Smajlovic: UN more likely to collapse than expanding the permanent Security Council composition

Journalist Ljiljana Smajlovic assessed for Kosovo Online, regarding the call to reform the United Nations, that there were greater chances of this world organization collapsing than expanding the permanent composition of the Security Council. 

"Of course, most of the world agrees that this needs to change. The permanent composition of the Security Council is a result of war, and the victors mostly gained veto rights. It consists mainly of white nations, while the rest of the world, which includes South America, the Middle East, Africa, and major powers like India and Brazil, are not predominantly represented, which have developed their political and economic power mainly after World War II," Smajlovic says, referring to calls from representatives of certain major powers at the United Nations General Assembly held in New York to expand the permanent composition of the Security Council.

The current permanent members of this body are the USA, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. Potential new members of the Security Council that have been mentioned so far include Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany.

Smajlovic reminds us that the European Union is not among the permanent members of the Security Council and adds that everyone has noticed that "France has no intention of giving up its seat to the EU, and even less so had the United Kingdom, even before Brexit."

"In my opinion, Americans are pushing for this again, not because they think it's realistic, but because it's good for isolating Russia. When US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, on the first day at the Security Council, speaking about the Ukrainian war, says it's a war with an aggressor and a victim, most of the world thinks that's true, but in every war, there's an aggressor and a victim, and you have been aggressors countless times without facing any consequences. Even I think of that, so imagine what they think in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran," Smajlovic says.

She believes that there is no way to expand the permanent composition of the Security Council.
"The expansion of the permanent composition cannot even be put on the agenda; the veto power can block it," she says. 

Smajlovic adds that Serbia would "like to see India and Brazil" enter the expanded permanent composition of the Security Council, as they do not recognize Kosovo.

"But it's even unrealistic to talk about it now. Secondly, you don't know what happens to a country that also becomes a superpower in terms of veto power. Suppose Brazil and India gain veto power; they will immediately look at who has more veto power and say, 'Well, Serbia is important to us, but not as important as Kashmir or something else.' I think it shouldn't be automatic. At first glance, it would be perfect for us, but we don't know how these countries with veto power would regroup, and that's why I think it won't happen," Smajlovic says.

She reminded that the exercise of veto power has changed over time.

"Until the end of the Cold War, I think Americans used the veto the most. When the Cold War ended, there was no veto for a while; you remember there was no veto on sanctions against Yugoslavia. Then those who came out with the short end of the stick in the Cold War started using the veto to protect their interests. We know that China used to veto only in rare cases when it felt its national security was threatened, but now it has started to join the Russian veto even when its security is not at stake. So, we don't know how these countries would regroup if a new bloc would be created, and that's the reason I think it won't happen," Smajlovic said.

She added that major powers seemed to be resolving all crises worldwide at first glance.

"But in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, you see that no one can do anything to either Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine has US protection, and Russia has the right of veto in the Security Council, but this is not the first conflict that cannot be resolved at the UN, and it is clear that all conflicts we call proxy conflicts, wars through intermediaries, will remain unresolved. The UN has no power there because these are conflicts of great powers, and until they agree, there is no solution. That's why I expect someone to give in and still reach some ceasefire, although it seems impossible at the moment. On the other hand, there are indications that there could be some ceasefire that could become a part of a UN resolution and decision, but that's when Americans and Russians decide that they can agree on something," Smajlovic says. 

She added that Serbia already had a similar story regarding Kosovo, reminding to the significance of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

"We already have a similar story regarding Kosovo. Our UN Security Council Resolution 1244 is the only one that doesn't need to be renewed. The Russians, who we are angry with for not using the veto so many times, have given us some chance here because it's clear that nothing can change without their explicit support. And the requirement that every change in Kosovo's status at the UN must have the consent of all five Security Council members is our only card, and without it, we wouldn't have a trump card. That's our trump card and our only protection," she says.