Lula aims at flawed strategy to get a permanent seat on the UN Security Council

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s (PT) goal of securing a seat for Brazil on the UN Security Council has been pursued by him since his first term in 2003. Recently, at the G7 summit (a group of the seven most industrialized democracies of the world), Lula returned to criticize the body’s composition. But the president is betting on the wrong strategies to get that space, according to geopolitical analysts interviewed by the report.

Since assuming his third term as president of Brazil, Lula has embarked on an international agenda to strengthen ties with the five member countries of the Security Council. Personally, the petista visited China, the United States and the United Kingdom. He even met with the French president during the G7 this month and sent his adviser Celso Amorim to Russia. The strategy of approaching the nations that command the council, however, may not be the best strategy to get the desired vacancy.

To expand the Security Council, it is necessary to have the approval of its five permanent members. But the United States, Russia, France, China and the United Kingdom have no reason to make room for other nations.

An alternative for Lula to achieve his objective would be to appeal to the members of the UN General Assembly and try to articulate them to reform the Security Council.

An amendment to Chapter 8 of the UN Charter (Article 109) provides a hypothesis for reforming the Security Council: the matter has to be put on the agenda of a UN Assembly and approved by a majority of 193 countries, including a member of the UN itself. advice.

In theory, this could be one of the strategies adopted by the Brazilian government to reform the agency. That is, in practice an individual solution for Brazil is not impossible, but it is still a reality that is quite difficult to achieve.

War in Ukraine prompts Russia and China to seek partners, pledge support

“Brazil works on this [ter um assento permanente no Conselho] for many years, including in previous governments. We have been working in UN peacekeeping missions for some years now to show that we are a military power and a stable country, but this work needs to be more persistent”, analyzes the master in international law and professor at the OAB Superior School of Law in São Paulo Manuel Furriela.

“Countries like Russia and China, due to their participation in the Brics [bloco econômico que reúne Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China e África do Sul]can support Brazil’s entry as a permanent member”, he said. Moscow and Beijing are currently trying to seek partnerships to compose a bloc that tries to contest the American global hegemony.

“But the United States, for example, must be the opposition, as the country understands that it makes no sense to share such power with other nations”, analyzes Furriela.

UN Security Council was formed by countries that won World War II

With the end of World War II in 1945, the UN was created and formed a General Assembly to discuss world issues and maintain contact between all nations. Along with its foundation, councils were also created, such as Guardianship, Human Rights and Security. “The Security Council is very powerful, even more so than the UN, as it decides, for example, when military intervention in a country is legitimate. It chooses judges for international courts and takes other various grandiose decisions”, explains Furriela.

This power, however, does not remain in the hands of all the nations of the world. The Security Council is made up of just 15 members. Of these, five are permanent and the same since their formation: Russia (which was the Soviet Union), the United States, Great Britain, France and China. The others are “rotating” and elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms in the body.

“In the Charter of the United Nations – which is an international treaty resulting from the San Francisco Conference in 1945 – an attempt was made to merge two currents of International Relations: idealism, represented by the General Assembly, where each member country [os 193] has the right to one vote, and realism, present in the Security Council, where the five main winners of the Second World War have the right to veto”, says the doctor in public policy and Harvard researcher, Vitélio Brustolin.

“The permanent nations have the right of veto, which allows a single country with that position to oppose all 14 others and block resolutions”, stresses Brustolin. That is, in addition to having a fixed seat on the body, these countries can veto any decision that is being voted on during the council. For this reason, the Security Council has been seen as inefficient in dealing with conflicts involving its permanent members.

“Without reform of its Security Council, with the inclusion of new permanent members, the UN will not recover its effectiveness, political and moral authority to deal with the conflicts and dilemmas of the 21st century”, said Lula a week ago at the summit of the G7 in Japan.

Council reform not welcomed by permanent members

Old agenda of Brazil and other countries that also aim to have a place as a permanent member of the council, a group of four nations nicknamed G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan), have already formally represented the need for a reform in the body. In 2021, a joint statement by the chancellors of each of these countries was published during the 76th session of the UN General Assembly, defending the urgency of reforming the Security Council.

For the analysts interviewed by the report, Lula’s desire to get a seat as a permanent member of the Security Council is unlikely to come true, but it is not impossible.

“It is unlikely that Lula’s suggestion of including Brazil in the Security Council will be implemented at this moment”, says Brustolin. The researcher also recalls that Brazil was even considered to occupy a sixth chair as a permanent member of the UN Security Council when the body was still formed.

“At the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, in 1944, where the creation of the UN was discussed, the then president of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, presented the idea that he called “guardianship of the powerful”, which would be in charge of four “police states “: United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union and China, with France later added. Brazil was not present at Dumbarton Oaks, but it was the only country to be considered to occupy a sixth permanent seat on the Council”, he says.

At the time, the country had played an important role in World War II and fought alongside the Allies against Nazi troops in Italy, which was appreciated by the countries that formed the group of winners of the conflict.

“Brazil respects international contracts and the Brazilian armed forces have already been on many missions abroad. Even when the UN Security Council decided that it needed to interfere in Haiti to reorganize the country’s security, the United States gave Brazil command of the operation. Therefore, Brazil is a stable country, but even so, the group is very closed and they do not intend to share power”, analyzes Furriela.

“The Security Council was created in a format that does not allow representation of the entire planet”, points out Furriela. The specialist also argues that even though Brazil is an important representative of Latin America and has an irreproachable stance with regard to international treaties, it is not interesting to share such power.

Lula should bet on an “unconventional” strategy

In 2005, the G4 launched a joint bid for permanent seats. “At that time, the G4 campaigned worldwide and got a lot of support, but ended up choosing not to submit the proposal for a vote in the General Assembly, as there was opposition from China and the United States, which also generated uncertainty regarding the support of the African Union – that was and still is strongly influenced by these countries”, recalls Brustolin.

As provided for in the UN charter, the Security Council cannot oppose decisions approved by two-thirds of the 193 countries that make up the assembly plus one member of the council. This could be one of the strategies adopted by the Brazilian government to escape the denial of countries that do not want to share power in the nucleus.

“The abusive and sometimes illegal use of the right of veto, especially during the Cold War, hampered the Security Council for many years, weakening it. managed to reach a solution, but that never had any direct power over the decisions of the Security Council”, points out Brustolin.

“The argument here [em abordar a Assembleia ao invés do Conselho] is this: although the UN is the international organization responsible for keeping the peace and although the Security Council has exactly that mandate, clearly they are not functioning”.

“From a historical perspective, the danger facing the world at this moment is that the UN is close to a level of inefficiency in its main mission comparable to that of the League of Nations in 1939. At that moment, the advent of the Second World War culminated in the extinction of the League of Nations. It is important that a new world war is not necessary for us to reformulate the international organizations that should avoid it”, analyzes the professor.

In addition to Brazil, other nations are also quoted to occupy a permanent seat on the body, such as India, Japan, Australia and South Africa. Furriela also comments that Lula could lead a bloc of these other countries to represent them in the election for the reform of the Security Council.

But Brazil is not the first on the list of countries that have a chance of joining the Security Council. A much more politically viable option would be India, which has nuclear weapons and is an important partner country for both the United States and Russia.

Security Council reform will not end Ukraine’s war

“It is clear that the world has changed a lot since 1945[sincethecreationoftheUN}andmanycountriesaspiretomorepowerininternationalorganizationsHavingsaidthatthesimpleexpansionoftheSecurityCouncilwouldnotsolvethewarinUkraine”saysVitélioBrustolinwhoHeisalsoaprofessorattheFluminenseFederalUniversity[desdeacriaçãodaONU}emuitospaísesalmejammaispodernasorganizaçõesinternacionaisDitodissoasimplesampliaçãodoConselhodeSegurançanãoresolveriaaguerranaUcrânia”afirmaVitélioBrustolinquetambémprofessordaUniversidadeFederalFluminense

He opines that the presence of other nations with veto power could help to avoid wars. “For context, on February 25, 2022, the day after Russia invaded Ukraine, the Security Council met. Of the 15 members, 11 voted in favor of a resolution obliging Russia to withdraw, 3 abstained, and only Russia voted against the resolution. The first problem is that Russia could not have voted, as it expressly violated the UN Charter”, said the researcher.

In addition, Brustolin also explains that countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have lost the legitimacy to condemn this type of non-compliance with International Law. “These countries also did not obtain authorization from the Security Council to promote the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Aggressive wars are prohibited by the UN Charter, only being possible with the approval of the Council.”

But the war in Ukraine is a very different conflict. Rather than trying to impose democracy on an authoritarian country, in Ukraine the West is trying to save a democratic country from the invasion of a dictatorship.