August 27, 1997
New York City - On the eve of a United Nations General Assembly session expected to consider proposals for restructuring the UN Security Council, the United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) has released a paper that critically assesses American interests in Security Council reform.
Reforming the Security Council: What American Interests? aims to "stimulate public debate on Security Council reform before an amendment to the UN Charter passes the General Assembly and is handed to the US Senate for approval," says Jeffrey Laurenti, Executive Director of Policy Studies at UNA-USA and author of the paper. A Charter amendment requires a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly, and takes effect only when ratified by two-thirds of UN member states - including all five permanent members of the Security Council. American ratification requires the consent of the US Senate, also by a two-thirds majority.
The Clinton administration has pushed to add Japan and Germany as permanent members of the Council. In July it indicated for the first time that it could accept a permanent seat for each of the three major regions of the developing world - Latin America, Africa, and Asia-but has not publicly declared its position on extending the veto to any of the new permanent members.
Reforming the Security Council examines broad American interests in Council reform - keeping the Council small (at or as close to the current size of 15 as possible); maximizing the potential for including relatively powerful members from each region so as to provide vital support for UN peace operations; and avoiding extension of potentially paralyzing vetoes. The paper does not advocate particular plans, but analyzes various options and reports the perspectives of various countries.
The paper also notes the possibility-thought to be favored by some permanent members-of not changing the Council at all. And it reports the opposition to new permanent seats voiced by many developing countries as well as by Italy, another US ally bypassed by the administration, which has been vigorously pressing what the paper terms a "semipermanent" alternative. The paper claims that "the genius - and the Achilles' heel" - of the Clinton administration plan is "its ambiguous treatment of the developing country 'permanent' seats" which it evidently hopes will not be permanent at all.
In a section titled "What Kind of Permanence?" the paper cites the objection that "engraving a new set of names in the Charter" could well replicate the problem that has led to pressure for Council revision today: the locking in of obsolete power relationships. It notes options for periodic reassessment of the members afforded privileged access to the Council.
"We hope this paper can be a useful resource to inform vigorous public debate, particularly among Americans but also internationally," Laurenti said.
