Islamic nations should be represented in an expanded U.N. Security Council "in proportion to their membership of the United Nations," according to foreign ministers of the OIC.

The reasoning behind all this is flimsy at best. In a resolution passed at a meeting in Uganda last week, the ministers pointed to size of the Islamic bloc in the international community, noting that its members make up "one-fifth of the world population."

The Security Council currently has five permanent, veto-wielding members. They are: the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia. There are also 10 non-permanent members that serve for two-year periods. Various proposals to reform the institution are under consideration and include expanding it to have more seats in both categories, earmarked for various geographic regions.

One model suggested by an expert panel appointed by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, for instance, would establish six new permanent seats - two each for Africa and Asia, and one each for Europe and the Americas.

An alternative model discussed by the panel would add no permanent seats, but create a new, semi-permanent tier of eight seats -- two each from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas, occupied for four-year stints, and subject to renewal.

Neither of these models would fully satisfy the demands of the OIC.

According to the OIC, any proposal to reform and enlarge the U.N. Security Council "which neglects the adequate representation of the Islamic Ummah [community] in any category of membership ... will not be acceptable to the Islamic World."

The resolution does not exactly state how many seats in an expanded Security Council the OIC would want set aside for Islamic states. However, to satisfy the demand of being represented "in proportion to their membership of the United Nations," it could arguably press for 30 percent of the seats. Since 56 of the 192 U.N. member-states are OIC members. Of course, an independent Palestinian state would push the number up to 57.

In recent years, this bloc of Islamic countries has come to wield a great deal of clout in the international community. In the U.N. agencies where it holds significant membership, critics have accused it of trying to promote Islamic interests at the expense of broader ones.

At the Human Rights Council, for instance, they charge that the OIC has protected allies, ganged up against Israel, and pushed measures limiting freedom of expression when it comes to criticizing Islam. Free speech advocacy groups in recent months have publicly voiced concern about the OIC's growing influence in the U.N.'s top human rights watchdog.

The OIC’s influence over at the Human Rights Council comes almost by default because more than half of the body's seats are reserved for the African and Asian regional groups, which happen to be home to most Islamic states. Of the current council members, a full one-third are OIC members.

The accusations definitely appear to be warranted as the OIC practically condemned itself at the meeting in Uganda, where the foreign ministers reaffirmed that OIC member states should use their membership in key U.N. bodies like the Human Rights Council "to protect and promote the interests of the Islamic world."

The idea of placing more Islamic countries on the Security Council is almost laughable since the greatest threat to free world comes almost solely from these countries. However, since the United Nothing rarely does anything intelligent, one should not be surprised if OIC gets its way.

---

Users' Comments (0)

Add your comment