UNSC reform doomed?

Media reports indicate that the much-expected reforms of the Security Council (Cabinet of the UN) in its enlargement has stumbled because of lack of unanimity among the most powerful five Council members. Under the UN Charter any amendment of the Charter needs the support of the five permanent Council members.

The following discussion may make it clear to the readers why the reforms even before they have been discussed at the General Assembly (Parliament of the UN) in September are doomed.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Proposed reforms
One of the UN reforms proposed by the task force headed by the former Thai Prime Minister Dr. Anand Panyrachun has been to expand the existing number (15) of members of the Security Council to 24. In suggesting nine additional seats, they recommended two models.

Under Model A, there would be three additional non-permanent members and six additional permanent members. Under Model B, there would be eight additional members for renewable four-year terms and one additional non-permanent member for a two-year term.

The task force, formally known as the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change, was established by the Secretary General in November 2003, after he failed to halt the invasion of Iraq by US-led forces in March 2003 without the approval of the UN Security Council. The task-force, consisting of 16 distinguished individuals drawn from different countries, was asked to probe the nature of today's global threats and recommend collective solution through reformed UN.

The recommendations of the task force will be debated at the coming session of the UN General Assembly in September this year, (which Bangladesh Prime Minister Khaleda Zia is reportedly expected to attend).

The task force proposed mainly the following reforms:

(a) Expansion of the Security Council;

(b) Legitimacy criteria for the use of military force;

(c) An agreed definition of terrorism; and

(d) How to address non-state actors (terrorists who have no support from any state).

But, nations have become more interested in the democratisation of the Security Council than in other reforms. Chinese Ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya reportedly said: "We now face a dilemma. The whole reform agenda has been hijacked by this one issue (Security Council expansion). UN reforms cover many areas and it is simply putting the cart before the horse to talk too much about the Security Council expansion."

Formation of a G-4
Naturally, the prized additional seats of the Security Council have dominated thoughts of many aspiring nations, and more importantly the issue as to which group of countries would get the seats.

Early on Japan, Brazil, India, and Germany formed a group, called G-4 and canvassed for themselves to get the seats as permanent members and proposed for a 25-member Council, up from the current 15 seat Council (10 more seats, not 9 as proposed by the task force). In their view, the other two permanent seats would be occupied by two African countries, Egypt, Nigeria, or South Africa.

The formation of G-4, according to many UN observers, has been counter-productive. Ordinarily, the UN works under regional group system -- Asia, Africa, Europe and Others, and Latin America.

If any country wants to secure a seat in a UN body or its proposal to move forward, it must first seek approval of its own regional group. If any developing country is involved, then the second stage comes to the Group of 77 -- consisting of Asia, Africa, and Latin America -- for its approval. If it is approved, then it becomes the proposal of Group of 77, now consisting of about 127 developing countries. Both stages are important.

Critics' view
Some say that India and Brazil should have processed their case through the usual procedures. What they have done is to join together with Japan and Germany who are not members of the Group of 77 of developing countries. And as a result they have skipped the normal procedures, annoying other developing countries, especially the African countries, numbering 53.

In order to get the support of the General Assembly, the G-4 needs to win two-thirds of the votes of the 191-member UN General Assembly (at least 128 votes). If African countries do not back them, they will have no luck to win that kind of majority in the Assembly.

Now the G-4, sensing the danger began negotiations with African countries. They have their own agendas and reportedly want three permanent seats and two non-permanent seats.

The G-4 is now being opposed by another group, called Uniting for Consensus (UFC), consisting mainly of Italy, Canada, Spain, Pakistan, and Mexico. They oppose creation of permanent seats in the Security Council and more or less support Model B reform, proposed by the task force.

Furthermore, Italy and Spain oppose Germany, Pakistan opposes India, in Latin America, Argentina, Chile, and Mexico are against Brazil, and South Korea and China oppose Japan. It shows how regional rivals gang up against a regionally powerful country.

Veto power of the big five
The biggest hurdle is to ensure that no country among the existing five permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, America, France, China, Russia -- would vote against any amendment. Under Article 108 of the UN Charter, if any amendment of the UN Charter is carried through, it will require not only two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly, but also no negative vote of any of the five permanent members.

Media reports indicate that the US and China have revealed their cards. They will not support the G-4 initiative. The US lends its support only to Japan, not India and Germany (they opposed the Iraqi war). The visit of India's Prime Minister to Washington, although otherwise successful, did not sway the US to change its view.

The negative votes of two of the five permanent members of the Council means that the expansion proposed by the G-4 is doomed. It implies that the four countries, India, Brazil, Japan, and Germany, seem to have been on the wrong track in multilateral diplomacy.

Conclusion
51 countries established the UN sixty years ago on June 26, 1945, and obviously its structure, set in 1945, is no longer fit to address contemporary global issues. The UN has been crying for reform, particularly within the Security Council, because it does not reflect existing global power realities with its 191 member-countries.

The G-4 countries are unable to win support from the five current permanent members. The bottom line is that the UN can only be reformed as the five permanent members of the Security Council allow it to be.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.