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 plans to restructure or expand its membership.

Contents 1 General Assembly Task Force 2 Increasing membership 2.1 "In Larger Freedom" 2.2 Uniting for Consensus 3 New permanent member proposals 3.1 Brazil 3.2 Germany 3.3 India 3.4 Japan 3.5 Membership of a Muslim-majority Nation 3.6 Africa 4 Veto Reform 5 Overall positions on reforming the Security Council 5.1 U.S. position 5.2 India's position 5.3 Brazil's position 5.4 France and the United Kingdom's position 5.5 Pakistan's position 6 Notes 7 References 8 External links

[edit] General Assembly Task Force

The General Assembly Task Force on Security Council Reform ^[1] has delivered a Report (on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council) recommending a compromise solution for entering intergovernmental negotiations on reform ^[2].

The report builds on existing transitional/intermediary approaches to suggest a “timeline perspective”. The “timeline perspective” suggests that Member States begin by identifying the negotiables to be included in short-term intergovernmental negotiations. Crucial to the “timeline perspective” is the scheduling of a mandatory review conference – a forum for discussing changes to any reforms achieved in the near-term, and for revisiting negotiables that cannot be agreed upon now ^[3].

[edit] Increasing membership

[edit] "In Larger Freedom"

On March 21, 2005, the then UN Secretary General Kofi 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 [2]. 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" [3].

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 [4].

[edit] Uniting for Consensus

On July 26, 2005, five UN member countries, Argentina, Italy, Canada, Colombia and Pakistan, representing a larger group of countries called Uniting for Consensus, proposed to General Assembly another project [5], that maintains five permanent members, and raises the number of non-permanent members to 20. On April 11, 2005, China had 'embraced' this initiative [6].

[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), and Nigeria. Britain, France and Russia support G4 membership in the UN. [7] 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 [8]; In addition South Korea opposed Japan; Pakistan opposes 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: Japan and Brazil were elected for nine 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.

[edit] Brazil

 Brazil is the largest country in Latin America in terms of population, GDP and land area; in addition to having one of the largest defense budgets^(11th) and armed forces^(18th) in the world^[4][5]. Furthermore, with Africa and Oceania, South America is one of three inhabited continents without permanent representation on the Security Council.

Brazil has been elected nine times to the Security Council. It has contributed troops to UN peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East, the former Belgian Congo, Cyprus, Mozambique, Angola, and more recently East Timor and Haiti^[6]. Brazil is one of the main contributors to the UN regular budget^[7].

The United States sent strong indications to Brazil that it was willing to support its membership; albeit, without a veto^[8]. Brazil has received backing from other permanent members: Russia^[9], the United Kingdom^[10] and France^[11], and from the CPLP countries^[12], Indonesia^[13], Finland^[14], Slovenia^[15], Australia^[16], South Africa^[17], Guatemala^[18], Vietnam^[19] and the Philippines^[20]. As well as from the other G4 nations, who mutually support each other^[21]. Brasília thought it could gain Chinese support by recognizing China's full market economy status^[22]; but despite its efforts, China has shown no official support for its bid.

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

[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. [9] The former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder also identified Russia, among other countries, as a country that backed Germany's bid. [10] 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. [11] 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.^{[citation needed]} 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".^[23] Its bid is supported by Japan, India, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and Russia, among other countries. Current German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had initially been quiet on the issue, re-stated Germany's bid in her address to the UN General Assembly in September 2007.

[edit] India

 India, a nuclear power, has the world's second largest population and is the world's largest liberal democracy. It is also the world's twelfth largest economy and fourth largest in terms of purchasing power parity. Currently, India maintains the world's third largest armed force. India is the largest contributor of troops to United Nations Peacekeeping missions.

India's bid is unequivocally backed by permanent members France, Russia^[24] and the United Kingdom^[25]. The Chinese government in Beijing has recently advocated the candidacy.^[26] Also, several countries like Chile,^[27] Australia,^[28] and the African Union^[29] have openly supported India's candidature. However, India's bid is roughly opposed to Pakistan, and to a lesser extent, by the Organisation of Islamic Conference.

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. 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).^{[citation needed]} However Indo-American relations are currently improving from the Cold War levels of de facto derision, marked by an alliance of mutuality, recently, in March 2006, by the US President George W. Bush making a visit to India, signing a civilian nuclear power sharing programme.

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 it has participated in several of its activities, including UN operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Cambodia, Yemen, Somalia, Rwanda , Namibia, Sinai peninsula, among others.

[edit] Japan

 Japan, which joined the UN in 1956, is the second largest contributor to the UN's regular budget [12]. Its payments surpass the sum of those of the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia combined. Japan has been one of the largest Official Development Assistance 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 the People's Republic of China and North and South Korea because of the perceived refusal of Japan to take full responsibility for its World War II atrocities as well as its potential militarism^{[clarification needed]} [13].

Some right wing Japanese politicians^{[citation needed]} speculate that these countries 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 very controversial Japanese history books approved 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 protesters' anger to be focused on them, as preventing these demonstrations would be construed as supporting Japan. 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.^[30]

Although the United States 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 United States has refrained from supporting Germany and India (as Europe is represented by 2 out of the 5 permanent members), 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" [14]. 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 [15].

Some other Asian nations have expressed support for Japan's application, including Mongolia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Vietnam [16] - all major recipients of loan and/or foreign investment from Japan. Other G4 countries Germany, Brazil, India who are also biding for Security Council seats, along with France and the United Kingdom also back Japan's bid. [17] 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 since Japan agreed to increase financial aid to the region, even though some of these countries are very concerned with Japanese whaling in the region.^[31]

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.^[32]

[edit] Membership of a Muslim-majority Nation

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. However, a "compromise state" can be seen in India, a nation that has the third largest population [18] of Muslims (behind Indonesia and Pakistan), has close ties with many Arab nations, but at the same time is seen as a moderate and acceptable force on the security council.

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, 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 [19].

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, [20] 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, [21] 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 [22]. Other religious nations might also request to be provided with permanent membership in the name of religion, nations with large populations of Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc. [23]

[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.

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 Russia and China already have seats 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. [24] There are also calls by the UK, France, and China for more political representation from Africa. [25]

Although no one nation from Africa has formally been put forward as a candidate for membership on the Security Council, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia^[33], 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; Ethiopia was one of the founding members of the United Nations; 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.

Arguing against such proposals--aside from the difficulty inherent in selecting only one of the proposed nations to represent Africa as a whole--is the lack of democracy and human rights in all of the candidates except Nigeria and South Africa. While the choice of Egypt would satisfy demands for a "Muslim" member, full democracy there would likely bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power--and depending on the result of UNSC membership reform, give them a UN veto. Such an outcome would be anathema to Israel as well as the United States.

[edit] Veto Reform

The UNSC 'power of veto' is frequently cited as a major problem with the UN. By wielding their veto power (established by Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter), any of the UNSC's five permanent members can prevent the adoption of any (non-'procedural') UNSC draft resolution not to their liking. Even the mere threat of a veto may lead to changes in the text of a resolution, or it being withheld altogether (the so-called 'pocket veto'). As a consequence, the power of veto often prevents the Council from acting to address pressing international issues, and affords the 'P5' great influence within the UN institution 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 veto, actual or threatened. Additionally, the veto applies to the selection of the UN's Secretary-General, as well as any amendments to the UN Charter, giving the P5 great influence over these processes.

Discussions on improving the UN's effectiveness and responsiveness to international security threats often include reform of the UNSC veto. Proposals include: limiting the use of the veto to vital national security issues; requiring agreement from multiple states before exercising the veto; and abolishing the veto entirely. However, any reform of the veto will be very difficult. Articles 108 and 109 of the United Nations Charter grant the P5 veto over any amendments to the Charter, requiring them to approve of any modifications to the UNSC veto power that they themselves hold.

Nonetheless, it has been argued that the current UNSC 'power of veto' is, fundamentally, irrelevant.^[34] With the Assembly's adoption of the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution on 3 November 1950, it was made clear by the UN Member states that, according to the UN Charter, the P5 cannot prevent the UN General Assembly from taking any action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise the 'primary responsibility' for maintaining peace. Although not couched in the same language, various high-level reports make explicit reference to the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution as providing the necessary mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any vetoes in the UNSC;^{[35][36][37][38]} thus rendering them little more than delays in UN action.

[edit] Overall positions on reforming the Security Council

[edit] U.S. position

According to a formal statement by 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^[39]

[edit] India's position

As per the official website of India's Permanent Mission to UN^[40]:

Activities of the Security Council have greatly expanded in the past few years. The success of Security Council's actions depends upon political support of the international community. Any package for restructuring of the Security Council should, therefore, be broad-based. In particular, adequate presence of developing countries is needed in the Security Council. Nations of the world must feel that their stakes in global peace and prosperity are factored into the UN's decision making. Any expansion of permanent members' category must be based on an agreed criteria, rather than be a pre-determined selection. There must be an inclusive approach based on transparent consultations. India supports expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members' category. The latter is the only avenue for the vast majority of Member States to serve on the Security Council. Reform and expansion must be an integral part of a common package.

– India's Permanent Mission to UN

[edit] Brazil's position

As stated by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at the General Debate of the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly^[41]:

The United Nations has spent 15 years discussing the reform of its Security Council. Today’s structure has been frozen for six decades and does not relate to the challenges of today’s world. Its distorted form of representation stands between us and the multilateral world to which we aspire. Therefore I am much encouraged by the General Assembly’s decision to launch negotiations in the near future on the reform of the Security Council.

– H.E. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, September 23, 2008

[edit] France and the United Kingdom's position

France and the United Kingdom hold similar views on reform to the United Nations Security Council.

Reform of the UNSC, both its enlargement and the improvement of its working methods, must therefore succeed. We reaffirm the support of our two countries for the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan for permanent membership, as well as for permanent representation for Africa on the Council. We regret that negotiations towards this goal remain in deadlock and are therefore ready to consider an intermediate solution. This could include a new category of seats, with a longer term than those of the current elected members and those terms would be renewable; at the end of an initial phase, it could be decided to turn these new types of seats into permanent ones. We will work with all our partners to define the parameters of such a reform. UNSC reform requires a political commitment from the member states at the highest level. We will work in this direction in the coming months with a view to achieving effective reform.

– Part of a joint UK-France Summit Declaration - 27 March 2008^[42]

[edit] Pakistan's position

Pakistan is against the G4 countries' bid for permanent seat at UNSC and the reason cited is that it has estranged relationship with India. This is not factually correct, because Pakistan may have estranged relations with India but has normal relations with Brazil and very good political and economical relations with Japan and Germany which are also reinforced by the development support extended by the two major economies of the world; Germany is the largest trading partner of Pakistan in Europe and the fourth largest importer of Pakistani products. ^[43] Similarly Japan is a major contributor to Pakistan's development. ^{[44] [45]} Nonetheless, Pakistan does neither support their candidature as well. In fact Pakistan is a member of Uniting for Consensus. It supports the reform of the UNSC through a consensus or near consensus approach and is opposed to forcing the enlargement of UNSC by a simple majority vote. Whatever decision may be taken, should have the merit of consensus and should not divide the UN on this question. Pakistan believes that the UN needs structural reforms for its better functioning and equitable handling of world affairs and with the arrival of new UNSC permanent members, the weaknesses in the UNSC would not be addressed. Pakistan believes that UNSC should be representative, democratic and accountable and not serve the purpose of a few individual states. ^{[46] [47]} Similarly Pakistan being an Islamic country and member of Organisation of Islamic Conference, is still not in favor of an UNSC permanent seat for the so-called "Islamic bloc" or OIC, since this is again against the principle of consensus. ^[48]

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• 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
• Malone, D & Mahbubani, K: "The UN Security Council – from the Cold War to the 21st Century", UN World Chronicle, 30 March 2004.

[edit] External links

• The different projects of reform (G4, Africa Union, United for consensus; 2006)(French)
• Center for UN Reform - Independent policy research organization offering documentation and in-depth analysis on ongoing reform processes.