UNSC reform goes through take-and-give process

By Hasan Kleib

JAKARTA (JP): One of the most hotly debated issues in the current session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is the Security Council reform.

There has been a common perception that reform is needed, but it appears that more work is needed before the reforms satisfy everyone.

The general concern that the current formation of the UNSC is obsolete and needs to be changed derives from several facts. First of all, the UNSC which has lived for a very long time under the antagonistic Cold War mentality suddenly finds itself in a completely different set of circumstances.

There is no more big bad red bear with a nice little veto card to be watched, but there are a lot of other wolves -- which like to devour roasted white pigeons -- that need to be tamed. The UNSC needs new direction.

Secondly, the UNSC's workload has increased in an unprecedented manner. From January 1987 to January 1988 the UNSC adopted 15 resolutions. But from January 1994 to December 1994 the UNSC adopted 78 resolutions.

Thirdly, membership of the UNSC is numerically unrealistic. When it was founded in 1945, only 11 of the 51 UN member countries were UNSC members.

From 1945 to 1963, as UN membership grew to 112 States, UNSC membership grew to 15 States. Four new seats for non-permanent members were created. UN membership has since grown to 185.

Fourth, there is the issue of balanced representation. Current circumstances demonstrate the damning fact that Europe is over- represented, Asia is under-represented, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean are not represented. This is indeed an anachronism as most UN members are developing countries.

The UNGA has established a Working Group which is mandated to deal with such critical issues as size, composition, and veto and decision making processes. Since 1994, its debates have mainly been on size, composition and veto.

A paper by the Chairman of the Working Group, Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia, proposed that membership be increased to 24 by adding five new permanent members from developing States.

He also proposed new non-permanent members -- one each from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Caribbean, and Eastern Europe.

They will have no veto powers. New permanent members were to be elected by a two-thirds majority of GA members.

It was proposed that election be on Feb. 28, 1998. And that using veto be limited only under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

However, there has been no agreement on the proposal.

It is well known in multilateral forums that governments detest deadlines, especially when it concerns their own interests.

The NAM request was for at least 11 new members, not nine, taking UNSC to 26 members. Africa, in particular, demands two seats.

Developed countries seem to agree on the composition as long as Germany and Japan will soon join. And on the issue of the number of permanent members, the United States has declared that there should not be more than 20 or 21 members.

Despite its undoubted goodwill, this proposal appears to have unforeseen negative consequences.

Firstly, the proposed five new countries would have made up a configuration of 10 permanent members which would create another imbalance -- seven industrialized or big powers versus three developing countries.

Secondly, the admittance of Germany and Japan would go smoothly, but choosing three developing countries would create competition which could open old wounds.

The West's inclination toward a quick-fix formula was rejected by the developing countries which insisted on a comprehensive solution.

Another proposal was forwarded, namely limited regional rotation which would provide permanent seats for a number of major developing countries which would take turns in filling the seats for a certain agreed period.

It was proposed that three permanent seats be allocated to Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean respectively.

Meanwhile Germany and Japan would maintain their status as candidates from the industrialized countries. This could eliminate the difficulty of reaching consensus among major countries to represent their respective region.

It could also give middle-size and smaller states in the region more frequent access to nonpermanent membership.

On the negative side of the ledger, this proposal carries an obvious discrimination between developed and developing countries since it would create four classes of members of the UNSC.

That is five-non rotating original permanent members with veto rights, two-non rotating new permanent members without veto powers (Germany and Japan), three-permanently rotating permanent members; and the current two-year-term non-permanent members, to be fought for by 175 members of the United Nations.

A number of issues fundamental to the reform surface such as: Which categories of membership, permanent or non-permanent, should be enlarged? Would it be acceptable to create a new category? What is a more representative and balanced number and how would it be distributed geographically? What are the objective criteria for becoming a permanent member? Who will decide on the developing country members? Will the permanent members have veto powers? Will the existing veto powers be maintained, limited or eliminated? And will a deadline be set for a consensus.

Priority should be focused on an objective which would guarantee fairness and impartiality in determining the new permanent members.

Back in 1945 permanent UNSC members were chosen by certain criteria as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they are either the winners of World War II or big regional powers with enough clout to maintain peace and security.

On the question of German and Japanese admission, the criteria is again the currency in the market.

It has been argued that their economic prowess, high political standing and influential roles in their respective regions have made them eligible to assume a bigger role in the international community.

It is clear that the international community has indeed employed a set of criteria to determine UNSC permanent members. And for current non-permanent membership. Although there are no written criteria, members are chosen largely on their ability to assume responsibilities for the membership.

This may explain why certain countries have been reelected consecutively or several times.

These point to another important facet, i.e objective criteria may also be defined regionally, since specific regional features could demand differing criteria.

What the international community really needs is flexibility and readiness to accommodate.

Developed countries should stop being recalcitrant and realize that the membership of the UNSC does not reflect current realities.

They should accept the demand for larger membership and avoid imposing a quick-fix formula which would leave developing countries behind in a chaos of unhealthy, bickering competition.

Meanwhile, developing countries need to show their flexibility by not pressing on the castration of veto power.

Flexibility is required by developing countries if they want to consolidate their positions at all levels, ranging from political groupings to regional interests.

The reforms should be treated as a give and take process between developed and developing countries as well as among developing countries themselves.

Competition that could diminish the peaceful co-existence of nations should always be avoided.

The writer is an observer of international affairs and was assigned to a diplomatic mission in the UN Headquarters. The views expressed in this article are strictly personal.