Brazil's voice is being heard
27 July 2003
Article written by Ambassador José Mauricio
Bustani, published in Folha de São Paulo on 27 July
2003.
Brazil's trajectory towards a permanent seat on the UN Security Council has reached a new high. On his first visit to the United Kingdom, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva managed to win the decided support of the Prime Minister for Brazil's candidature. Brazil can now count on the declared support of three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – an organization conceived in 1945 that now cries out for reform. At this critical point in recent history, which vividly lay bare the failure of the international community to deal with challenges new and old, the institutional reform of the framework UN charter drawn up at San Francisco has now become imperative.
In lending its support to Brazil, the United Kingdom has shown that it is aware that the Security Council is not fully representative.
The UK's position in favour of expanding the membership and admitting Brazil and other representatives of developing regions to the council reflects, at one and the same time, its acknowledgement of the deficiencies inherent in the current institutional framework and its view that, despite its limitations and difficulties, if the UN Organization did not exist, it would have to be invented, as Tony Blair stated at the Millenium Conference. It also seems clear to the UK – as it does to Brazil – that reform will inevitably require the elimination of the anachronisms that currently characterize the principal organ of the UN system. The war against Iraq, despite the frenzy of obituaries announcing the end of the UN and of the Security Council, served rather to substantiate their relevance and the urgent need of reform.
As Celso Amorim, Brazil's foreign secretary stated, this is not just a question of what one country or another wants, but what the international system needs. The UK shows promising signs of being truly aware of the challenge. The UK's support is especially significant, not only in the light of its current pivotal role on the international stage but also owing to its record of multilateral co-operation and the intensive and profitable bilateral relations we have maintained between our two countries. Although in the more recent past our views have differed, particularly with regard to the Iraqi question, our affinities bear out the relationship that exists between us.
The British prime minister is apt to speak of the UK's wish to be a force for good in the world. In Brazil's view, achieving this aim requires the strengthening of multilateralism through an increasing democratisation of international relations.
By offering its support, the United Kingdom clearly shows that it subscribes to the view that the multilateral system urgently needs to be democratised. It also demonstrates, in consonance with the values and principles that govern president Lula's conduct of international relations, that Brazil need not necessarily 'acquiesce' in order to be accepted and respected as an actor and partner of consequence.
The serious problems currently facing the international community cannot be resolved by adopting measures that do not take into account the complicated issues, varied points of view and multilateral regulations involved. In an increasingly complex world, new challenges to international security have been added to the unresolved items on the old agenda, in which the very grounds for the lack of security stand out: hunger, lack of opportunities, increasing inequality, epidemics such as that of AIDS that afflict whole regions of the planet, and the awareness of the iniquity of a system that calls for political will and commitment to change.
Adding to the dramatic scenario of the persisting conflicts in the Middle East, Asia and Africa we now face the alarming threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, whether owned by states or in danger of falling into the hands of terrorist groups. The international community must not relinquish its efforts to ensure compliance with the disarmament and non-proliferation obligations assumed through regional and international treaties. In this context, the reform of the Security Council, the five permanent members of which, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, have the status of nuclear powers, should be seen as the means for providing a revitalising and strengthening impetus to the UN as a whole. In January 2004, Brazil will for the ninth time return to the Security Council for a further two-year period as a non-permanent member. We deem our contribution to the deliberations of the council to be a valuable opportunity.We shall, as always, seek to be diligent and constructive. We shall attune our actions to the aspirations that prompt us in the domestic sphere: in a search for solutions that will allow us to create sustainable conditions for peace, justice, security and stability in the international sphere.
The aims of preserving international law and respecting and strengthening the multilateral system, without which we run a serious risk of falling into anarchy or autocracy, will be our guiding principles now and always. The tendency to favour ad hoc solutions to problems such as the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, to the detriment of the lawful and legitimate rules and procedures enshrined in international law, is a source of grave disquiet to Brazil. We must contribute on a permanent basis, through UN debates and negotiations, to the search for a new approach that will lead to democratic agreement between nations.
The idea of including Brazil among the permanent members of the Security Council goes back to the Dumbarton Oaks Discussions of 1944. The negotiations led to five permanent members being appointed – a decision that nowadays leaps out as being totally at odds with the reality of power in the world. By lending its support to Brazil, the United Kingdom shows that it is aware of the lack of representativity and legitimacy of the council – which results in an acknowledged lack of efficiency – and that this is out of keeping with the aims for which the organization, charged with watching over peace and international security, was conceived.
Brazil's trajectory towards a permanent seat on the UN Security Council has reached a new high. On his first visit to the United Kingdom, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva managed to win the decided support of the Prime Minister for Brazil's candidature. Brazil can now count on the declared support of three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – an organization conceived in 1945 that now cries out for reform. At this critical point in recent history, which vividly lay bare the failure of the international community to deal with challenges new and old, the institutional reform of the framework UN charter drawn up at San Francisco has now become imperative.
In lending its support to Brazil, the United Kingdom has shown that it is aware that the Security Council is not fully representative.
The UK's position in favour of expanding the membership and admitting Brazil and other representatives of developing regions to the council reflects, at one and the same time, its acknowledgement of the deficiencies inherent in the current institutional framework and its view that, despite its limitations and difficulties, if the UN Organization did not exist, it would have to be invented, as Tony Blair stated at the Millenium Conference. It also seems clear to the UK – as it does to Brazil – that reform will inevitably require the elimination of the anachronisms that currently characterize the principal organ of the UN system. The war against Iraq, despite the frenzy of obituaries announcing the end of the UN and of the Security Council, served rather to substantiate their relevance and the urgent need of reform.
As Celso Amorim, Brazil's foreign secretary stated, this is not just a question of what one country or another wants, but what the international system needs. The UK shows promising signs of being truly aware of the challenge. The UK's support is especially significant, not only in the light of its current pivotal role on the international stage but also owing to its record of multilateral co-operation and the intensive and profitable bilateral relations we have maintained between our two countries. Although in the more recent past our views have differed, particularly with regard to the Iraqi question, our affinities bear out the relationship that exists between us.
The British prime minister is apt to speak of the UK's wish to be a force for good in the world. In Brazil's view, achieving this aim requires the strengthening of multilateralism through an increasing democratisation of international relations.
By offering its support, the United Kingdom clearly shows that it subscribes to the view that the multilateral system urgently needs to be democratised. It also demonstrates, in consonance with the values and principles that govern president Lula's conduct of international relations, that Brazil need not necessarily 'acquiesce' in order to be accepted and respected as an actor and partner of consequence.
The serious problems currently facing the international community cannot be resolved by adopting measures that do not take into account the complicated issues, varied points of view and multilateral regulations involved. In an increasingly complex world, new challenges to international security have been added to the unresolved items on the old agenda, in which the very grounds for the lack of security stand out: hunger, lack of opportunities, increasing inequality, epidemics such as that of AIDS that afflict whole regions of the planet, and the awareness of the iniquity of a system that calls for political will and commitment to change.
Adding to the dramatic scenario of the persisting conflicts in the Middle East, Asia and Africa we now face the alarming threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, whether owned by states or in danger of falling into the hands of terrorist groups. The international community must not relinquish its efforts to ensure compliance with the disarmament and non-proliferation obligations assumed through regional and international treaties. In this context, the reform of the Security Council, the five permanent members of which, under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, have the status of nuclear powers, should be seen as the means for providing a revitalising and strengthening impetus to the UN as a whole. In January 2004, Brazil will for the ninth time return to the Security Council for a further two-year period as a non-permanent member. We deem our contribution to the deliberations of the council to be a valuable opportunity.We shall, as always, seek to be diligent and constructive. We shall attune our actions to the aspirations that prompt us in the domestic sphere: in a search for solutions that will allow us to create sustainable conditions for peace, justice, security and stability in the international sphere.
The aims of preserving international law and respecting and strengthening the multilateral system, without which we run a serious risk of falling into anarchy or autocracy, will be our guiding principles now and always. The tendency to favour ad hoc solutions to problems such as the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, to the detriment of the lawful and legitimate rules and procedures enshrined in international law, is a source of grave disquiet to Brazil. We must contribute on a permanent basis, through UN debates and negotiations, to the search for a new approach that will lead to democratic agreement between nations.
The idea of including Brazil among the permanent members of the Security Council goes back to the Dumbarton Oaks Discussions of 1944. The negotiations led to five permanent members being appointed – a decision that nowadays leaps out as being totally at odds with the reality of power in the world. By lending its support to Brazil, the United Kingdom shows that it is aware of the lack of representativity and legitimacy of the council – which results in an acknowledged lack of efficiency – and that this is out of keeping with the aims for which the organization, charged with watching over peace and international security, was conceived.