Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

CORRECTION*/POLITICS: Security Council Reforms Head for Another Dead End

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 13 2005 (IPS) - After nearly 12 years of mostly fruitless discussions and protracted debates, the United Nations is heading for yet another deadlock as it makes a frantic attempt to radically restructure the most powerful political body in the Organisation: the 15-member Security Council.

A three-day debate in the General Assembly, which began Monday, has revealed once again the sharp divisions in the 191-member world body over the proposed expansion of the "elitist" Security Council, long described as a "political anachronism".

As the only U.N. body empowered to make war and peace, the Security Council is inequitably dominated by five veto-bearing permanent members, namely the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia.

But a "group of four" countries – Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil, along with two still unnamed African countries – are making a strong push to join the ranks of the privileged five as permanent members.

A five-page draft resolution, co-sponsored by the four countries, calls for an increase in the number of members: from the present 15 to 25, by adding six permanent and four non-permanent members, as against the current five permanent and 10 non-permanent members.

But attempts to expand the Council – which require a two-thirds majority and a revision of the U.N. charter – are being thwarted by different countries for different reasons.

The strongest opposition comes from two permanent members, namely the United States and China, who have threatened to torpedo the resolution even before it gets off the ground.

On Tuesday, the United States unequivocally voiced the opinion that it is opposed to the resolution. "First, moving to a vote on this, or any other resolution involving Security Council reform, is bound to be divisive at this stage," said a statement by Shirin Tahir-Kheli, a U.S. State Department adviser on U.N. reform.

Tahir-Kheli said the charter of the United Nations is designed in such a way that reform of the Security Council "requires broad consensus." And that is as it should be, she added.

"We do not yet know the actual numbers of countries that may vote for this resolution. But we do know that world opinion is still highly divided on this issue," Tahir-Kheli said. "We urge you, therefore, to oppose this resolution and, should it come to a vote, to vote against it."

Tahir-Kheli also pointed out that under article 108 of the U.N. charter, expansion of the Security Council requires lengthy constitutional processes in many nations, including the United States, and that the ratification process by member states would be a difficult hurdle to clear – as is the case in the U.S. Senate.

"In our system, for example, the support of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate is needed to pass an amendment to a treaty. We need to prepare the way carefully to ensure that whatever we vote for in this body will gain the requisite support of member states required by the charter during the ratification process," Tahir-Kheli added.

The political tone in the General Assembly debate was set by Ambassador Wang Guangya of China who told delegates Monday that unless there is "broad consensus" among member states, there should be no attempt at restructuring the Security Council.

"It is fair to say that we are still far from a formula that can accommodate the concerns of all sides or one that can win widespread support," he said.

Under such circumstances, he argued, member states need more time to continue dialogue and carry out full consultations in search of a compromise.

"Most member states do not want to be forced to vote on a formula on which there is no broad consensus," he warned, pointing out that "forcing through an immature formula by means of a vote is bound to split member states and regional groups and thus weaken the authority and role of the United Nations."

To do so, he said, "would also defeat totally the original purpose of Security Council reform."

Meanwhile, Italy and Pakistan are leading a campaign to block Germany and India from becoming permanent members. The United States is backing Japan and possibly another unnamed developing country but has shown no enthusiasm for the rest of the declared candidates. China has expressed strong reservations over Japan’s candidacy while Argentine and Mexico are opposed to Brazil being given a seat at the table.

But even amongst Africans there is a visible split. The 53-member African Union (AU), the collective voice of the continent, decided last week that Africans should stake their claims for two permanent seats because they are the largest single regional group at the United Nations. But not surprisingly, the AU refused to name names.

The two leading contenders for permanent seats are South Africa and Nigeria, with Senegal and Kenya also throwing their hats into the ring.

But the most formidable challenge to the two leaders comes from Egypt, an Arab country which is not only an integral part of the AU but also a member of both the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), which helps advance its Arab and Islamic credentials.

Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan, representing a country with perhaps the best credentials to join the Security Council, told delegates that permanent membership is not a privilege. Rather, it is a duty and a responsibility for nations that are willing and able to contribute effectively to international peace and security, he added.

"As a peace-loving nation that is fully committed to the ideals and objectives of the Organisation, Japan firmly believes that it has a significant role to play in the maintenance of international peace and security as well as the advancement of the agenda of security and development, by becoming a new permanent member of the Security Council," he said.

On that basis, Japan is ready to submit its aspirations to the general membership for its consideration, Oshima added.

But Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan had a different take on the issue.

"Unfortunately," he told delegates, "this important endeavour was almost from the outset hijacked by a ‘small group of nations’ seeking new and unequal privileges for themselves in an enlarged Security Council."

"Self-interest," said Akram pointing an accusing finger at the group of four, "has been portrayed as altruism."

"The seekers of special privileges and power masquerade as the champions of the weak and disadvantaged- asserting that the special privileges they seek will make the Council more ‘representative’ and neutralise the power of the present permanent members," he said.

As he harked back to Roman history, Akram said: History has witnessed many such who proclaimed that they came "to bury, not to praise Caesar."

*Corrects attribution of U.S. speech to delegates.