Reform of the United Nations Security Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reform of the United Nations Security Council encompasses a variety of proposals, including procedural reforms, such as eliminating the veto held by the five permanent members, and expansion of the Council. In practice, "Security Council reform" usually refers to schemes to restructure or expand its membership.

Contents 1 Increasing membership 1.1 In Larger Freedom 1.2 Uniting for Consensus 2 New permanent member proposals 2.1  Japan 2.2  Germany 2.3  India 2.4  Brazil 2.5 Islamic membership 2.6 Africa 2.7 European Union 3 Veto Reform 4 Overall positions on reforming the Security Council 4.1 U.S. position 5 Further reading 6 References 7 External links

[edit] Increasing membership

[edit] In Larger Freedom

On March 21, 2005, Annan called on the UN to reach a consensus on expanding the council to 24 members, in a plan referred to as "In Larger Freedom". He gave two alternatives for implementation, but did not specify which proposal he preferred[1]. In any case, Annan favored making the decision quickly, stating, "This important issue has been discussed for too long. I believe member states should agree to take a decision on it – preferably by consensus, but in any case before the summit – making use of one or other of the options presented in the report of the High-Level Panel"[2].

The two options mentioned by Annan are referred to as Plan A and Plan B:

• Plan A calls for creating six new permanent members, plus three new nonpermanent members for a total of 24 seats in the council.
• Plan B calls for creating eight new seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four years, subject to renewal, plus one nonpermanent seat, also for a total of 24.

The summit mentioned by Annan is the September 2005 Millennium+5 Summit, a high level plenary meeting that reviewed Annan's report, the implementation of the 2000 Millennium Declaration, and other UN reform-related issues[3].

[edit] Uniting for Consensus

On July 26, 2005, four UN member countries, Italy, Canada, Colombia and Pakistan, representing a larger group of countries called Uniting for Consensus, proposed to General Assembly another project [4], that maintains five permanent members, and raises the number of non-permanent members to 20. On April 11, 2005, China had 'embraced' this initiative [5].

[edit] New permanent member proposals

One proposed change is to admit more members: the candidates usually mentioned are Japan, Germany, India and Brazil (the G4 nations).

The United Kingdom, France and Russia support G4 membership in the UNSC ^{[citation needed]}. Italy has always opposed this kind of reform, and has submitted since 1992 another proposal, together with other countries, based on the introduction of semi-permanent membership; In addition, Pakistan oppose India; and Mexico and Argentina oppose Brazil, a Portuguese-speaking country in a largely Spanish-speaking Latin America. All these countries have traditionally grouped themselves in the so-called Coffee Club; officially Uniting for Consensus.

Most of the leading candidates for permanent membership are regularly elected onto the Security Council by their respective groups: in the 20-year period from 1987 to 2006, Japan and Brazil were elected for four two-year terms each, and Germany for three terms. India has been elected to the council six times in total, although the last of those was more than a decade ago, in 1991-92.

U.S. President George W. Bush's administration has refrained from supporting Germany (which opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq), but supports Japan's bid. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking at Sophia University in Tokyo, said, "Japan has earned its honorable place among the nations of the world by its own effort and its own character. That's why the United States unambiguously supports a permanent seat for Japan on the United Nations Security Council"[6]. Her predecessor, Colin Powell, had objected to Japanese permanent membership because Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan forbids the country from going to war [7].

[edit]  Japan

Japan, which joined the UN in 1956, is the second largest contributor to the UN's regular budget.^{[citation needed]} Its payments surpass the sum of those of the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. Japan has been one of the largest ODA donor countries. Thus, Japan is considered the most likely candidate for one of the new permanent seats.

Japan's eagerness to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council has met with strong opposition from many East Asian countries,^{[citation needed]} especially China, North Korea, and South Korea. However, Mongolia has backed Japan's bid. There have been large scale protests in both mainland China and South Korea after the Japanese government approved secondary school textbooks that have been accused of whitewashing Japan's atrocities before and during World War II (see Japanese history textbook controversies).

Some Japanese^{[citation needed]} speculate that these countries, especially China, are motivated by more current problems such as territorial disputes. In late April 2005, large-scale anti-Japan protests broke out in mainland China. The reasons for the protests are varied, including Japanese history books backed by the government, annual visits by former Prime Minister Koizumi to the Yasukuni Shrine which houses 14 class-A war criminals, and territorial disputes of islands claimed by both China and Taiwan. While the protests were not officially sanctioned by the PRC, some analysts^{[citation needed]} suggested that the PRC government allowed the protests to proceed in order to upset Japan's bid to be added to the Security Council. Others^{[citation needed]} argued that the Chinese government did not want the protestors' anger to be focused on them, as preventing these demonstrations would be construed as supporting Japan. While some Japanese and Western observers insist that the Chinese government intentionally allowed these riots, however, there have also been many protests in South Korea. The ruling and opposition parties, majority of the media and even the President of South Korea openly criticized the visits regardless their political positions.^[1]

Some other Asian nations have expressed strong support for Japan's application, including Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Vietnam^{[citation needed]}- all major recipients of loan and/or foreign investment from Japan. Other countries such as Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom also back Japan's bid.^{[citation needed]}

Although the United States strongly supports Japan's bid for Security Council membership, it rejects the combined G4+One bid for membership as a whole, which Japan needs to keep its support. While Russia is interested in a local counterweight to China, it is also wary of Japan's strong ties to the United States. However, China has the power to veto any bid on the part of Japan to become a permanent member.

The People's Republic of China, as well as North Korea and South Korea, oppose Japanese membership because of the perceived refusal of Japan to take full responsibility for its World War II atrocities as well as its potential militarism.^{[citation needed]} Australia, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu support Japan.^[2]

Katsuyuki Kawai, secretary for foreign affairs, member of the Japanese parliament, and special envoy to Nepal, was sent to Kathmandu to lobby for the Nepalese government's support for Japanese membership in the UNSC. Kawai met with King Gyanendra and told the press, "If Japan loses its bid this time, Japanese people will think the support Japan has been providing to the world for the last 60 years has been futile." Japan donates significantly to Nepal.^[3]

[edit]  Germany

Germany is the third largest contributor to the U.N. regular budgets, and as such, claims for a Security Council seat next to Japan.

France has explicitly called for a permanent seat in the UN for its close EU partner: "Germany's engagement, its ranking as a great power, its international influence — France would like to see them recognised with a permanent seat on the Security Council", French president Jacques Chirac said in a speech in Berlin in 2000.^{[citation needed]} The former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder also identified Russia, among other countries, as a country that backed Germany's bid.^{[citation needed]} Italy and Netherlands on the contrary, suggest a common EU seat in the Council instead of Germany becoming the third European member next to France and the UK. The former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said that Germany would also accept a common European seat, but as long as there is little sign that France and the UK will give up their own seats, Germany, should also have a seat.^{[citation needed]} There have been suggestions that the EU should "share" the existing two permanent seats that it already has, without gaining a third seat suggestions have been voiced that the French should pool their vote with Germany in the Franco-German EU integrationist tradition and the UK would represent the EU tradition of less integrationist views. Thus, the German campaign for a permanent seat was intensified in 2004. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder made himself perfectly clear in August 2004: "Germany has the right to a seat".^[4] Its bid is supported by Japan, India, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and Russia, among other countries. Current German Chancellor Angela Merkel has given no comment yet on the subject.

[edit]  India

India, a nuclear power, has the world's second largest population and is the world's largest democracy. It is also the world's fourth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, and by current estimates in 2007 will become third, see: List of countries by GDP estimates for 2007 (PPP).

Currently India maintains the world's second largest armed force. India is the largest contributor of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions. Its bid is unequivocally backed by permanent members France, Russia and the United Kingdom. The Chinese government in Beijing, have recently advocated the candidacy. Popular belief expressed by Prime Minister ManMohan Singh is that "Major Powers are hindering India's Candidacy".

Shashi Tharoor, the United Nation's Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information in his book "Nehru - The Invention of India," writes that Jawaharlal Nehru "declined a United States informal offer" to India to "take the permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council" around 1953. Nehru declined the offer about the same time as he turned down "with scorn" John Foster Dulles' support for an Indian Monroe Doctrine. Nehru did so on the beliefs that India should remain a neutral wedge in world politics, becoming the founding member of the Non-aligned Movement.

Though initially opposed by the Chinese due to geo-political reasons (China being an ally of India's arch-rival Pakistan and the country also having fought a brief war with India in 1962), recent history has turned China's official support for India's candidature from negative to neutral to positive, in correlation with stronger economic ties.^{[citation needed]} On 11 April 2005 China announced it would support India's bid for a permanent seat, but without a veto. The veto power, however, is the most defining characteristic of a permanent member and in the eyes of the G4 countries, to be denied the veto power is just a way for the 5 current permanent members to retain their superiority. Although the U.S. officially does not back India's bid — for various reasons, some of which remain decidedly unclear — it has privately been eager to work with India and to support the nation (which translates to not using a veto). However Indo-American relations are currently dampened from the cold-war levels of de facto derision, marked by a alliance of mutuality, recently, in March 2006, by the US President George Bush making a visit to India, signing a civilian nuclear power sharing programme, thereby installing ties with the world's largest democracy.

Taking into account its huge population and growing economic and political clout, India is a strong contender to clinch a permanent seat. Another factor which bolsters India's candidature is the fact that it was one of the founding members of the Security Council and has participated in several of its activities, including UN operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Cambodia, Yemen, Somalia, Rwanda , Namibia, Sinai penisular, among others.

To date Krishna Menon's (India's envoy to the UNSC) speech is the longest ever delivered in the United Nations Security Council. On 23 January 1957 he delivered an unprecedented eight-hour speech on defending India’s stand on Kashmir.^[5]

[edit]  Brazil

Brazil is the largest country in Latin America in terms of population, GDP and land area; furthermore, with Africa and Australia, South America is one of three inhabited continents without permanent representation on the Security Council.

The United States sent strong indications to Brazil that it was willing to support their membership; albeit, without a veto. Brazil has received backing from other countries such as Russia for a permanent seat as well.

The greatest impediments to its candidacy are the regional oppositions of both Mexico and Argentina, the two other greatest powers of Latin America.

[edit] Islamic membership

Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the predominantly Muslim Middle East has been an area of persistent international conflict, and the periodic flare-ups in the region have been the subject of many UN Security Council debates and resolutions. Therefore, the prospect of introducing a permanent Islamic member to the security council is highly sensitive, especially if such a member were to be granted the power of veto.

Outside the Muslim world, commentators have raised concerns that a veto-wielding Islamic member could use it to restrict the UN's ability to act forcefully in the Middle East or on the boundaries of the Islamic world (e.g. Kashmir and Chechnya), rendering the UN impotent in those regions. The impression of the lack of democracy in Middle Eastern states that are predominantly Muslim is another reason cited by some Western commentators who argue against the idea of including these countries in the club of permanent, veto-wielding states.

At the same time, the draft G-4 reform proposals may leave over 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide (which is not limited only in the Middle East, and also include areas such as Southeast Asia) without any permanent representation on the UN security council. This is a highly controversial issue within the Islamic world and would adversely impact the UN's credibility in portions of the Middle East and in the Islamic world. In June 2005, the foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) called for a permanent Muslim seat on the UN Security Council.^{[citation needed]}

Recent resistance to the reform draft proposals emanating from the G-4 states can be attributed in part to this highly sensitive issue. The US and several Western states have objected to any proposal that gives new members any veto powers,^{[citation needed]} and within the African Union, Egypt has led resistance to a proposal by Nigeria to adopt a version of the G-4 proposals that removes the right of veto for new members,^{[citation needed]} and may enable the creation of a reformed council that does not have any permanent members with a predominantly Muslim identity.

Another reason given in opposition to the inclusion of an Islamic nation is the religious aspect to which it is linked ^{[citation needed]}. Other religious nations might also request to be provided with permanent membership in the name of religion, such as the largely Jewish state of Israel, or nations with large populations of Buddhists, Hindus, etc. ^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Africa

It has also been suggested that an African nation be given a seat on the Security Council, with Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa being the most likely contenders.^{[citation needed]}

Currently, no country in Africa has a permanent seat on the Security Council and this is seen as a major reason behind the push to have an African nation be given one. There are indeed several popular reasons why Africa has a good chance of gaining a Security Council membership:

• Africa is the second-largest and second most populous continent behind Asia (in which China already has a seat and Japan and India are petitioning for ones).
• Africa has more United Nations members than any other continent.
• Africa, as a whole, is seen as militarily non-threatening.
• It currently has the support of most of South America and India (the South-South Alliance) and Japan of the G4 nations.^{[citation needed]} There are also calls by the UK, France, and China for more political representation from Africa.^{[citation needed]}

Although no one nation from Africa has formally been put forward as a candidate for membership on the Security Council, Algeria, Egypt, South Africa, and Nigeria are seen as the strongest choices. Algeria has gained a great deal of respect for its neutrality over the years and its great commitment to African development; South Africa has one of the largest and the most developed economies on the continent; and Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and consistently contributes many troops to UN peacekeeping operations.

[edit] European Union

Another proposal is to abolish the United Kingdom and France's seats and give a seat to the European Union. However, the EU is not a state so this would require either a change to the UN Charter or that the EU become a state.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Veto Reform

The veto is a frequently cited problem of the UNSC. By wielding the veto power, any of the UNSC's five permanent members can prevent the passage of a resolution not to their liking, and the mere threat of a veto may lead to changes in the text of a resolution. As a consequence, an actual or threatened veto often prevents the council from acting swiftly to address pressing international issues and grants the P5 great influence within the UN as a whole. For example, the Security Council passed no resolutions on most major Cold War conflicts, including the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Resolutions addressing more current problems, such as the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and Iran's suspected development of nuclear weapons, are also heavily influenced by the threat of veto. Additionally, the veto applies to the selection of a Secretary-General and reforms to the UN Charter, giving the P5 great influence over these processes.

Discussions on improving the UNSC's effectiveness and responsiveness international security threats often include reform of the veto. Proposals include: limiting the use of the veto to vital national security issues; requiring agreement from multiple nations to exercise the veto; and abolishing the veto entirely. However, any reform of the veto would be very difficult. Article 57 of the United Nations Charter grants the P5 veto over amendments to the charter, requiring them to approve stripping away their own veto powers. Given the influence wielded by a veto-bearing state, it is unlikely that any of the P5 would agree to give up this privilege.

[edit] Overall positions on reforming the Security Council

[edit] U.S. position

According to the U.S. Department of State:

The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform. We advocate a criteria-based approach under which potential members must be supremely well qualified, based on factors such as: economic size, population, military capacity, commitment to democracy and human rights, financial contributions to the UN, contributions to UN peacekeeping, and record on counterterrorism and nonproliferation. We have to look, of course, at the overall geographic balance of the Council, but effectiveness remains the benchmark for any reform.

—Bureau of Public Affairs, June 20, 2005^[6]

[edit] Further reading

• Hans Köchler, The Voting Procedure in the United Nations Security Council, 1991, ISBN 3-900704-10-4
• Hans Köchler, The United Nations and International Democracy. The Quest for UN Reform, 1997, ISBN 3-900704-16-3 (Google Print)

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• The different projects of reform (G4, Africa Union, United for consensus) (French, 2006)