September 2005
UN Security Council Reform: Is Bigger Really Better?
The question of UN Security Council expansion has emerged as the most tempestuous of Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s proposed reforms at the world organization. Annan has expressed hope that an agreement on an enlarged council can be reached by the end of the year, and candidate nations are furiously engaged in shuttle diplomacy and horse-trading over their competing proposals for expansion. Meanwhile, the Bush administration, arguing there are more immediate reform priorities, has partnered with the Chinese government to urge a postponement of the debate. Will an expanded Security Council possess greater legitimacy and thus wield power more effectively, or is it more likely to become bogged down in conflicts of national interest and slower decision-making? What are the geopolitical consequences for the expansion debate for the United States and its great power relations with allies? Is it likely that the proposal will stall in the UN General Assembly, or will the consensus necessary for expansion emerge this year? These and other questions were considered at a September 28 AEI panel discussion.
Kim R. Holmes
Heritage Foundation
From the very beginning, it was clear that the Bush administration did not want to oppose Security Council expansion in principle. However, the administration has also made clear that it does not want expansion to come at the expense of other needed reforms.
There have been two basic criteria for reform from the beginning: 1) whatever reform occurs, it must make the Council more effective in its decision-making; and 2) there should be some sort of consensus regarding expansion in the General Assembly. Another concern is the Bush administration’s interest in increasing the number of democracies on the Council.
A major issue to address is whether expansion will make the Council more effective. A divided Council, as seen during the precursor to the Iraq war, leads to ineffective international leadership. No matter how many, if any, states are added to the Council, it will likely remain deadlocked on critical issues. Expansion will almost certainly increase that tendency.
Finally, it is in America’s interest to ensure that we are not solely responsible for blocking expansion. Some of the candidate states are among our closest allies, including Japan, which possesses a special case for permanent membership in light of its financial contributions.
R. S. Jassal
Embassy of India
The first question to address is why the Council needs to expand. The permanent members of the Council have remained static since 1945, despite an increase in General Assembly members and an increase in Council activities. In addition, expansion is one of the basic and cardinal principles of enhancing the legitimacy of an organization.
Given the need for expansion, what is the case for India? India has been a steadfast member of the UN and has repeatedly contributed significant funds and manpower to UN operations. Further, India has been a democracy since 1947 and has made tremendous economic progress. India is currently considered to be the world’s fourth largest economy, with growth rates of 7 to 8 percent annually.
Finally, regarding consensus surrounding expansion, the candidate states do not seek reform based on a narrow vote. Despite that, it is sometimes curious that a country which displaced another one by a simple vote now speaks of consensus. If the criteria being used today for Council expansion were present in 1945, perhaps half of the current permanent Council members would not have qualified. Due to that, we must expand the Council in order to enhance its legitimacy and effectiveness.
Nobukatsu Kanehara
Embassy of Japan
I would like to address the following four points: 1) What is the main purpose of the UN? 2) What are the main challenges facing the UN? 3) Why is UN Security Council reform necessary? 4) Why is the burden sharing of UN finances so distorted?
First, what is the main purpose of the UN? The UN has clear purposes, including peace, self-determination, freedom, and human rights. The United States is the primary author of these principles found in the charter. In addition, the primary purpose might be said to be the prevention of war. These principles, however, were largely thwarted during the Cold War. Today, the Soviet Union has collapsed, and the world is a very different place. It is no coincidence that the twentieth century was hailed as the “American century.”
Second, what are the main challenges facing the UN today? Peace building and human rights are both preeminent challenges. The definition of “peace” has changed over the past fifty years to include building peace. Regarding human rights, mankind still struggles with absolute poverty. Development assistance is critical to the fostering of basic human rights.
Third, why is Security Council reform necessary? The permanent membership reflects the geopolitical reality of 1945 which, since then, has changed significantly. To more accurately reflect the current realities, the Council should expand to include Japan. Japan has been on the financial forefront of reconstructing Afghanistan. In addition, Japan played a significant role in Operation Enduring Freedom and reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
Lastly, why is the financial burden sharing of the UN so distorted? The UN financial system must be reformed to be more effective. The current financial system is completely unfair. Under the current financing system, Japan pays 20 percent of the UN operating budget, despite a world GNP of approximately 13 percent. By comparison, the United States occupies approximately 30 percent of the world GNP but also pays 20 percent. This raises the point that Japan may be seen as shouldering some of the America’s financial responsibilities to the UN. To echo the ideals of the Boston Tea Party, without representation, there should be no taxation.
Edward C. Luck
Columbia University
I wish to address four issues: 1) diagnosis of the problems associated with the Security Council and its proper role; 2) the working methods of the Council; 3) where do we go from here; and 4) a question that I have been looking for an answer for some time, namely, whether any governmental body within the UN system has been strengthened through expansion.
Of the candidate states, I believe Japan and India have the best cases, but, in my opinion, that is not the important issue.
What is the role of the Security Council? In what ways would an enlarged Council be different and/or better? The enlargement proposal was pushed by the UN secretary-general immediately following the divisions caused with Iraq. This naturally raises the question as to what the motives are behind expansion. A subtext in this debate is that an enlarged Security Council may be a “soft” counterweight of sorts to the United States.
Second, has progress been made on the Council’s working methods? The Council’s working methods has seen significant progress over the past ten years. This has led the Council to work better presently than for some time. This makes it more representative, transparent, accountable, and inclusive. Any further working methods changes should address those four issues.
Third, where do we go from here? The Secretary General is fond of saying that U.N. reform is a “process, not an event.” For expansion, however, the inverse appears to be true. It may be worthwhile to look at dismantling the G-4 and the United for Consensus organizations, as they have significant internal disagreements and block each other in unhelpful ways. It would also be appropriate to de-link U.N. reform and expansion. Finally, it would be worthwhile for candidate states to realize that the road to Security Council expansion will not necessarily run through Washington, D.C., but instead through Beijing and Seoul.
Finally, can any of the panelists give a single example of any governmental body in the UN system that was made stronger by expansion? I am not aware of any, which creates a grave problem for the previously mentioned concerns about efficiency.
Philip Van Niekerk
Good Governance Group
As far as many Africans are concerned, the Security Council’s composition is anachronistic and failure to secure an agreement on expanding the Council merely perpetuates a glaring anomaly. However, Africa may well have shot itself in the foot by taking too strident a negotiating position.
The Security Council was never intended as an elite club. Although frozen during the Cold War, the institution is ripe for change. Africa’s claim to a permanent seat on the Council is based on geographical balance and global representation. In addition, over half of the Security Council’s time is spent addressing African issues. As a result, for many Africans, this is a self-evident case.
There is a question, however, as to whether a single African state can represent Africa. The three countries claiming this are Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt. Nigeria is a major contributor to UN peacekeeping operations and possesses one fourth of Africa’s population. South Africa, meanwhile, has constructed a model of compromise and reconciliation and could potentially serve as a bridge between the developed and non-developed world. Finally, Egypt could serve as a bridge between the two critical regions of Africa and the Middle East but will struggle to get the necessary votes. Regardless of which state is the African representative, it is critical for Africa to have a seat at the table.
AEI intern Hunter M. Abell prepared this summary.
