Most conflicts or crisis situations around the world are the result of entangled ideological differences and diverse security and economic interests of major powers.
Besides the crisis in Ukraine, those in Syria, Yemen, the Sahel, Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq and Libya at our doorstep, to mention the top current hotspots, all fall within this category and, unfortunately, are likely to worsen or evolve into more serious conflicts in the coming months.
A determined return by all the member states of the United Nations to multilateralism and to a rules-based international system remains, now more than ever before, the only way forward towards solving these conflicts and ensuring global peace and security.
This explains the persistent call for a reform of the Security Council, the most prominent and powerful organ of the United Nations, responsible for maintaining peace and security.
Its membership and working methods reflect a bygone world order far removed from the geopolitics of today. The Security Council has remained largely unchanged since 1945, when the winners of WWII devised a council in their own interest and awarded themselves permanent veto wielding membership.
Since then, United Nations membership nearly quadrupled from 51 to 193, and its regional composition changed drastically with the decolonisation of most African, Asian and Caribbean countries, making the size and regional representation of the Security Council not only outdated but fundamentally unjust.
The Security Council currently consists of 15 members, of which five are permanent members (the US, the Russian Federation, China, France and the UK) and 10 non-permanent members elected on a regional basis for a two-year term by the General Assembly without the possibility of immediate re-election. African and Asian countries, which together amount to 108, are the most adversely affected by the imbalance in regional representation.
A reform of the Security Council involves other issues such as the categories of membership, its size, its working methods, the question of veto and its relationship with the General Assembly.
A Security Council reform entails amending the UN Charter and requires ratification by the permanent members of the Security Council. Therefore, the cooperation of all permanent members is vital.
Unfortunately, such cooperation is manifestly lacking and much scepticism surrounds attempts for a reform. Efforts to reform the Security Council began nearly 30 years ago in 1993, when the General Assembly established the Open-ended Working Group to consider all aspects related to the Security Council. A report by former secretary general Kofi Annan published in 2005 proposing two reform models has been largely bypassed.
A landmark development was the establishment of Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) in 2008. Since 2015, the IGN has been working on a text that represents a summary of the positions of around 120 UN members and has been following a roll-over decision process.
In spite of these efforts and several negotiating sessions held each year, there is no breakthrough on key issues.
None of the negotiating groups is happy with the veto power of the permanent members- Edward Zammit Lewis
Negotiations currently focus on the positions supported by five lobby groups. There is general agreement on some issues, particularly with regard to the under-representation of African and developing countries but radically different views persist on the size of the council, permanent membership and the attribution of veto power.
One group, the G4, is led by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, all of which aspire to permanent membership, which is their primary interest in the Security Council reform, though they also support a more equitable representation for Africa and Asia in an enlarged Security Council.
Three other groups, the Africa Group, comprising all the 54 member states of the African Union, the L69 Group, which is a cross-regional group of developing countries, and CARICOM support a larger council with more permanent and more non-permanent seats.
Malta is active within the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, which is putting forward a compromise that stands a better chance of success because it is less confrontational towards the prerogatives of the permanent members and, at the same time, seeks to meet the interests of those countries which aspire for more weight at the Security Council as emerging regional powers.
The UfC proposes the creation of a new longer-term category of membership made up of nine three-year seats distributed on an equitable regional arrangement with the possibility of immediate re-election.
It also proposes two other two-year seats, one of which will be a rotating seat for small island developing states. It opposes any expansion of permanent membership because the addition of new members with unequal privileges would not lead to a more democratic and legitimate Security Council.
None of the negotiating groups is happy with the veto power of the permanent members. They all wish to consider formulas on how best to limit its use as part of a reform of the working methods of the Security Council.
The veto was extensively discussed by the General Assembly last April. Amid growing criticism of inaction by the Security Council on the war in Ukraine, a cross-regional core group of 83 members initiated a landmark resolution that holds the five permanent members accountable for their use of veto. The resolution may be considered a first step towards curbing veto power.
I firmly believe that the current negotiations on the reform of the Security Council should go beyond regional and national interests. It is in the interest of the international community to support a reformed Security Council that is transparent, responsible, accountable and enjoying more democratic legitimacy.
Now, more than ever, the world needs a Security Council that cannot be held hostage to the whims of any of its permanent members.
Edward Zammit Lewis is a Labour MP.