Global Policy Forum

By Frank Ching

Reform of the UN, especially the security council - a topic that has been discussed for well over a decade - appears to have stalled. Ironically, China and the US are on the same side on this issue, calling for a consensus to evolve before any resolution is presented to the general assembly for a vote.

In March, Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for a major overhaul to meet the global threats and challenges of the 21st century, including a new peace -building commission and human-rights council, as well as fresh measures to reduce poverty and promote education. He urged that the issue be dealt with before September's summit meeting to mark the world body's 60th anniversary. The most important - and the most contentious - of his proposals is the one to expand the security council to make it represent the global realities of today, not those of 1945. Currently, the 15-member council consists of five permanent members - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - all with veto power, plus 10 rotating non-permanent members.

Recently, four countries - Japan, India, Germany and Brazil, dubbed the G4 - came out with a proposal. Six new permanent seats would be created, all with the power of veto, as well as four additional non-permanent seats. Although their resolution does not name names, it is clear that they are meant to get four of the six new permanent seats. The remaining two are to go to Africa. However, their formula has been opposed by some key countries. Not surprisingly, China opposes Japan's membership; Italy opposes that of Germany; while Pakistan is against membership for India. And, while Washington supports Japan for a security council seat, it does not want any additional veto -wielding members for fear that this would result in gridlock.

China's UN ambassador, Wang Guangya , termed the resolution "a dangerous move" and one that China would certainly oppose. He said: "It will split the house and destroy the unity, and also derail the whole process of discussion on big UN reforms." On this he was not alone. David Malone, a senior Canadian diplomat, believes that pushing the issue to a vote at this time would be very divisive. "It's a waste of time and energy," he said in a talk at the University of Hong Kong. "Besides, a vote will create winners and losers." Mr Malone, a former Canadian ambassador to the UN, said that the four aspirants do not have the votes to push through their resolution, although the US is worried that they could get them. They need a two-thirds majority, or 128 of the UN's 191 members.

Another group of about a dozen countries, known as "Uniting for Consensus", has also proposed expanding the council to 25 members - but through the creation of 10 new non-permanent seats. China has indicated support for this proposal. Even if the G4 resolution is passed, it is unlikely that the four aspirants will be able to amend the United Nations Charter, since this will require the consent of all five permanent council members.

On Friday, Jean Ping, president of the general assembly, acknowledged that while there has been progress on some issues, such as the creation of a human -rights body to replace the current Human Rights Commission, there was little consensus on security council reform, which he said was "awakening great passions and fixed attitudes". Mr Annan said he was confident that "when world leaders meet in New York this coming September, they will agree on the most far-ranging and ambitious reforms of the United Nations in its 60-year history". However, unless there are fundamental shifts on the part of some key countries in the next few weeks, expansion of the council may not be one of the reforms. And on this issue, at least, Washington and Beijing can see eye to eye.

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.