Reforming the Security Council

The News, Sun, May,9, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



In recent years there have been many calls for reforming the United Nations (UN). Many well-wishers of the UN have aired their voices and are advancing proposals aimed to improve the functioning of the UN in the 21^st Century. The most frequently mooted proposals for reforms focus on the composition and the working of the Security Council. However this does not mean the need for reforming other organs of the UN are not put forward.  

Fifty-nine years ago a group of nations established a universal body called the UN in the post world war era to promote and maintain international peace and security, alleviate poverty and minimize unemployment, facilitate global prosperity and promote human rights worldwide. Having lived through the economic crisis of the 30s, the aggressions of the fascist states, and the horrors of World War II, the founders of the UN were committed to create an international body that could effectively deal with the above-mentioned lofty goals.

Although the debate to reform the UN started quite sometimes back but it picked up pace only after the end of the Cold war. Not only the circumstances have radically changed and the numbers of the member state have multiplied considerably but also it is only natural that the member states to want an assessment of the UN. Judged by any yardstick, the record of the UN is somewhat mixed at best. The performance in the recent past has elicited sever criticism. It has experienced humiliation in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. It is accused of bureaucratically unwieldy with poor personnel recruitment and unnecessary expansive. For obvious reasons much of the blame is attributed to poor leadership.

Admittedly even if administrative and personnel weaknesses are rectified and the quality of the leadership is improved, this world body would still require reshaping in order to meet the challenges and stresses of the 21^st Century. While it is difficult to highlight all areas of the UN that need reforms in this short peace, it would be only appropriate for me to concentrate on Security Council which is deemed to be the most important organ of the UN on one hand and also attracts much of the criticism on the other.

According to the UN Charter the primary purpose of the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security.  It was expected to play an effective role in mobilizing the world community to repel aggression, manage conflict, and maintain peace. Whether or not the Security Council has been able to perform the assigned function adequately has become a subject of an interesting debate among many quarters. There are those who argue that the very composition of the Security Council hampers its effectiveness while others stress that the single most effective impediment in the smooth functioning of the Security Council is the veto power that is exclusively enjoyed by the five permanent members of the Council. Another argument often advanced is that the very structure of the Security Council does not reflect the realities of the post Cold war international order. While there seems to be a consensus over the need to reform the Security Council, divergent opinions are continuously expressed over the nature, scope and functions of the organization.

While the establishment of Security Council was entrusted with the task of maintaining international peace and security, the basis of selecting permanent membership of the Council was not very clear. Not only the US and its wartime’s allies deemed it fit to establish the UN as a mechanism for ensuring international security after the war, but they also opted to make those very wartimes allies as the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Perhaps they were thinking in terms of making the US allies as world policemen. Controversy regarding the criteria of permanent membership continues to invoke intense debates. No substantive criteria were evolved for allocating permanent membership of the Security Council. The original criteria model is known as Rooseveltian Model, which means that allocation of permanent membership, is based on measurable state power (military, economic, demographic and territory). It was mainly US that managed somewhat arbitrarily to allocate permanent status to five countries and secured the consent of other member countries.

Broadly the critics of the UN Security Council can be grouped into two distinct categories. First group is of the view that the UN Security Council is a useful body and has worked admirably over the years. It works as an actor in its own rights within the possibilities and limitation of the existing international political system. This is the view of increasingly shrinking group of states. This group is not totally against reforming the UN Security Council but is not very keen to have the permanent members shed their veto powers. Some permanent members would like to see the expansion of overall membership but have their reservations regarding the permanent membership.

The second group, which is much larger and reflects the view of majority of states critically, questions the usefulness of the body in its present form. This group regards UN Security Council as a tool for the veto wielding powers and a debating forum for the non-permanent members. Most of its decisions are in fact the product of major powers foreign policies. In many ways they imply that it works in accordance with the wishes of permanent members rather than for the original basic objective of the UN Security Council. Some even view that this body works for major powers only and in so doing it is continuously eroding the basic rationale of this body. Many members of this group feel that in order to make UN Security Council more effective, it is necessary to radically improve its current structure and working method.

The establishment of UN Security Council dates back to San Francisco of April 1945. Since then not only so many developments of great significance have taken place but also the incumbent state system is undergoing transformation. There was a time when states used to guard their sovereignty rather jealously but currently such trends have undergone radical transformation and states appear to be willing to join larger groupings. One of the major trends that were the product of the end of the Cold war is commonly referred as integrative trend. While the disintegrative trend has also surfaced after the Cold war but integrative trend seems to have dominated the thinking. More and more states are keen to join larger groups both for economic as well as for security reasons.

Although the demand for reforming the UN Security Council is not a new move as many as anachronistic but the campaign in this direction are viewing it intensified only after the end of the Cold war. The demand is indeed reflective of increasing dissatisfaction with the its functioning. The veto powers enjoyed by few powerful countries have come under heavy criticism and it has been frequently argued that the possession of veto powers by few states is regarded as a tool that is undermining the principle of sovereign equality of nation states. Admittedly so far the demand to replace this undemocratic arrangement with a much more humane and democratic mechanism has so far not been very successful, the belief in the need for reforming the UN Security Council is on the increase and continuously strengthening.

The demand to make UN Security Council more democratic and representative continues to increase with the passage of time. Not only the developing nations are very sensitive about the non-democratic and non-representative character of the UN Security Council but they also want to see more transparency in its working. For obvious reasons they are extremely keen to see that their voice is given adequate hearings. In 1995 many speakers in the UN General Assembly stressed on the need for reforms a well as equitable geographic representation in debates over the Security Council’s reforms. However the main focal points around which the debates revolved included the need for reforms especially in view of the increased membership, enlargement and democratisation of the Council, equitable geographical representative character of the Council, review of criterion for permanent membership and the veto power, transparency and accountability of the Council etc.

Four main models for Council’s restructuring were frequently discussed. First of these models is the status quo model. This model implied that there is nothing wrong with the existing structure of the UN Security Council. The incumbent model has 5 permanent members with veto powers and 10 non-permanent members that are elected after every two years.  The second models can be called as selective enlargement model. This implies the addition of another five permanent members (1 seat each to Germany and Japan and 3 seats to be shared among Africa, Asia and South America). 

The third proposal is known as the UN Working Group’s proposal. This group was charged with the task of formulating proposals for the restructuring of the UN Security Council. A report was issued by Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia who was the chairman of the group, which spelled out the proposal in 1997. The proposal implied increase in Council’s membership from 15 to 24 by adding 5 more permanent members (1 each from Asia, Africa, South America including Caribbean plus Germany and Japan) and 4 additional non-permanent members from Africa, Eastern Europe, South America and Caribbean. In many ways this model does reflect greater sensitivity to the concerns expressed by many UN members.  The fourth proposal is an old suggestion that was advanced by Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1943 proposing a model for the Council that was based on regional representation. This model consisted of four basic elements. It included proportional representation, sensitivity to diverse views, equitable distribution of powers in the Council and veto power to all members. Whatever proposal is accepted must ensure the democratisation of the council along with judicious distribution of veto power if veto has to be retained.