Reforming The U. N. Security Council?

Among the national delegations to the United Nations, demands for reforms of the 15-member Security Council have been hotly debated for weeks. John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the U. N. (who has yet to be confirmed by the Senate) found it “hard to dispute” that the current composition of the Council reflects the world of 1945 rather than 2005.

Presently, five states--the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France--are not only permanent members of the Council; each of them also has a veto that can stop any majority decision. Of the remaining ten two-year seats on the Council, five have been assigned to Asian and African countries, two to Western Europe, two to Latin America, and one to Eastern Europe.

Council decisions on procedural matters are made by affirmative votes of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurrence of all five permanent members.

If the world’s most populous countries were to hold the five permanent seats on the Security Council, they would go to China (1,306 million), India (1,080 million), the U.S. (297 million), Indonesia (242 million), and Brazil (186 million). If the Council were to be made up of the world’s wealthiest states, measured by their gross national product (GNP) in 2005, the members would be the U.S. ($11,750 bill.), China ($7,262 bill.), Japan ($3,745 bill.), India (3,319 bill.), and Germany ($2,362 bill.).

It is difficult to see why the most populous and economically strongest countries should not be members of the U.N.’s preeminent governing body. If India, Indonesia, Brazil, Japan, and Germany were to become permanent members and Russia, Britain, and France retained their seats, the Council’s membership would have to be expanded to ten. Africa’s 891 million people, however, would still not be represented with a permanent seat. (Its most populous country is Nigeria with 129 million. Economically the strongest is South Africa with a GNP of 491 billion.)

Critics of the Security Council also object to giving any country the power to veto resolutions against the wishes of all others. Of the 19 vetoes cast since 1989, the U.S. cast 13, of which 11 protected the interests of Israel. Most recently in December, the Bush administration vetoed an otherwise unanimous Security Council resolution that condemned the Israeli government for military attacks on UN workers and facilities in the Palestinian territories.

Ironically, it was the U.S. that in 1956 bypassed a British and French veto that blocked a resolution calling for Israel’s withdrawal from Egyptian territory. An angry President Eisenhower took the matter to the UN General Assembly, where the veto does not apply, and obtained a resolution demanding the withdrawal of all parties and establishing, for the first time, a UN peacekeeping force.

By contrast, when President George W. Bush wanted to go to war against Iraq while China, Russia, and France opposed such a move, he simply ignored the Security Council and demonstrated that the world’s only military superpower does not need the U.N.’s consent.

Ambassador Bolton has made it clear that the Bush administration will support changes in the U.N.’s structure only if they “do no harm.” He considers Japan, which supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an acceptable candidate for a permanent seat on the Security Council but has so far ignored the requests of India, Brazil, and Germany for a permanent seat, partly at least because they did not join the war effort in Iraq.

Bolton nonchalantly cold-shoulders the many negative analyses of the Bush administration’s opposition to, or disinterest in, major U.N. initiatives backed by the majority of its members. He also does not respond to those who complain that among the 15 largest contributors to the U.N.’s 2005 budget only the U.S. and Brazil failed to pay their full assessment. The U.S. now owes $598 million, Brazil $47 million.

Bolton persistently discounts the arguments that the composition and operation of the Security Council ought to be more democratic and realistic. As quoted by The Washington Post, Bolton predicted “that this latest effort at changing the composition of the Security Council is not going to succeed.”

He certainly shows little inclination to make friends for the countrythat so enthusiastically inspired and welcomed the United Nations sixty years ago.

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	01-22-06
Reforming The U. N. Security Council?
Among the national delegations to the United Nations, demands for reforms of the 15-member Security Council have been hotly debated for weeks. John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the U. N. (who has yet to be confirmed by the Senate) found it “hard to dispute” that the current composition of the Council reflects the world of 1945 rather than 2005. Presently, five states--the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France--are not only permanent members of the Council; each of them also has a veto that can stop any majority decision. Of the remaining ten two-year seats on the Council, five have been assigned to Asian and African countries, two to Western Europe, two to Latin America, and one to Eastern Europe. Council decisions on procedural matters are made by affirmative votes of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurrence of all five permanent members. If the world’s most populous countries were to hold the five permanent seats on the Security Council, they would go to China (1,306 million), India (1,080 million), the U.S. (297 million), Indonesia (242 million), and Brazil (186 million). If the Council were to be made up of the world’s wealthiest states, measured by their gross national product (GNP) in 2005, the members would be the U.S. ($11,750 bill.), China ($7,262 bill.), Japan ($3,745 bill.), India (3,319 bill.), and Germany ($2,362 bill.). It is difficult to see why the most populous and economically strongest countries should not be members of the U.N.’s preeminent governing body. If India, Indonesia, Brazil, Japan, and Germany were to become permanent members and Russia, Britain, and France retained their seats, the Council’s membership would have to be expanded to ten. Africa’s 891 million people, however, would still not be represented with a permanent seat. (Its most populous country is Nigeria with 129 million. Economically the strongest is South Africa with a GNP of 491 billion.) Critics of the Security Council also object to giving any country the power to veto resolutions against the wishes of all others. Of the 19 vetoes cast since 1989, the U.S. cast 13, of which 11 protected the interests of Israel. Most recently in December, the Bush administration vetoed an otherwise unanimous Security Council resolution that condemned the Israeli government for military attacks on UN workers and facilities in the Palestinian territories. Ironically, it was the U.S. that in 1956 bypassed a British and French veto that blocked a resolution calling for Israel’s withdrawal from Egyptian territory. An angry President Eisenhower took the matter to the UN General Assembly, where the veto does not apply, and obtained a resolution demanding the withdrawal of all parties and establishing, for the first time, a UN peacekeeping force. By contrast, when President George W. Bush wanted to go to war against Iraq while China, Russia, and France opposed such a move, he simply ignored the Security Council and demonstrated that the world’s only military superpower does not need the U.N.’s consent. Ambassador Bolton has made it clear that the Bush administration will support changes in the U.N.’s structure only if they “do no harm.” He considers Japan, which supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an acceptable candidate for a permanent seat on the Security Council but has so far ignored the requests of India, Brazil, and Germany for a permanent seat, partly at least because they did not join the war effort in Iraq. Bolton nonchalantly cold-shoulders the many negative analyses of the Bush administration’s opposition to, or disinterest in, major U.N. initiatives backed by the majority of its members. He also does not respond to those who complain that among the 15 largest contributors to the U.N.’s 2005 budget only the U.S. and Brazil failed to pay their full assessment. The U.S. now owes $598 million, Brazil $47 million. Bolton persistently discounts the arguments that the composition and operation of the Security Council ought to be more democratic and realistic. As quoted by The Washington Post, Bolton predicted “that this latest effort at changing the composition of the Security Council is not going to succeed.” He certainly shows little inclination to make friends for the countrythat so enthusiastically inspired and welcomed the United Nations sixty years ago.

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

01-22-06

Reforming The U. N. Security Council?