Thursday, April 14, 2005
UN reform at the security council
Here is a big story I must confess that I was only mildly aware of.
Jax
The proposed expansion of the 15-member UN Security Council has been thrown into disarray once again - this time by a spirited political campaign to block the permanent membership of Japan, Germany, India and Brazil. It has underscored a fact that has become increasingly clear: expansion of the council from its current five permanent members simply is not going to happen.
The latest campaign is being led by a group of about 40 "like-minded" countries - headed by Italy, South Korea, Pakistan, Argentina and Mexico. All five countries publicly oppose any increase in permanent members and instead back an alternative proposal to increase the number of non-permanent members in the Security Council.
At present, the council has five veto-wielding permanent members - the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia - and 10 non-permanent members elected every two years on the principle of rotating geographical representation.
Italy is livid that it is being shut out of the Security Council despite the fact that it has a claim for permanent membership equal to or better than that of Germany. As a result, Italy has expressed strong reservations about Germany's candidacy and is determined to scuttle Berlin's chances of joining the Security Council permanently.
On Monday, Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini was quoted as saying: "We don't think it would be useful to admit new permanent members unless it could be done with the widest possible consensus, which doesn't exist right now."
Argentina and Mexico, for their part, are peeved that their claims to represent Latin America have been overtaken by Brazil, the front-runner from that region.
Pakistan, a longtime rival of neighboring India, does not want see New Delhi elevated to the ranks of a permanent member. Although it is not publicly opposing India, Pakistan is against the expansion of permanent membership.
South Korea is critical of Japan's wartime past, and is currently in a dispute with Tokyo over historically symbolic islands midway between the two nations (see Japan-South Korea ties on the rocks, March 23). "A country that does not repent for its historical wrongdoings and that does not have the trust of its neighbors cannot play a leadership role in international society," South Korea's ambassador to the United Nations, Kim Sam-hoon, said last month.
All these countries, vehemently opposed to permanent membership, have formed a group called Uniting for Consensus, which held a meeting in New York on Monday.
Jim Paul, executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, said the grouping of countries opposing permanent membership is reminiscent of the Coffee Club led by Italy at the United Nations in the early 1990s.
"It's quite a powerful lobby," said Paul, who has been monitoring developments relating to the Security Council since 1994. Equally important but less noted is the very determined opposition of the existing five permanent members (P5) to expansion of any permanent membership, he said. "We have seen this, particularly with respect to China. The anti-Japanese riots in China last week [were] a bigger statement."
Paul also said there was a "write-in campaign" in China, where millions of signatures were gathered against Japan. In other words, the Chinese are able to say: "Look, our people just don't want this," he said. In China, this sort of campaign doesn't easily occur without the blessings of the government. "So that's important," he noted.
Last month, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan released a landmark 62-page report, "In Larger Freedom", described as a blueprint for restructuring the world body. The report backs a proposal made by a high-level panel on UN reform, which early this year called for two alternative models for a revamped Security Council:
But last week, both the US and China were critical of Annan's proposals. The secretary general also decided to force the issue by setting a September deadline - to coincide with a summit meeting of world leaders in New York - for a radical transformation of the United Nations, and more specifically the Security Council. Both the US and China have opposed any "artificial deadlines", thereby undermining plans to revamp the Security Council.
The reservations were a disappointment to Japan, Germany, Brazil and India, which had hopes of finding a permanent seat on the council table at least by the end of this year.
China also rejected a proposal to force through any proposals that lacked "consensus". Paul said "consensus" is a code word that means: "Unless everyone agrees, we don't do it." This, he said, has "infuriated" the Germans and the Japanese, who were apparently confident of getting support from two-thirds of the 191 member states.
He said the two countries may have lined up a two-thirds majority for a "framework resolution" calling for the expansion of the Security Council.
"But there was no way in hell they would have got a two-thirds majority once they get down to specific names as permanent members," Paul said. This has always been the stumbling block - and will remain a stumbling block, he added.
Paul said his own observation is that there may be strong support for "a slight increase in non-permanent members", as was done in 1965 when three new non-permanent members were added to the council - a sort of Model C, far different from Model B, he said.
This may be the lowest common denominator that everyone could eventually agree on, Paul said. "It would be non-controversial and it would not weaken the domination of the P5." (Link)
Jax
The proposed expansion of the 15-member UN Security Council has been thrown into disarray once again - this time by a spirited political campaign to block the permanent membership of Japan, Germany, India and Brazil. It has underscored a fact that has become increasingly clear: expansion of the council from its current five permanent members simply is not going to happen.
The latest campaign is being led by a group of about 40 "like-minded" countries - headed by Italy, South Korea, Pakistan, Argentina and Mexico. All five countries publicly oppose any increase in permanent members and instead back an alternative proposal to increase the number of non-permanent members in the Security Council.
At present, the council has five veto-wielding permanent members - the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia - and 10 non-permanent members elected every two years on the principle of rotating geographical representation.
Italy is livid that it is being shut out of the Security Council despite the fact that it has a claim for permanent membership equal to or better than that of Germany. As a result, Italy has expressed strong reservations about Germany's candidacy and is determined to scuttle Berlin's chances of joining the Security Council permanently.
On Monday, Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini was quoted as saying: "We don't think it would be useful to admit new permanent members unless it could be done with the widest possible consensus, which doesn't exist right now."
Argentina and Mexico, for their part, are peeved that their claims to represent Latin America have been overtaken by Brazil, the front-runner from that region.
Pakistan, a longtime rival of neighboring India, does not want see New Delhi elevated to the ranks of a permanent member. Although it is not publicly opposing India, Pakistan is against the expansion of permanent membership.
South Korea is critical of Japan's wartime past, and is currently in a dispute with Tokyo over historically symbolic islands midway between the two nations (see Japan-South Korea ties on the rocks, March 23). "A country that does not repent for its historical wrongdoings and that does not have the trust of its neighbors cannot play a leadership role in international society," South Korea's ambassador to the United Nations, Kim Sam-hoon, said last month.
All these countries, vehemently opposed to permanent membership, have formed a group called Uniting for Consensus, which held a meeting in New York on Monday.
Jim Paul, executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, said the grouping of countries opposing permanent membership is reminiscent of the Coffee Club led by Italy at the United Nations in the early 1990s.
"It's quite a powerful lobby," said Paul, who has been monitoring developments relating to the Security Council since 1994. Equally important but less noted is the very determined opposition of the existing five permanent members (P5) to expansion of any permanent membership, he said. "We have seen this, particularly with respect to China. The anti-Japanese riots in China last week [were] a bigger statement."
Paul also said there was a "write-in campaign" in China, where millions of signatures were gathered against Japan. In other words, the Chinese are able to say: "Look, our people just don't want this," he said. In China, this sort of campaign doesn't easily occur without the blessings of the government. "So that's important," he noted.
Last month, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan released a landmark 62-page report, "In Larger Freedom", described as a blueprint for restructuring the world body. The report backs a proposal made by a high-level panel on UN reform, which early this year called for two alternative models for a revamped Security Council:
But last week, both the US and China were critical of Annan's proposals. The secretary general also decided to force the issue by setting a September deadline - to coincide with a summit meeting of world leaders in New York - for a radical transformation of the United Nations, and more specifically the Security Council. Both the US and China have opposed any "artificial deadlines", thereby undermining plans to revamp the Security Council.
The reservations were a disappointment to Japan, Germany, Brazil and India, which had hopes of finding a permanent seat on the council table at least by the end of this year.
China also rejected a proposal to force through any proposals that lacked "consensus". Paul said "consensus" is a code word that means: "Unless everyone agrees, we don't do it." This, he said, has "infuriated" the Germans and the Japanese, who were apparently confident of getting support from two-thirds of the 191 member states.
He said the two countries may have lined up a two-thirds majority for a "framework resolution" calling for the expansion of the Security Council.
"But there was no way in hell they would have got a two-thirds majority once they get down to specific names as permanent members," Paul said. This has always been the stumbling block - and will remain a stumbling block, he added.
Paul said his own observation is that there may be strong support for "a slight increase in non-permanent members", as was done in 1965 when three new non-permanent members were added to the council - a sort of Model C, far different from Model B, he said.
This may be the lowest common denominator that everyone could eventually agree on, Paul said. "It would be non-controversial and it would not weaken the domination of the P5." (Link)
