In the 1950s and 1960s, anytime the Muslims demanded that the UN Security Council enforce its own resolution for a plebiscite in the disputed Kashmir which both India and Pakistan claims, the Soviet Union, India's friend, always vetoed the resolutions. While Israeli people or its leaders have never paid for any of their crimes against the Palestinians, or for bombing Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981 without declaring war, violating Jordan's air space in the process, Iraq's civilians paid dearly for Saddam Hussein's indiscretions. (The UN Security Council passed a resolution mandating Israel to pay compensation to Iraq for the destruction of Iraq's nuclear facility. Israel's UN ambassador ridiculed the resolution, tore the paper on which it was printed and promised that Israel would never pay a cent. Israel never did!) Because of fourteen years of crippling UN sanctions between 1990 and 2003, and the US's and Britain's enforcing of a no-fly zone over most of Iraq, a prosperous Iraq was turned in a pauper Iraq. Millions of Iraqi civilians -- men, women and children -- died because of the UN sanctions. When the Clinton administration decided to come to the rescue of the Kosovo Muslims in 1999, it had to bypass the UN Security Council because of Russia's (friend of the Serbs, who tormented the Kosovars) certain veto.

Born in the heydays of colonialism, for 1945 belonged to the colonial era, the United Nations Security Council was founded on solid colonial principles: there were going to be masters and servants in the UN Security Council. Simply put, the principle is: Damn the rest of the world, the world is going to be run according to the wishes of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China -- the five permanent members of the UN Security Council with the power to veto any resolution. The opinion of the rest of the world does not matter. The absurdity of this dictatorial hypocrisy is that until 1971, the "China" veto belonged not to the real China, The People's Republic of China (communist, mainland China) but to the west's puppet, fake China, the tiny island of Taiwan (then known as Formosa, Portuguese for beautiful island). The veto-wielding behemoths assured the newly emerging independent nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America that they would be scrupulously fair in exercising their vetoes. "Don't you worry your pretty little head about our fairness; rest assured of it!" thus they pacified the unsuspecting colonials.

Things did not quite turn out that way, did they? When the minority whites of South Africa, through their National Party instituted apartheid (separation of races) in 1948 to rule over the black majority, the white, veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council (the US, the UK, the USSR and France) did not exactly hit the ceiling in indignation and come to the aid of the blacks! No UN sanctions were enacted to bring the racist South African government to its knees. Consequently, racist South Africa was allowed to fester, and remained a part of the west for 42 years, until 1990, humiliating, torturing and murdering the majority blacks all the time. When Ian Smith and his band of minority whites unilaterally declared their independence from Britain and took over Rhodesia in 1965, Harold Wilson's Britain did not exactly rally to the side of the blacks or go to the UN Security Council to bring down the rogue, minority, white regime. On the contrary, Britain used its UN Security Council veto power to block several actions against the rebel whites, thus prolonging the suffering of the majority blacks. It took fifteen years of British dillydallying before the blacks finally gained majority rule in 1980. Recently, the world has learned from the former Labour Minister Claire Short that Tony Blair's government had bugged the office of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and distributed and discussed the transcripts of the secret conversations of Mr. Annan at the UN in New York in Blair's cabinet meetings in London. Where was the world's outrage? Should not the British government be punished for such treachery? So much for the respect of the UN and its head by a permanent member of the UN Security Council!

Recapitulating, the permanent members of the UN Security Council are not interested in fairness or justice. The UN Security Council has become a forum for the protection and propagation of the interests of the permanent members and their friends and allies. What is astonishing is that the sufferers of the brutality of the UN Security Council permanent members, most notably the Muslims, do not utter a word in protest! If the sufferers do not protest, why should the perpetrators reform? Muslims are too busy playing the criminal. Instead of standing firm and saying that since Israel has the nuclear bomb and has threatened many times that it would not hesitate to use it against Muslim nations, Iran has every right to make the bomb, Iran is bending over backward to comply with the UN agency for nonproliferation and pleasing the US. Muslim nations and leaders, with the honourable exception of Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad, fail to show determination or courage. Sometimes defiance helps. Earlier this year, when the US stipulated that every visitor to the US would be photographed and fingerprinted, Brazil promptly instituted the same for American visitors to Brazil! Unlike Iran, recently Brazil declared that some of its nuclear facilities are not for UN inspection. If the Muslims are gluttons for punishment, why should the permanent members of the UN Security Council not dish more of it out to them?

Faced with Muslim docility, the image of UN reform that the current permanent members envision is not of instituting democracy, over which they go ga ga at all other times, but to add more members who are their mirror images: Germany and Japan. Just as the Jews were rewarded with Israel for their suffering at the hands of the west during World War II, perhaps the two nations that brutalised the Europe and Asia by starting WWII in their respective continent, deserve rewarding with permanent UN Security Council seats! In their mind, the best way to make the UN Security Council more representative is by adding one more western nation (Germany) and the most western nation in Asia (Japan)!

As currently constituted, the permanent members of the UN Security Council protect the interests of nations belonging to all the world's major religions, except Islam. The US, the UK and France not only look after western interests, as Christian countries (catholic and protestants) they look after Christian interests as well. As an orthodox Christian nation, the Soviet Union and Russia have always looked after the interests of their brethren in Eastern Europe. China looks after the interests of the Buddhists and the Confucians. The Soviet Union always protected the interests of India and the Hindus during the cold war. Now Russia and America protects India. Always the US and the UK, sometimes France have protected and promoted the interests of Israel and Jews in the UN Security Council. Muslims constitute the world's second largest religious block after the Christians. Yet, no permanent member of the current UN Security Council has consistently protected Muslim interests or espoused the Muslim cause. That being the case, it is foolhardy for the Muslims to abide by those unfair, anti-Muslim resolutions in the UN Security Council. Like Israel, Muslim nations must not be afraid to defy UN Security Council resolutions.

Undemocratic veto in the UN Security Council is inherently unfair and should be abolished. Resolutions should be passed by a simple majority as expressed by the will of the world's nations in the General Assembly. There are 57 Muslim majority nations in the world, yet, because the Muslims have no seat or friend in the UN Security Council, as a people they are the most abused by it. The current composition of the UN Security Council is flawed racially, geographically and religiously. The US, the UK, France and Russia are predominantly white nations. Whites constitute about 15 per cent of the world's population; yet, they hold four out of the five (80 per cent) permanent seats of the UN Security Council! The mongoloids (China) hold the other 20 per cent of the seats. The blacks and browns hold 0 per cent of the seats! Since the US, the UK, France and Russia are also Christian nations, Christians, who constitute about 30 per cent of the world's population, hold 80 per cent of the permanent seats of the UN Security Council. Muslims who constitute 25 per cent of the world's population and the Hindus, who constitute about 20 per cent, have none!

members from Europe (the UK, France and Russia), one member from Asia (China). There are no permanent members from Africa and South America! On what basis do the UK, France and Russia deserve permanent seats in the UN Security Council, and South Africa and Brazil do not? Whether one likes it or not, the world is divided predominantly along religious lines. As such, to truly reflect the current world, and not the world gone by, if the veto is to exist in the United Nations Security Council, it should be exercised only by the largest nations belonging to the world's four largest faiths: The United States (Christianity), China (Buddhism), India (Hinduism) and Indonesia (Islam).