Reforms in United Nations Security Council Veto Power

United Nations (UN) is one international organisation which does not need an introduction. The Security Council is one of its arms. Its purpose is to help maintain peace.

In 1945, it was decided that the Security Council (SC) will have 15 members out of which 10 will be non-permanent elected members who have a 2 year term and 5 will be permanent members. They permanent members are collectively called, the P5. They are United States of America, China, Russia, France and England.

The P5 have a special power called the veto power. It gives them the power to prevent the adoption of any ‘substantive’ draft resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft.  The P5 have to ‘use’ the veto power. If it abstains from voting then it does not count as a veto.

It means that if for example England doesn’t support a draft resolution then it can ‘veto’ it and the draft will not pass even though all the other 14 Security Council members support it. Veto power is, to say the least, like a super power. It is thus, given to only the five countries who were super-powers at the time of the inception of the Security Council.

Recently there has been a lot of talks about reforms in the UNSC.

Reason?

The SC reflects the geo political realities of 1945. These need to change to match the current situation. In 1945, there were 51 countries out of which 11 were members of SC. That’s 22%. Today, there are 192 countries and only 15 of them are members of the SC. It comes up to less that 8%. Geographically as well, it is not representative enough.

Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, who are collectively called the G4, have been very vocal about their claim for the permanent seat. Germany and Japan have been two of the top three contributors to the UN since a long time now. India has also contributed a lot of troops to the UN Peacekeeping force.

There are also countries like Spain and Canada who think that the system of having a permanent membership is wrong and so they do not want to add more members to a category they do not want in the first place.

Before we think of reforms, we need to know how to amend the UN Charter.

An amendment requires two-thirds majority of the overall UN membership. So, that means 128 of the 192 states in the General Assembly have to agree. An amendment would further have to be ratified by two-thirds of the member states (and ratification is usually a parliamentary procedure, so in most countries this means it is not enough for the government of the day to be in favor of a reform; its Parliament or Congress must also agree to the change).  So we can safely say that the bar for amending the Charter has been set pretty high.

We need a reform formula which is simultaneously acceptable to a two-thirds majority and not unacceptable to the P5. This has proved so elusive.

So, if reforms are this tough, why not just let it be? What is the worst that can happen?

The absence of reforms can discredit the United Nations itself. The UNSC is one of the most important arms of the UN. If it loses its teeth then the UN will lose its power as well.

Imagine in 2020 France vetoes a resolution affecting South Asia with India absent from the table, or of one affecting southern Africa with South Africa not voting: who would take the Council seriously then?

Britain and France have been very encouraging with the idea of reforms in the UNSC. Why would a country be willing/eager to share such a power?

Simple. Today, people are suggesting increase in the number of permanent members. If it extends for a decade more then people will demand for replacing some of the P5 members. Better to share power than lose it altogether!

As Mr Shashi Tharoor suggested, we need to reform the UNSC not just because it’s an important organ of the UN but because it is a part of a broader process of renewing the United Nations “-not because it has failed, but because it has succeeded often enough to be worth reforming.”

Constructive suggestions are welcome. 

Subsidies are injurious to health

Contrary to popular opinion, subsidies do more harm than good.

This is even more true in a country like India where corruption is commonplace and inefficiency is a major problem in the government. Our government gives subsidies for all the wrong reasons. These subsidies do everything other than helping the target group. I should make it clear that by subsidies I don't mean just monetary let offs. I also mean 'welfare' schemes of the government. Giving free housing, loan waivers, subsidized electricity and reservations in educational institutes is all a part of subsidies. 

The government is so busy trying to redistribute income that it has almost forgotten about generating income in the first place. 

Take NREGA for example. It is called a 'You dig, I fill' scheme. The government pays people to dig up an area and then pays a few other people to fill it up. This is their way of giving away money while showing that they are working towards improving rural infrastructure. 

The problem is, this is all manual labour. They don't teach skills. Workers who get 100 days of employment are still sitting idle for the rest of the 200 days. There is no improvement in their ability. These people get jobs because they are entitled to a job and not because they deserve a job. 

The point being, if government gave training instead of subsidies, it would be much more useful to these people. We all know that its better to teach a man fishing than giving him a fish. Leave the creating jobs part to the private sector. If the government can make the unemployed people employable then that will be a big feat in itself. 

The world thinks that India has cheap labour. You can get people to do household chores and stuff for a fraction of a price that you have had to pay in foreign countries. This is infact a myth. Our labour class is almost as expensive as any other country. It's just that we pay for it in two ways. First, we pay them their salary which is direct income for them and then we pay taxes which are used to literally give away money to these people. So in the end, government is just a middleman. A middleman who has a huge opportunity to be corrupt and who has used this opportunity to its full extent. The problem is not expensive labour. The problem is that, due to this government interference, citizens have to pay more taxes but the money doesn't reach the labour class. Hence, both sides are unhappy and this leads to a problem of high taxes and poverty at the same time. 

So why not remove subsidies all together?

Let the citizens pay a high price for labour but reduce their tax burden. This way, the labour class can lead a better life and money can be effectively utilised. Ofcourse, corruption goes down as well. It's a win win situation. 

Unfortunately, the corrupt government workers are the only ones that don't win. Politians won't be able to use it as a 'vote gathering' activity. People responsible for distributing these subsidies won't be able to get their share. 

So, the next time you hear about a subsidy being dolled out, remember the fact that its your money they are giving away. You are going to pay for it in one way or another. Don't vote for the guy who gave the maximum number of subsidies. Vote for the guy who makes subsidies redundant. 

Cheers

Why not be normal?

    

I am sure you have heard the quote "You are special. Just like everybody else." It seems like a very simple and easy to understand line but I guess only a few of us have thought about how it applies real life.

After a series of events, I asked myself, "Is normal really that bad?"

I thought about it for a while and finally the answer was a resounding NO!

Ofcourse, like almost all things in life, opinion on this is subjective. I know a lot of people who don't like normal.
Fair enough.

But why?

The answer I get is, "Its boring." or "Variety is the spice of life." "Why be normal when you can be interesting?"

WWE fighters are not called stars. They are called superstars. Actors/Actresses don't aspire for star status. They aspire for superstar status. Just being stars is not good enough anymore. There will be a time when being a super star will also not be good enough. What then? It's a never ending cycle.

In a world where everyone is trying to be 'different', normal becomes interesting.

I like normal people. They intrigue me. Because "To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest achievement" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

I am not sure I have been able to express myself properly enough to drive home the point but I guess you can all figure out what I am trying to say.

One song that can express this kind of a 'not able to express myself feeling' is "Jo Bhi Main"  from the movie Rockstar.

"Jo bhi main, kehna chahun.
Barbaad kare, alphas mere" :)