UNSC reform goes through take-and-give process

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The general concern that the current formation of the UNSC is
obsolete and needs to be changed derives from several facts.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.