Palestine is not yet a member. It has observer status but last year the status
was upgraded by the General Assembly allowing the Palestinians to participate in
the General Assembly debates though the Palestinian delegate cannot vote. Before
this, Palestinians could only speak on issues concerning Palestine. It can also now
cosponsor resolutions. In other words, it is almost like an associate member.
The US, though a defaulter, a delinquent and a debtor, dominates the Security Council
but not the General Assembly in January 1999 because of non-payment of dues but escaped
the humiliation when Washington advanced US$197 million (RM748 million) in early
November 1998 as part payment. This has been the practice and behavioral patterns
of the US for sometime now. All members, the US in particular, should be exemplary
paying their dues on time, in full and without conditions!
You would have heard about reform at the UN. Well, reforming the UN is a long
standing issue. It started four years after it was founded in 1945 and since then,
I am told, cycles of groups under different designations recycled available documents
(about reform) with renewed vigour. Reform is a search for better results if not
for excellence and the best use of available resources, the most important of all
is human resource.
Kofi Annan was a reformer when he was head of Personnel or Budget. What he does
now as Secretary-General should have greater impact with his accumulated experience
and the new power.
The American Congress wants the UN budget reduced, staff down sized and the UN
accountable to Washington besides other conditions including that the American contribution
should be reduced from 25 % to 15 % before it would release payment for its obligatory
debt. What insolence; it is offensively contemptuous and insulting to other members.
Kofi Annan, with some understatement, remarked that "it's a messy world".
I hasten to add, if I may, that it would have been messier if it was not for the
UN.
It is the most effective protector, indeed the only defence available for small
nations against big powers and bullies around the block. Without the UN, Iraq would
have been devastated. But the UN failed in a spectacular fashion in Bosnia. There
are few bright spots to be found worldwide.
Even Europe is having all sorts of problems. Demands for expulsion or killing
of people from opposite ethnic or religious groups and racism and neo-Nazism are
on the rise. I would not call it ethnic cleansing but that is what in effect it means.
Asia is in deep recession and Brazil threatens to drag down much of Latin America.
The worst is yet to come!
It does seem that the US is the only bright spot. These are astounding times for
the Americans. The consumers are spending with abandon. I continue to be surprised
how robust the American economy is as much as I am amazed by its lack of morality
in government and its foreign policy
There are a dozen member states each with less than 100,000 people; many with
a population of less than one million and even more with less than ten million. The
smallest are Palau (17,000) and San Marino (26,000). All nations - big or tiny -
pay aues assessed on a scale approved by the General Assembly
You would have also read - I presume - that there are sharp divisions in the Security
Council on how to deal with non-compliant Iraq. Russia, China and France sympathise
with Baghdad whilst the US and UK are the hawks. The division is threatening to upset
the collegiality that has developed amongst the five permanent members with the ending
of the Cold War.
Malaysia and Bahrain normally side with Russia, China and France while the rest
tend to follow the Washington-London alliance (in respect of Iraq). But Kuala Lumpur,
in the case of Kosovo, is closer to the American line.
Realpolitik always dictates who supports or opposes, besides justice and morality.
It is often noted that political expediency, bilateral considerations and subtle
threats also play a major role in deciding which issues to endorse or support.
Every member nation It does seem that the US is the only bright spot. These are
astounding times for the Americans. The consumers are spending with abandon. I continue
to be surprised how robust the American economy is as much as I am amazed by its
lack of morality in government and its foreign policy
There are a dozen member states each with less than 100,000 people; many with
a population of less than one million and even more with less than ten million. The
smallest are Palau (17,000) and San Marino (26,000). All nations - big or tiny -
pay dues assessed on a scale approved by the General Assembly
You would have also read - I presume - that there are sharp divisions in the Security
Council on how to deal with noncompliant Iraq. Russia, China and France sympathise
with Baghdad whilst the US and UK are the hawks. The division is threatening to upset
the collegiality that has developed amongst the five permanent members with the ending
of the Cold War.
But the contention is the size - whether it is 23 to 25 or a 26-member council.
The US prefers it not to be more than 20, but of late, I understand, Washington has
become more flexible. Italy supported by Pakistan, Egypt and Mexico amongst others,
believes the enlargement, for the time being at least, should not exceed 5-6 seats,
for a total of 2021 so that the Council remains manageable and effective.
Italy opposes the American - backed proposal to make Japan and Germany permanent
members of the Security Council because it would diminish the interest of the excluded
such as Italy, India and Egypt, thus making them to feel marginalised.
Besides, two members of the European Union - UK and France - have been permanent
members of the council since its inception 54 years ago. Adding a third member from
Europe, Italy argues, is not a move in the direction of a common EU Foreig n Policy
which should logically and naturally follow the introduction of the Euro currency
The plan by Razali Ismail (the Malaysian president of the General Assembly in
1997) - not necessarily reflecting that of the Malaysian government- is to increase
Security Council membership to 24 made up of five permanent members (two from industrialised
world, three from developing nations, one each for Asia, Africa and Latin America)
and four non-permanent members - one each from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern
Europe.
Under the proposal, the new permanent members would have no veto power. It has
been popular among some members, including the US. But for some others, this proposal
will in effect make membership four-tiered - first class (permanent members with
veto power), second class (permanent members without veto power), third class, (the
elected non-permanent members), and lastly the low caste (the ordinary members).
I do not believe it is acceptable to the majority In any event, nothing will happen
for a long time though discussions will continue to take place.
There are many countries which have never been elected to the Security Council.
Greece, though a founding member, has been elected only once and Malaysia and several
other nations, though relatively new members, have been elected three or more times.
Member states will elect those nations they feel can contribute and represent
the developing world without favour or fear. A few rich nations and regional powers
have been regularly elected because of their generosity and hard campaigning. But
there were times, too, when they had been humiliatingly rebuffed.
(Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad is our envoy to the United Nations)
(This article has been reproduced with the kind permission of Sun )
Back to Main
