Last week, we discussed the urgent need for the expansion of the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. The current composition (the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France) better reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 rather than 2010, and if the Security Council is going to have the credibility necessary to fulfill its mission of ensuring peace and stability in the world, more nations need to be included.
In the previous article, we suggested that India, Japan, Brazil and South Africa be given permanent seats on the Security Council. In upcoming articles, we shall look into the issues surrounded giving a permanent seat to a Muslim-majority nation, resolving the problem of European representation (namely, how to give it adequate representation without concentrating too much power in Europe), and reforming the use of the national veto within the Security Council. This article will focus on the issue of a Muslim-majority nation.
The lack of Security Council membership for a Muslim nation is a dilemma. Muslims make up one-fifth of the world's population, and it seems absurd that such an important portion of the human family lacks representation on the most powerful political body in the world. And since many of the world's problems today stem from a perceived conflict between traditional Islam and the modern world, establishing Muslim representation on the Security Council would seem to be an important step in resolving the resultant problems.
But if a Muslim nation is to be granted permanent membership on the Security Council, what country should it be?
One candidate suggests itself immediately, but also immediately disqualifies itself. This is Saudi Arabia. The homeland of Islam, and the location of the two most important religious centers of Islam in the form of Mecca and Medina, the Saudi kingdom is also an economic power due to its immense oil resources. It is also a military power of some significance due to its large arsenal of American military aircraft, advanced tanks, and other equipment.
But Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive nations in the world, ruled by a near-absolute monarch and treated by the al-Saud family as their own personal fiefdom. The criminal justice and educational systems are downright medieval, and anything approaching gender equality id a distant dream. There is absolutely no freedom of religion, nor is any political opposition tolerated. Such an autocratic government has no place on the Security Council.
Another possibility is Egypt. It is certainly one of the most important Muslim nations in a geopolitical sense, having a very large population, a developing economy, and a powerful military. Many of the most important Islamic institutions of higher education are to be found in Cairo, and it has played a central role in Islamic history. Equally important in terms of weighing its qualification for Security Council membership, Egypt is one of the few Muslim Arab nations to have signed a peace treaty with Israel and establish full diplomatic relations with it.
But Egypt is also a dictatorship, ruled since 1981 by President Hosni Mubarak. While not the repressive regime that reigns in Saudi Arabia, it is certainly bad enough, with political opponents routinely thrown in prison and nothing approaching a free press. Unless and until Egypt take genuine steps towards democracy, its political system probably disqualifies Egypt from permanent Security Council membership.
What about Turkey? It is an overwhelmingly Muslim nation but has a strictly secular constitution, demonstrating that Islam need not be incompatible with the concept of separation of religion and government. It also would seem to have Security Council qualifications in that it has a powerful military and a developing and increasingly sophisticated economy. Despite recent problems in their relations, Turkey has long maintained sound diplomatic relations with Israel. But there are many problems.
Firstly, while Turkey seems largely free of the Islamist militancy that infects many other Muslim states, there is a large and significant amount of extremist nationalism in many segments of Turkish society, including the military. Indeed, a large investigation into an alleged nationalist coup plot among the military, including hundreds of high-ranking officers, is ongoing in Turkey. This is no idle threat, as the military has forced civilian governments out of power on four occasions since 1960. The military not so subtly threatened to mount a coup against the ruling AK Party as recently as 2007. What if Turkey became a permanent member of the Security Council and then had its government overthrown by the military?
Turkey also has numerous other problems related to its treatment of its own Kurdish population, the issue of Cyprus, and relations with Armenia (including its refusal to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide). All of these are very likely to be on the agenda of the United Nations in the coming years, and giving a permanent Security Council seat to Turkey would make resolving these conflicts vastly more difficult and complicated.
Another possibility is Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world. Indeed, it is the world's fourth most populous nation, which by itself gives it a strong claim on permanent Security Council membership. It also has a strong economy and significant military power.
In the decades after it won independence from the Dutch in the wake of World War II, Indonesia was prevented from achieving its potential by successive periods of autocratic rule, first by the Sukarno regime and then by the Suharto regime. In 1998, however, as the Asian financial crisis wrecked havoc on the Indonesian economy, Suharto was forced from power. The following year, free and fair legislative elections were held across the country, followed by direct presidential elections in 2004. These actions brought Indonesia into the ranks of the world's democracies.
Indonesia is not without its problems. There are numerous separatist factions in parts of the country, and religious tensions run high in many places (although the constitution of the country is refreshing tolerant of non-Muslim faiths). Corruption within the government continues to be a problem. But considering what the situation had been under the Suharto regime, it is undeniable that Indonesia has made amazing progress in the decade since the advent of democracy.
Although it does not yet have diplomatic relations with Israel, Indonesia is relatively removed from the Israeli-Arab conflict that has absorbed so much of the attention of the United Nations over the years. Were it given greater influence and visibility on the international stage, we can expect Indonesia to use this greater power more responsibly than others might.
When looking over the résumés of the various contenders for a hypothetical permanent Muslim seat on the Security Council, no country is perfect. But the one which has the best combination of qualifications is Indonesia. If the decision is made to give a permanent Security Council seat to a Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia is clearly the best bet.
No comments:
Post a Comment