The UN: Past, Present, Future
October 2005
Banner photo: ©SEKAI BUNKA
Adding History to the Debate: A Proposal for UN Security Council Reform
In order to fully understand the current debate on UN Security Council reform, it would be useful to review some of the history of these same discussions leading up to the founding of the United Nations in 1945. The issue of permanent members of the Council and the use of the veto had been settled at the Great Power meeting with Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt at Yalta in February 1945. Both Stalin and Roosevelt understood the necessity of the veto for the major powers and Churchill was eventually convinced. President Roosevelt had explained to the American people in his 1943 Christmas Eve radio address:
"Britain, Russia, China, and the United States and their allies represent more than three-quarters of the total population of the earth. As long as these four Nations with great military power stick together in determination to keep the peace there will be no possibility of an aggressor Nation arising to start another world war."
It was felt that those countries with the greatest military might would need to stay together after the war as they had done during the war if peace were to prevail. This kind of alliance would be necessary to deter another world war, and cooperation would be needed among the powers to keep them from going to war against each other. Roosevelt knew he needed veto power for the U.S. if he were going to gain ratification by the U.S. Senate, which had failed to ratify the League of Nations Covenant, preventing the U.S. from becoming a member of the League.
U.S.S.R. Premier Krushchev and Yugoslav President Tito during one of the most tense General Assembly sessions ever, September 1960
[UN/DPI/Y. Nagata]
In addition, clearly the U.S. and the other major powers, who would have to enforce any decision made by the Security Council, did not want to commit their resources and troops in an enforcement action against their will. Cooperation was essential. China was informed about the decisions at Yalta later, and France, who had been occupied by the Nazis early in the war, did not participate in the discussions until the conference in San Francisco in April/May 1945.
France was asked to join the permanent members of the Council at the end of the war. Nevertheless, the debate over permanent members and the veto erupted in San Francisco where 50 countries came together to finalize the Charter. The 21 Latin American nations joined by Australia and the Philippines led the resistance to this privileged status of the major powers. They resented the notion of the veto but in the end knew that there would be no UN Charter without the permanent five and the veto power. The final vote taken at San Francisco on the veto resulted in 33 nations in support, two (Cuba and Colombia) against, and 15 countries abstained.
This history demonstrates that the veto has always been a troublesome issue, as it continues to be today. The Security Council was expanded during the 1960s from its original 11 members to the current 15 in order to reflect the growing membership of the organization, but the veto was retained for the five permanent members. Now that there are 191 UN Member States, and the economic and military power balance in the world has shifted, that debate on Council expansion has ignited once again and the veto is at the center of the controversy.
Controversy
Giving permanent seats, for example, to India to represent Asia, Brazil to represent Latin America, or South Africa to represent Africa, sounded good initially, but was challenged by other countries in the region, claiming that these continental giants did not necessarily represent the interests of others in the region and in fact might solidify their local hegemony. Germany and Japan, which pay a substantial portion of the UN budget, feel that because they are paying for much of the work of the Council, they should have more say in the decision-making process. China, Italy and others have demonstrated resistance to these thoughts.
The Security Council debates the Cuban Missile Crisis, October 25, 1962
[UN/DPI]
Nevertheless, most Member States acknowledge that the Council needs to include those nations that can contribute most to the UN's capacity to meet the current challenges, and today's configuration does not meet that criteria. Reform is needed if the UN is to function as the founders had hoped. Therefore, here I would like to propose some ideas for a revised structure of the Council:
Enlargement: To be more representative of the now 191 members, the Council could be enlarged to 20-23 members, while maintaining the current permanent five (P-5): China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The permanent seats: Haggling over new permanent seats has stalemated any reform. I would propose creating a new category of Council membership, a four-year renewable term. The four-year concept allows the elected member more time to participate in the decision process and garner leverage in the negotiations. The system could allow for certain members to be democratically elected to serve indefinitely if the majority of the membership continues to support their legitimacy. Other members would continue to fill the two-year slots, going off the Council to allow more members an opportunity to participate.
Electing new members: These new four-year renewable seats could be elected by the current geographic groups or distributed through a voluntary process among three groups: highly industrialized nations; middle economies in the developing world; and countries with smaller, developing economies. Countries could choose which group to assign themselves to, and this could be changed every two years. Each group would elect two countries for the four-year renewable seats. Smallest countries would thus only compete with each other for these seats, ensuring their representation on the Council.
A bargain for the permanent seats: A condition for having the privilege of holding the four-year seat would be that these members would pay an additional surcharge for peacekeeping much like the permanent members now pay. Any country elected to the four-year semipermanent seat, whether Germany, Japan, Brazil, India or others, would be accountable for their actions to the broad membership in the Assembly, yet others could challenge them. Far from being a second-class seat, these seats would have the prestige of being elected. Perhaps this or similar ideas could help break the current logjam.
Dr. Jean Krasno is the Yolanda Moses Scholar at City College of New York and Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University where she has participated in the study of UN reform since 1995.
