By Alan Boyd
Asia TimesMay 3, 2003 Japan, India and Indonesia will be bidding for permanent seats in the Security Council when the United Nations attempts next week to revive the ailing global peacemaker with an infusion of new blood.
As many as nine more countries could be elevated to the most elite diplomatic forum, alongside the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, if the UN's fractious body of 191 members can decide which are the most deserving. But they are unlikely to get the opportunity. The Security Council has been so discredited by the split over Iraq and its culture of insularity that there is a strong movement to put the membership issue aside until a more transparent formula can be found.
Secretary General Kofi Annan acknowledged in a recent statement that the long-mooted reform would only move forward when the General Assembly was prepared to look at the broader picture. "I suspect it will take several more years before the UN can find a solution. It is a rather complicated and contentious issue," he said, with evident understatement. There have already been 10 years of debate on the council's failings, with even the Big Five accepting that the current elitist structure, a legacy of World War II and Cold War geopolitics, must change. The UN's membership has nearly quadrupled since its formation in 1945, but the Security Council's strength has grown by only one permanent seat and four rotational positions.
While the permanent composition might have reflected the balance of political and economic power in the postwar reconstruction period, especially after the 1960s inclusion of China, this is no longer the case. Europe has lost its mantle as the world's economic powerhouse, yet still has three of the permanent seats and three rotational positions. Asia and North America have only one permanent seat each, while Africa and Latin America have none. Three rotational seats are allocated to Africa, two each to Asia, Latin America, and Western Europe, and one to Eastern Europe. Each is occupied for a two-year period.
Regional powerbrokers such as India, Germany and Brazil have a strong influence on strategic conditions, but have limited input on council resolutions. Japan, the world's second-biggest economy, also sits on the sidelines. Smaller nations complain that the veto system, which allows the permanent five (P5) to override motions by the second tier of rotating members, has turned the council into a closed club that imposes its own strategic agenda. "The general impression that the Security Council applies different standards to conflicts in different parts of the world must not be allowed to become a general conviction," Pakistan's UN ambassador, Shamshad Ahmad, charged during the last reforms debate, in 2001. Russia used the veto to quell debate on its offensive against Chechnya two years ago, while other Big Five members have been able to keep the lid on such diverse conflicts as the Falkland Islands war, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and Muslim separatism in China.
Marginalized Asian and African countries may believe that the council is selectively implementing resolutions, but they can't be sure because they are not privy to the body's inner workings. Although it is supposed to be the law-making forum, the General Assembly often learns of resolutions only when they are instituted, without benefit of briefing papers or direct consultation. Some are no longer willing to play along. Compliance with recent council resolutions on anti-terrorism measures, including tighter checks for the laundering of criminal assets, has been noticeably muted, indicating that some assembly blocs no longer recognize its authority.
In the past, the permanent members could simply have used their economic clout to bring the assembly to heel. However, the big stick has become less effective as the UN's rising membership base has reduced their share of operating finances. Japan, a strong advocate of reform, has hinted that it may not fully comply with the terrorism decrees unless it gets a permanent council seat. Although Tokyo's ability to withstand sustained US diplomatic pressure is doubtful, its stance nonetheless illustrates the depth of feeling on the issue. Under Japan's 2001 General Assembly resolution, the number of permanent seats would be expanded to 10, and another four temporary positions created, taking the total council strength to 24. Three of the permanent seats would go to developing countries from the Asian, African, and Latin American/Caribbean regions, while the others would be reserved for industrialized countries. Washington backed this formula in 2001, but has taken a harder line under the conservative administration of President George W Bush. Like the other permanent members, it believes the council would be too unwieldy and unable to react swiftly to international threats.
One possible solution, floated this week by Australia, is for the addition of a third tier of membership that would raise the profile of marginalized regions, especially in the developing world. There would be five permanent seats with vetos, five new permanent seats without vetos and five rotating members that would also lack a veto. "The five permanent non-veto members would be, say, Japan, India, Brazil, Germany and Indonesia, an Islamic country," said Prime Minister John Howard, who is expected to raise the issue during talks next week with Bush.
Japan's bid for a seat has solid backing from Washington, France and Britain. India is likely to be sponsored by Britain and Russia, while Indonesia can expect a sympathetic hearing from the Muslim world. But it is unlikely the powerful General Assembly delegations from Africa and Latin America would agree to three of the five new permanent seats going to Asia, even if they did accept the status quo on veto rights. Canberra's outline also fails to address the central issue of whether the council can still function under the same rules in the aftermath of the Iraqi standoff, when Washington and London chose to attack Iraq without a council mandate.
Another litmus test will come as the US strives to enlist Security Council support for a raft of resolutions on the reconstruction of Iraq that are certain to attract a veto from Russia and probably also China. "It has taken 10 years to get to this point because these are weighty questions. Do we want to throw the baby out with the bath water by 'democratizing' the P5 arrangement to the point where it can longer function as envisaged by the postwar generation?" said a diplomat from a European country with a Security Council seat. "Can we maintain the effectiveness of P5 with a regional membership criteria, or are we prepared to sacrifice our responsiveness in the interests of equitability? We have to strike the right balance, but it is anyone's guess at this point what that will be," he said.
More Information on Security Council Reform
More Information on Security Council Membership
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
