New Page 1

U.N. Security Council Reform

By Robert Miller, National Student Leadership Conference and Patricia Thomas, Pace University Model U.N.

History and Evolution of the Security Council

The creation of the Security Council stems from the problems encountered during the first attempt to bring the world together after WWII with the League of Nations. The League was a failure for a number of reasons. One of the most important reasons was the fact that the League of Nations was unable to enforce any of the resolutions that it passed. This flaw in the League's covenant earned the League a reputation as an ineffective organization.

When the U.N. came into existence after World War II, special care was taken to rectify the problems that had hindered the success of the League of Nations. The organization consists of six different primary organs; The Secretariat, The International Court of Justice (ICJ), Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC), The Trusteeship Council, General Assembly, and the Security Council. Each plays an important role in the U.N., but the Security Council is the only U.N. organ with enforcement power. This power gives the Security Council incredible influence and makes a position on the Council one of the most coveted seats in the U.N.

The Security Council currently consists of fifteen members, five of them permanent and belonging to the five victorious Allied powers of World War II; the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, and the Russian Federation. The remaining ten seats are filled by member states by the General Assembly; with the states elected for two year terms, with five seats changing every year. The Security Council actually expanded from 11 members to 15 members under U.N. Charter Article 23 in December 1963 and came into force in August 1965.

The Security Council in the 1990's

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, communications between previously opposing countries became a lot less restrictive. The representatives of the permanent members began to meet privately at the individual homes of their U.N. ambassadors to discuss issues and concerns before meeting in the Security Council. This has drastically cut down on the number of vetoes used by the so called Permanent-5, with more negotiations at the informal setting resulting in more understanding of each others positions in the formal setting.

Recently they decided to further this progress by making use of a small anteroom located next to the Security Council Chamber. Now the Security Council mainly uses the formal setting to adopt resolutions. This informal setting allowing for more forthright discussions has made the Security Council a much more productive unit of the U.N., but the a less transparent organ of the U.N.

With the expansion of the General Assembly to over 188 countries, there is an increased demand to expand the Security Council in order to attain a better representation of the world's countries.

Changing times demand more Permanent Seats at the Security Council

After the United States, the next two largest contributors to the U.N. budget are Japan and Germany at approximately 15 percent and 10 percent respectively. These facts brought forth the argument that these two countries were shouldering more of the U.N. budget than some Permanent members, they should get a permanent seat on the Security Council. However, there are a number of countries that disagree that one should be able to "buy" their way onto the Security Council. They feel that the new seats should be assigned in relation to population or to the fact of who contributed the most troops to U.N. peacekeeping forces. In addition to these Permanent Seats many governments believe that there should also be more non-permanent seats added to the Council.

Proposals to Restructure the Security Council: 3 Case Studies

As different options are discussed, it's important to make sure that you understand and comprehend what position your government is advancing.

A representative from New Zealand who had been working on feasible options for the expansion of the Security Council issued this official statement.

"...there are only three options available. The first is to gracefully shut down the debate for 10 to 20 years and get on with reforms, which really would make a difference in the way the United Nations functioned. The second is to pursue a simple expansion of the non-permanent membership. The third is to pursue a more complex political solution based on extension of non-permanent seats only, in a manner that would provide a small number of major countries with the possibility of being elected to the Council more often"

The above statement is by no means the only solution to the question. Different countries should have VERY different views about where their countries stand in relation to this debate.

India

India has told the General Assembly that restructuring of the UN Security Council is "a moral imperative and practical necessity." The Council's structure and composition can no longer meet the aspirations and expectations of the membership and of the international community. The solution lies in reforming and restructuring the body comprehensively. "The inclusion of developing countries in the permanent membership would make the Council more representative, relevant and vibrant," L M Singhvi, a Member of Parliament, said while addressing the General Assembly. Singhvi said New Delhi is dismayed to find that there is pointless delay in translating the basic ideas of restructuring into a reality. "The danger is that the delay in restructuring may make the system less relevant, less effectual and somewhat moribund. That is why restructuring has an urgency of its own," he said. Singhvi said the role of the Council has been eroded and subverted by the developments of the past few years. "This is a disturbing trend and raises many intractable questions," he said. "We cannot view with equanimity the Charter and the Security Council being relegated to the role of a massive spectator and its real role being pre-empted." The report, divided into five parts and encompassing such issues as the maintenance of international peace and security, drew widespread criticism from a number of countries on various counts, including lack of information and rigid and exclusionary working methods. India told the Assembly that the problem of lack of information is aggravated by the Council resorting to the system of meeting behind closed doors, not as a rare exception but more or less as a routine which is not in conformity with the rules.

Malaysia

General Assembly President Razali Ismail of Malaysia, as chairman of the General Assembly working group on Security Council reform, presented a set of proposals on 20 March 1997, which are in many respects, similar to the suggestions made by the Commission on Global Governance (CGG) in its report Our Global Neighborhood. Ismail called for five new permanent members: three from the developing states of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, and two from the industrialized states. The CGG made a similar proposal. He also called for four non-permanent or rotating members one each from Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean. The CGG suggested three. The five new permanent members would not have the power to veto Council decisions; a similar qualification was called for by the CGG. Razali proposes that the present five permanent members (Britain, China, France, Russia and the USA) should be urged to limit their use of the veto to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, i.e. to action to maintain or restore international peace and security. The CGG wanted these members to restrict use of the veto to exceptional and overriding circumstances related to their national security.

Ambassador Ismail said there had been virtually universal condemnation of the veto and it was therefore "inconsistent and unacceptable both logically and morally to extend such a power to new permanent members of the Security Council". The Commission said in its report: "We believe so strongly that the veto is an unacceptable feature in global governance that clearly the number of veto-wielding members should not be increased in any new arrangements."

The Assembly President has suggested that all five new permanent members should be elected at the same time. He has called for a conference to review the position to be held ten years after the new arrangements come into force. The CGG similarly called for a review conference in the first decade of the new century, say in 2005. Ismail said his proposal was based "on the need to enhance the representativeness, the credibility, the legitimacy and authority of the Security Council" so that it could be "more effective in exercising its primary role to maintain international peace and security."

He has suggested a time-table for moving ahead on his reform proposals, which envisages the necessary amendments to the UN Charter being adopted and new permanent members being elected by the General Assembly in February/March 1998.

Commenting on the proposals, Commission Co-Chairman Shridath Ramphal applauded the General Assembly President's "historic initiative" and called for widespread support for it from member states of the United Nations.

Brazil

The Brazilian Government believes that enlargement of the permanent membership should be consistent with the need to enhance the representative character and legitimacy of the Council while preserving its workability. Brazil has joined the widespread consensus on the need to redress the present imbalance in the membership of the Security Council. That imbalance is felt in the ratio of developed to developing permanent members and in the ratio of permanent members to the U.N. membership as a whole.

Any increase in the permanent membership should take into account the changes, which have taken place in the world in the past half-century. These changes include the emergence of a handful of countries -- developed and developing alike -- that are capable and willing to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. Permanent membership would entail additional responsibilities and costs. Member States with global projection and a willingness to bear those additional responsibilities and costs should be eligible for permanent membership.

There has been exhaustive discussion on these issues in the Working Group on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. The Working Group should now be in a position to make concrete recommendations, which would lead to a solution, which enhances the legitimacy and representative character of the Council.

Fair geographical representation on the Security Council

The call for a more impartial seating assignment based on geographical representation has been made by the lesser represented countries for a number of years. There has been a drastic disproportion in the Security Council with the current non-permanent seats being arranged as follows:

W. Europe & others 2

E. Europe 1

Asia 2

Africa 3

Latin America & Caribbean 2

With the expansion of the U.N. to include many nations from each of the above mentioned regions it is inevitable that some of the smaller countries in a region get little or no time on the Security Council. Increasing the number of non-permanent seats would allow a more diverse and adequate representation of the regions.

Add Permanent Regional Rotating Seats to the Security Council

There is a strong movement by many states to add more permanent seats to the Security Council. However, this idea, when paired with the fact that is unlikely that the GA would agree as to who should get the seats, brought another proposal into the discussion. This new proposal pushed the option of Permanent Rotating Regional Seats. These permanent seats would be assigned to developing regions with the position of the seat being shared among the most prominent U.N. members of that region. The seats would be rotated on a schedule that would allow the countries longer terms on the Security Council. (Suggested terms are for 10 years)

Adding More Non-Permanent Members to the Security Council

Adding more Non-Permanent Members to the Council is one of the more widely supported ideas from the smaller member states. As individual countries they realize that they do not have a reasonable chance to attain a permanent seat on the Council and don't want to support the placement of any other countries to a permanent slot. Their view of the situation is that there are already too inadequate representation for regions and it is hard enough for the Security Council to accomplish anything with the five potential vetoes powers already present. Many member states can look back and remember the Cold War where the SC became the grounds for yet another power struggle between the United States and the USSR. This struggle would be even more pronounced if the newly elected permanent members receive veto power to go along with their seat. There is also the fear that once a country is given permanent status, then they will remain in power even if they eventually go into decline and no longer hold a position of power in the world... leaving the SC with some irrelevant countries with veto power.

Abolition of the Veto and Permanent Seats

Abolishing all of the Permanent Seats from the Security Council and removing the veto is an idea that has been repeatedly expressed by the majority of the countries in the GA. However, it has almost no chance of succeeding, with the P-5 determined to veto anything that reduces their position of power. However, the possibility exists that regulations could be set up to limit the number of times a veto could be used. If you choose to move towards numbering the times a veto can be used or towards eliminating it totally you definitely want to take a close look at Chapters V & VII in the U.N. charter so you know exactly what the limitations and rules of the Security Council are. Also look into and be aware of the amendment process and how to go about amending the U.N. Charter.

Leave Things the Way They Are

Even in light of all of these demands for a larger Security Council and more equal representation, some countries want the Council to remain the way it is. In their opinion, they feel that its hard enough for things to get done with only fifteen members and five potential vetoes. They worry that with the addition of more seats and/or more veto power countries, the Security Council would become a gridlock like many of the UN's other organizations. In order to keep things streamlined and operating with a minimum of discord, this committee should be kept small to avoid petty bickering from (they feel are) insignificant nations.

Questions for PUMUNC

As you are going about doing the research and start to think about the different things that you can do as a delegate it is important to understand your country's point of view. Keep these questions in mind when considering what position to take when taking sides on this issue.

How does your government believe Security Council should be reformed?

What is your government's position on adding more permanent members to the SC?

Are there any countries that your government would oppose for a permanent seat in the SC?

Should Veto Power be revoked from all permanent members of the SC? What about extending the veto to new Permanent Members?

Which scenario gives your country the best opportunity of attaining a seat on the SC?

Conclusion

Reforming the Security Council is an extremely difficult issue to discuss, but a necessary one with the world changing so rapidly. It is of the utmost importance that you (as a delegate) should strive to consider this issue from the perspective of your respective country. Delegates should also be creative in finding solutions and working their way around to attain a situation that does the most good for their country. As a delegate, you be familiar with the process for amending the U.N. Charter, because any changes/reform of the Security Council will require a Charter amendment. Look up Chapters V & VII of the U.N. Charter to understand what the Security Council is responsible for and to see what you can do in terms of changing the SC in preparation for the conference.

There are many proposals for the reforming of the SC to this date, many of which has come under considerable criticism and many deemed favorable, nonetheless, the need for reform is eminent. There is also discussions on possibly limiting the veto powers of the permanent members. According Secretary General Kofi Annan, "There is more and more discussion about maybe finding some ways of proscribing the veto. Probably coming up with a mechanism for overriding the veto, where for example, if nine members of the council as it is currently constituted were to vote against the veto, the veto would be overridden." Whether nations are ready for the soon to be reform process we are yet to see, today most nations including the United States has proposed their own mechanism.

Suggested Research and Speeches

Mali