By Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti
Brazil continues to support the expansion of the Security Council in its both categories.
· Reasons:
a. All delegations coincide that one of the key problems that warrant a reform of the FC is that its composition does not reflect today's world, which diminishes its representativeness, legitimacy and effectiveness.
b. The essence of such mismatch between today's political realities and the composition of the Council is the fact that the permanent members are limited to those of 1945. If such group is not expanded, the mismatch will not only remain but also grow and the reform will have failed.
c. Any form of the so-called "intermediate or interim reform" that means or implies only the creation of non-permanent members faces the same problem and will have the same effect.
d. So, if we are serious about bringing the SC to the 21st century, we must expand the number of permanent members. Adding only non-permanent members, be it under whatever format, would actually mean leaving the "status quo" untouched. Only a reform that increases the group of permanent members will adjust the Council to the political realities of the 21st century and ensure its long-term legitimacy and viability.
e. But adding permanent members is not enough to fully update the composition of the SC. To do so we need to reflect in its structure one key development in the UN since 1945, namely the dramatic expansion of the membership, in particular from the developing world. The way of doing it is to increase the number of non-permanent members.
· Some say that the addition of permanent members contravenes key Charter principles such as:
a. Equal sovereignty of States
This is not and cannot be the case, unless one is willing to argue that the Charter itself is internally contradictory, since it establishes both the principle and the existence of permanent members.
b. Equitable geographic distribution
Again, the increase in the number of permanent members does not contradict such principle unless one is willing to argue that the Charter is internally contradictory, since it establishes both the principle and the existence of permanent members itself
· Some say the addition of permanent members is undemocratic
The argument fails to consider that: a) the establishment of new permanent members would be achieved through the democratic exercise of the vote in the General Assembly, "the chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations" (Outcome Document 2005, paragraph 149); b) any resolution reforming the Council would require an amendment to the Charter, which, in turn, implies complying with the most stringent voting requirements in the Charter (2/3 of the Members); and c) such amendment to the Charter would have to be ratified by an equally stringent margin, the attainment of which is in itself the indication of the wide support of the membership.
· Increase in the number of non-permanent members only
o Since eliminating the mismatch between the composition of the SC and today's political realities requires expanding the group of permanent members, adding only non-permanent members would actually mean leaving the "status quo" untouched, which is rejected by the vast majority of members, including Brazil.
o Reducing such mismatch also requires taking into account one key development at the UN since 1945 which is the dramatic expansion of the membership. To address such aspect, we also need to increase the number of non-permanent members.
· Intermediate/interim reform
o Since several models/ideas were presented as "intermediate" reforms, such term has become too equivocal and has lost its utility. Rather, we have to refer to specific ideas/proposals.
o If by such term, one only means the creation of a third category of members, such as longer-term seats - and therefore not the expansion of the category of permanent members - we see the same problem we detect in the proposal to only expand the non-permanent category. Only a reform that increases the group of permanent members will adjust the Council to the political realities of the 21st century and ensure its long-term legitimacy and viability.
o If by such term, one has in mind a reform by which the reform to be adopted is reviewed in a given number of years, we could support it. In fact, from this perspective, the G-4 original proposal contains an element of an interim reform.
