territory is less than one fourth the size of Brazil, Mexico has a far better railway and highway infrastructure. Needless to say, the Hispanophone world, duly and naturally represented by Mexico, is larger than the Lusophone or the Slavophone world. With a bicameral and better functioning political system, Mexico has eclipsed many other Latin American countries in its devotion to the implementation of democratic rules. Mexico represents the entire Hispanophone world, a far larger entity than the Slavic nations, and if accepted along with Brazil, it would raise the number of the UN Security Council permanent members to eleven (11). The Islamic World and Africa must be there too! The quest for representativeness in the UN Security Council could not be successfully accomplished without a proper presence of at least one Muslim nation, since Islam accounts for no less than 1.2 billion people. Although the Islamic world and Africa are partly overlapping, a very significant part of Africa has no connection with Islam, being relevant of traditional African religions and/or various Christian denominations. If we take into consideration that the Black continent accounts for no less than 850 million people, we realize that, without an African country - fully accredited as US Security Council permanent member, we do not have many chances to claim that the UN reform was conducted properly and in an unbiased way.
6. Through the aforementioned reasoning, it can be deduced that the two overlapping worlds, Islam and Africa, present some problems; this is true indeed! When it comes to UN Security Council permanent membership eligibility, the first problem to face is the absence of a sizeable, developed and democratic country. The Islamic world and the African continent were the target of the colonial powers; both worlds were extensively and disastrously colonized over a long period involving severe and traumatic experience. In addition, independence came very late, if we compare these worlds with Latin America. With the exception of the part of the Ottoman Empire, which was established as Modern Turkey, and of Iran, the rest of the Islamic world's territory was divided among the colonial powers, namely France, England, Holland, Russia and Italy. As far as Africa is concerned, only Liberia was not colonized; I fully reject the Abyssinian claims in this regard because Abyssinia (fallaciously re-baptized as 'Ethiopia) was colonized indeed by Italy. However, in both cases, the Islamic world and the African continent, the de-colonization procedure led to unprecedented split and political division. It is therefore only normal that - either within the context of the Islamic world or in Africa - one cannot find a country as large as Brazil, as populous as India, and as rich as Italy. (to be continued) By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis Published: 12/24/2004