Benazir Bhutto, April 20, 1996

Note to Creators.com readers: We are offering Benazir Bhutto's complete collection of syndicated columns for the interest of our readers. Please visit our news page for a complete chronological list, or you may browse our archives by month with the drop down menu on this page.

You can find current Creators Syndicate content dealing with Ms. Bhutto's career and assassination by visiting our news item.

Take a look at today's headlines: bombings in Israel, rampant organized crime in Russia, unimpeded narcotics trafficking in South America and the constant menace of environmental disaster.

No longer is traditional military conflict the only threat to international peace and stability. These problems demand more than the same old solutions — they require a level of cooperation never before attempted.

With this in mind, we turn our attention to the one organization whose purpose is to strive for the sort of unity we so desperately need: the United Nations.

But the United Nations, as it currently functions, is hardly global or cooperative. Rather, it is at the mercy of its Security Council, whose five permanent member nations — the United States, Great Britain, Russia, China and France — account for a mere 2.7 percent of the U.N.'s total membership.

And, while it is true that this 2.7 percent represents 60 percent of the world's economic wealth and nearly 80 percent of its military potential, bombs and dollars alone are not the solution to our current problems.

For most of its existence, the Security Council has been mired in Cold War gridlock. From 1946 to 1990, only 464 Security Council resolutions passed, with 201 proposed resolutions vetoed by permanent members.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, however, the Security Council has become a major player on the international stage — and it deserves the increased scrutiny that its new role demands. What can be done to improve the council and make it more representative? A number of proposals are currently under consideration.

There is a broad consensus among non-aligned nations such as Pakistan that the composition of the council needs to be altered, although exactly how it should be changed is a matter of great debate.

Some proposals call for an increase in the number of either permanent or non-permanent members.

One plan includes the creation of a new category of semi-permanent ones, eligible for election to the council more frequently. Another idea is the allocation of council seats on a regional basis.

It is the position of Pakistan that an increase in the number of permanent members would be at variance with the sovereign equality of states — a founding principle of the United Nations. Instead, we would like to see an expansion of the membership with the intent of creating an equitable geographical distribution of seats.

The reform of the Security Council should go beyond simply retooling membership requirements, however. The expansion should go hand in hand with efforts to increase the council's effectiveness and efficiency, and promote greater democracy and accountability to the General Assembly.

That has been the trend since before the U.N. Charter created the Security Council in 1945.

Early proposals made a clear and emphatic distinction between the powers of the General Assembly and those of the council. The General Assembly was to discuss and make recommendations regarding economic and social matters but to have no powers of any significance with regard to political issues. In contrast, the council was granted sole jurisdiction over matters relating to peace and security.

This, in effect, created a directorate of great powers — one which was irremovable and immutable.

During initial U.N. meetings, the scope of the General Assembly was broadened, allowing the body to also deal with peace and security issues. There was one important caveat, however: The assembly could not make any recommendations with regard to any dispute or situation in which the Security Council was exercising its functions.

Another landmark action, the so-called "Uniting for Peace" resolution of 1950, further involved the General Assembly in matters that had previously been the exclusive domain of the Security Council. The resolution said that responsibility of maintaining peace and security rested with the organization as a whole — the General Assembly could not absolve itself of the blame if the Security Council failed to keep the peace.

But these resolutions have not gone far enough to make the powers that be in the Security Council truly accountable to the General Assembly. Until such a time as the balance of power shifts to the assembly, the thesis of "might is right" will still be the determining factor in global interaction. The Catch-22, of course, is that any change in the U.N. Charter can be vetoed by one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

It is exactly this sort of power politics that need to be subdued if we, as a world, are going to be able to face and overcome the myriad challenges confronting us.

COPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.