Taking the scalpel to the UN system

The Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo

The world faces grave threats from escalating international terrorism, spreading weapons of mass destruction, unrelenting ethnic conflicts, global epidemics and other worries. How best should the United Nations be restructured to deal with such pressing issues?

An advisory panel examining this issue has submitted a proposal to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Based on that plan, Annan will voice his own ideas next spring, which marks the 60th anniversary of the international body.

The focus of reform is shaping up to be the reshuffling of the UN Security Council. The advisory panel has tendered two proposals. One is to increase the number of permanent council members to 11 countries from the present five, and raise temporary nonpermanent members from 10 to 13. The second idea is to leave the permanent membership of the Security Council as is, while adding eight "quasi-permanent members" and setting the number of nonpermanent members at 11.

It is important to increase the number of nations seated on the Security Council to reflect the full range of opinion. That is no guarantee, however, that the body will be strengthened.

Neither of the two proposals gives the right of veto to any seats outside the present permanent members. This reflects the views of the permanent members-the United States, China, France, Britain and Russia-who are opposed to expanding veto powers. As a result, dissatisfaction will continue to simmer over the granting of such special privileges to just these five states.

The true failing of the Security Council is that all its work grinds to a halt whenever any of these five nations oppose each other. The advisory panel has failed to come up with any way to fix that problem. One possible solution would be to have the General Assembly step in when the council becomes stalled, using special resolutions to act as a surrogate in certain functions.

The fact remains, however, that council reform cannot succeed simply by tinkering with the systems now in place. The standoff between the United States and France over the Iraq war effectively invalidated the council's resolutions. In particular, if Washington fails to join with the four other permanent members in the quest to reform this body to meet the doctrines in the UN Charter, there will be little to no progress.

Any reforms to the charter, furthermore, require ratification by two-thirds of the total membership. In this sense, taking the scalpel to the UN system is no easy matter.

The Japanese government wants to be a permanent Security Council member, with or without veto power, and it intends to join with Germany, India and other countries in submitting a resolution to amend the charter. This poses the question, however, of what other country Japan would prefer to see as the other half of Asia's two-nation quota. There are serious questions about the suitability of India-a country that shunned the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty-taking on that role.

Permanent member status would also make it easier to take part in informal deliberations. Nevertheless, allowing no new veto rights means no real change in authority or position from being a nonpermanent member. This scenario pretty much eliminates grounds for calls to transform our Self-Defense Forces into a regular military or other premises for winning permanent member status.

If Japan is seeking to gain a permanent council seat in keeping with the panel's proposal, this country should boldly advance a vision for arms reduction, nonproliferation, "human security" and other diplomatic principles unique to its perspective.

There is one other major plank in the panel's proposal-a yardstick for deciding when to use armed force. Among the five requirements are the existence of clear and grave threats, the use of force as a final approach after exhausting all nonmilitary means and convincing evidence that more effective results would be obtained with force than without it.

The Iraq war clearly did not meet these criteria. For the United Nations to regain credibility, the starting point is that all of the UN member nations, including the United States and Britain, must sign onto these five clauses. As a declared and active supporter of the war in Iraq, such a position is of course required of Japan as well.