- 1.
Andean Comunity of nations (CAN) expresses its viewpoints on the United Nations reform to the General Assembly , represented by ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero..FORUM TPSIPOL : RED DEMOCRATICA
Abril 2005
1.
Andean Comunity of nations (CAN) expresses its viewpoints on the United Nations reform to the General Assembly
http://www.comunidadandina.org/ingles/press/np6-4-05.htmEn castellano :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/message/20049- The mith of Development
http://www.sudnordnews.org/libriver.htmlhttp://law.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/jspl/2003%20Volume7Number1/deriv2. Reform of the United Nations Security Council and role of Latin America
3. Arts relacionados :
- World Public opinion on UN
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/message/23726- Are Diplomats necessary
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/message/244971.
Andean Comunity of Nations expresses its viewpoints on the United Nations reform to the General AssemblyLima, April 6, 2005.- Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero, Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations, made a presentation this morning in New York, on behalf of the five Andean Community Member Countries, with regard to the report of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan entitled "In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all.”
This is the first time the CAN took the floor at a United Nations General Assembly session to speak out about the reform of the organization and the proposals put forward for that purpose in the cited report.
The Andean Community started off by expressing its willingness to firmly support the strengthening of the United Nations in order to increase its efficiency and effectiveness in promoting the development and safety of all and respect for international law. It also maintained that the new concept of international collective security should address both new and old threats, “above all the fight against poverty and social exclusion.”
It also pointed out that the decisions that are adopted in the evaluation of compliance with the Millennium Declaration targets and the United Nations reform “should lead to balanced results that address the interests of all Member States” and, for that reason, proposed that they should not be adopted as a “package.”
The CAN also expressed its strong backing for multilateralism and its concern over the lack of attention being given to countries which, although “middle income,” show high poverty rates. It requested that urgent attention be given to a series of problems faced by these countries, such as external debt, poverty, recurring economic crises, and instability.
Ambassador De Rivero also stated, on behalf of the CAN, that the review process of the Millennium Declaration and the United Nations reform should contribute toward overcoming the inequitable elements of the international trade system by eliminating subsidies imposed and tariff and para-tariff barriers raised by developed countries “that keep us from building up our national productive capacities.”
To conclude, the Andean countries considered that a long-term development strategy should aim at creating wealth by promoting the existence of a favorable international environment for development.
It should be added here that the United Nations General Assembly, with its adoption of Resolution 52/6 of November 1997, gave the Andean Community observer status, authorizing it to participate in the sessions and efforts of that body.
The presentation made by Ambassador De Rivero, in representation of the Andean Community, is positive proof that joint positions can be coordinated in the framework of the Andean Common Foreign Policy, whose guidelines were approved in 1999 through Decision 458, making it possible to strengthen the profile and influence of the CAN member countries on the dynamic international stage.
2. Statement by the Andean CommunityReport of the Secretary-General “In larger freedom: Towards security, development and human rights for all” General Assembly of the United NationsBy PERUVIAN Ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero, Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on behalf of the Andean Community
New York, April 6, 2005
Mister President:
Allow me to address this session on behalf of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Peru, Member States of the Andean Community, a region with 120 million inhabitants.
Created almost 36 years ago, the Andean Community is the oldest and most institutionalized tool for integration in South America. It is the modern expression of an Andean identity built on the basis of common geography, history and interests with a common foreign policy, the core of the integration of the South American Community of Nations.
Mr. President:
The Andean countries, founding members of the United Nations, have reviewed the Report of the Secretary-General entitled: “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all”. We are currently analyzing with a high interest the proposals contained thereof and we commit to participating actively and collectively in the consultation and negotiation processes aimed at the strengthening of the United Nations and its efficiency in promoting development and security for all as well as the compliance with international law.
In this opportunity, only general observations will be raised. We will present specific suggestions in future consultations and negotiations.
We share the need for a new concept of an international collective security that embraces both old and new threats, particularly those related to the struggle against poverty and social exclusion. We also support the idea that development, security, freedom and protection of human rights are closely related.
A first reflection is derived from the fact that the proposals of this document constitute a “package”, that is, the concept of “single undertaking”. However, the variety of the issues covered by the Report gives them a specific value which demands separated considerations. Therefore, our countries consider that the decisions to be adopted in the process of evaluation of the implementation of the Millennium Declaration and the reform of the United Nations must lead to balanced results that enable the fulfillment of the interests of all Member States.
The Andean countries fully support multilateralism as a means of improving and strengthening the capacity of Member States to meet the needs of their populations individually or collectively, and to comply with international commitments taken voluntarily, strengthening in this way, the agreed international regimes.
Mr. President:
It is with concern that we observe that the Secretary-General pays little attention to countries such as those of the Andean region which, in spite of their struggle to reach a level of average income, still maintain high levels of poverty. If this issue is not addressed properly, their income levels could revert and the Millennium Development Goals would be even more difficult to achieve.
Foreign debt, poverty, recurrent economic crises and social instability are serious issues that require an urgent solution. The path towards development and the reform of the United Nations system must take into account the situation of every State and region.
We are confident that the reform of the United Nations and the review of the Millennium Declaration goals, which include that of the system for the promotion of development will contribute to eliminate the existing inequality in the international trading system through the elimination of subsidies and tariff barriers of developed countries that hamper the strengthening of our national productive capacity. Likewise, actions are necessary to avoid the volatility of capital flows, the high vulnerability and the high levels of foreign indebtedness as well as an international regime for intellectual property that allows the transfer of technology and the participation of developing countries in the world’s decision making.
Breton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization should adjust themselves to the United Nations system and to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals to face the current social deficit of globalization, which impedes the generation of employment and creates instability.
These are all very important issues that must have a specific place in the eighth goal of the Millennium Declaration targeted to “developing a global partnership for development”. A clear commitment should be made to favor a special and differential treatment in trade issues, stronger actions in the fields of science, technology and innovation and an adequate international solution for the problem of foreign debt in our economies as well as a clear acknowledgement to the need of new financial mechanisms at the international level to strengthen efficiency of public policies and democracies.
The Report of the Secretary-General acknowledges that globalization has contributed to social inequality. Inequality caused by globalization undermines political security. In practice, economic and social rights as well as the right to development will be hampered, and with this, the validity of political rights and democracy itself.
For Andean countries, eradication of poverty is a very important issue and a part of their national strategies. This is why they contribute tirelessly in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. However, we consider that a strategy for development in the long run must aim at the creation of wealth through the promotion of an international environment favorable for development. From the Secretary-General’s Report some bias can be observed in assistance issues. We hope that future debates to review the application of the Monterrey Consensus help us strengthen our proposals in the areas of development, including accountability to multinational enterprises.
Mr. President:
Allow me to conclude by conveying the firm belief of the Andean countries in the protection of the fundamental rights of men and women, the human dignity and value, gender equality and the consolidation of democracy. As Member States of the South American Community of Nations, the Rio Group, the Group of 77, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Andean Community, we will seek for the 2005 Summit to achieve the goal of creating conditions for all countries to live in peace, security and prosperity.
Thank you.
Contexto
Intervención de la Comunidad Andina sobre el Informe del Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas “Un concepto más amplio de la libertad: desarrollo, seguridad y derechos humanos para todos”
Intervención del Embajador Oswaldo de Rivero, Representante Permanente del Perú ante las Naciones Unidas, en nombre de la Comunidad Andina
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nueva York, 6 de abril del 2005
Señor Presidente,
Intervengo en esta sesión, en nombre de Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, la República Bolivariana de Venezuela y el Perú, países miembros de la Comunidad Andina que reúnen a 120 millones de personas.
La Comunidad Andina creada hace casi 36 años, es el proceso de integración más antiguo e institucionalizado en América del Sur. Es la expresión contemporánea de una identidad andina construida sobre la base de una geografía, historia e intereses comunes que se expresan en una Política Exterior Común acordada, que constituye el núcleo de la integración bolivariana de la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones.
Señor Presidente,
Los países Andinos, miembros fundadores de las Naciones Unidas, han examinado el Informe del Secretario General: “Un concepto más amplio de la libertad: desarrollo, seguridad y derechos humanos para todos”. Estamos analizando con el mayor interés las propuestas contenidas en este documento y nos comprometemos a participar activa y colectivamente en todo el proceso de consultas y negociaciones que conduzcan a fortalecer las Naciones Unidas y acrecentar su eficiencia y eficacia para promover el desarrollo y la seguridad de todos y el respeto del derecho internacional.
En esta oportunidad formularemos observaciones de carácter general, con el compromiso de presentar sugerencias específicas en las próximas consultas y negociaciones.
Compartimos la necesidad de un nuevo concepto de seguridad colectiva internacional que atienda las amenazas nuevas como viejas, sobre todo la lucha contra la pobreza y la exclusión social; y que el desarrollo, la seguridad y la libertad y protección de los derechos humanos están íntimamente interrelacionados.
Una primera reflexión se desprende de la sugerencia de que las propuestas recibidas constituyen un “paquete”, lo cual supone la noción del “single undertaking”. Sin embargo, no podemos dejar de advertir que la heterogeneidad de las cuestiones que se abordan en los distintos capítulos del informe hace que cada uno de ellos tenga un valor específico que exige consideraciones por separado. En consecuencia, nuestros países consideran que las decisiones que se adopten en el proceso de evaluación del cumplimiento de la Declaración del Milenio y la reforma de las Naciones Unidas deben llevar a resultados equilibrados que atiendan los intereses de todos los Estados Miembros.
En segundo lugar, los países andinos respaldan firmemente el multilateralismo porque mejora y fortalece la capacidad de los Estados miembros, individual o colectivamente, para que puedan atender las necesidades de sus pueblos y cumplir con las obligaciones internacionales que han contraído voluntariamente, fortaleciendo los regímenes internacionales acordados.
Señor Presidente,
Vemos con preocupación que el Informe del Secretario General presta escasa atención a los países que, como los andinos, han logrado con esfuerzo niveles de ingreso de renta media pero que mantienen altos niveles de pobreza. Si no se atiende debidamente esta situación nuestros países podrían revertir esos niveles de ingreso lo que llevaría muy difícilmente alcanzar los objetivos de desarrollo del milenio.
Es urgente prestar debida atención a los serios problemas que enfrentan los Estados de renta media, como la deuda externa, la pobreza que es en número, mayor a la de los demás Estados, las recurrentes crisis económicas y la inestabilidad. La senda al desarrollo y la reforma del sistema de las Naciones Unidas deben considerar en debida proporción y de forma integral la situación de los distintos Estados y regiones del mundo.
Tenemos expectativas que la revisión de la Declaración del Milenio y el proceso de reforma de las Naciones Unidas, entre los cuales se encuentra el sistema de promoción para el desarrollo, contribuya a superar la inequidad existente en el sistema comercial internacional eliminando los subsidios, las barreras arancelarias y para arancelarias de los países desarrollados que impiden el fortalecimiento de nuestra capacidad nacional productiva. Del mismo modo, es necesario tomar acciones decididas para contrarrestar la volatilidad de los flujos de capitales, la alta vulnerabilidad externa y los elevados niveles de endeudamiento externo. También lograr un régimen internacional de propiedad intelectual que no ponga freno a la transferencia de tecnología y la participación de los países en desarrollo en la toma de decisiones económicas mundiales.
Las instituciones de Bretton Woods y la Organización Mundial del Comercio tienen que adecuarse al sistema de las Naciones Unidas y al cumplimiento de los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio para hacer frente al actual déficit social que tiene la globalización que impide la generación de empleo y crea inestabilidad.
Todas estas cuestiones son muy importantes y deben ocupar un lugar específico en el octavo objetivo de desarrollo del milenio orientado a “Fomentar una asociación mundial para el desarrollo”. Debe existir un claro compromiso a favor de un trato especial y diferenciado en materia comercial, acciones más firmes en materia de ciencia, tecnología e innovación, una solución internacional adecuada al peso de la deuda externa en nuestras economías, así como un claro reconocimiento a la necesidad de nuevos mecanismos financieros internacionales para fortalecer la eficiencia y eficacia de la políticas públicas y la democracia de los países.
El Informe del Secretario General reconoce que la globalización ha aumentado la desigualdad social. Si no se detiene la desigualdad que está causando la actual globalización no habrá seguridad política. Se impedirá en la práctica la vigencia de los derechos económicos y sociales de los pueblos, el derecho al desarrollo y, con ello, la vigencia de los derechos políticos y la democracia misma.
Para los países andinos la erradicación de la pobreza es sumamente importante y es parte de su estrategia nacional, por eso contribuyen con el mayor de sus esfuerzos en la consecución de los objetivos de desarrollo del milenio. Sin embargo, consideramos que una estrategia de desarrollo de largo plazo debe apuntar a crear riqueza mediante la promoción de un entorno internacional favorable para el desarrollo. Vemos en el Informe del Secretario General cierto sesgo asistencialista y esperamos que las futuras discusiones para revisar la aplicación del Consenso de Monterrey nos ayuden a fortalecer el conjunto de propuestas en el ámbito del desarrollo, incluyendo la responsabilidad que le cabe a las empresas multinacionales.
Finalmente, señor Presidente, deseo expresar que los países Andinos están firmemente convencidos en la defensa de los derechos fundamentales del hombre y la mujer, su dignidad y valor, en la igualdad de género y en la consolidación de la democracia. Como miembros de la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones, Grupo de Río, del Grupo de los 77, del Movimiento de Países no Alineados y por su puesto como Comunidad Andina, buscaremos que la Cumbre del 2005 cumpla el cometido de crear las condiciones para que todos los países puedan vivir en paz, seguridad y prosperidad.
Muchas gracias,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
The Wilson Center
Reform of the United Nations Security Council and the Role of Latin America
Panelists:Madeleine Albright, Former Secretary of State and former US ambassador to the UNEmilio Cárdenas, Former Ambassador to the UN from ArgentinaHeraldo Muñoz, Ambassador to the UN from ChileOn April 18, 2005, the Woodrow Wilson Center convened a panel of former and current ambassadors to the United Nations to discuss the recently rekindled topic of UN reform and how Latin America fits in the process. Joseph Tulchin, Director of the Latin American Program, and David Birenbaum, a senior policy scholar at the center, gave the welcoming remarks and introduced the panelists. [Birenbaum is a former US ambassador to the UN under UN Management and Reform, and is currently conducting a study on UN reform.]Madeleine Albright outlined a web of factors which defines the context of UN Security Council reform today. She touched on the United States’ reputation as the member country that is quick to push for reform, yet quite slow in paying its dues. Reformers in 1993 as well as today have been presented with the primary task of making the Security Council more representative of today’s global power structure. However, this proves an extremely difficult undertaking because the process gets flooded with candidates for permanent seats and veto power.
In addition to this, said Albright, intricate alliances form during the negotiations, each conditioning their vote on different, often contradicting propositions. This happens on top of pre-existing alliances from strategic caucuses to major regional organizations such as the European Union. Emilio Cárdenas started with the point that UN reform reaches far beyond the Security Council to other organs such as the General Assembly, and comprehensive reform may call for amending the UN Charter. Cárdenas recognizes UN reform as a process starting about 12 years ago with what he referred to as the “quick fix” of granting Germany and Japan permanent seats. He highlighted the paradox that these two countries, considered the enemy in the Charter, are now the second and third largest contributors to the UN.
However, the “quick fix” was not approved because too many countries conditioned support on their own membership. Shifting the focus to Latin America, Cárdenas observed that some countries, including Mexico, have no desire for a permanent seat on the Council, and that Brazil is the only one that has expressly campaigned for a seat. On motives for Latin American countries to seek a permanent seat, he included greater access to the world’s powerful countries, a “cascade effect” of permanent members winning board membership at UN agencies, and status as the representative of the region. Reflecting on his days as permanent representative to the UN, he said that Argentina did not seek permanent status because its government did not think that reform would ever materialize, and at the time it was right. Even today, Cárdenas believes it is unrealistic to expect reform to be completed by the end of this year, as the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has called for.
Finally, Cárdenas warned of the potentially dangerous economic and global security consequences in the recent diplomatic flare-up between China and Japan. Heraldo Muñoz listed several factors which may contribute to a higher probability for Security Council reform today, including gobal power shifts, the oil-for-food scandal, and the war in Iraq. On this last point, he noted that despite going around the Security Council before the war, the US still came back for cooperation with the interim government, construction of infrastructure, and the Iraqi national elections. Also, while the near guarantee of East-West vetoes during the Cold War tended to leave the Security Council in a stagnant state which shifted decisions to the General Assembly, resolutions and other activities have significantly increased since the early 1990s, and today the Security Council enjoys a renewed relevance. Trends like these mean that everyone benefits from a vibrant, effective UN, the main piece of which is the Security Council. Muñoz similarly noted a problem of too many candidates. The reform proposal which calls for one representative for “the Americas”, as opposed to 2 each for Asia and Africa, also poses a significant disadvantage for Latin America. Criteria for membership is far from clear, but may include GNP, GNP per capita, financial and other resource contributions, and general diplomatic initiatives. Muñoz agreed with the point that complete UN reform requires many changes beyond the Security Council, including measures to depoliticize the Human Rights Commission, clarify guidelines for the legitimate use of force, and broaden the role of post-conflict reconstruction.
In closing, Muñoz called for a “New Deal” at the United Nations, consisting of inclusive reform that would benefit even those nations with no prospects of a permanent seat on the Security Council. Birenbaum then opened up the discussion to questions. When asked about new criteria for the use of force, Albright responded that this would be helpful, while noting that the Security Council already has the ability to act preventively in various alternative ways, including by force. A major obstacle to consensus would be a clear definition of terrorism. In addition, Albright also believes that a peace-building commission with a strong enough mandate could potentially have many volunteers. Cárdenas stated that he did not think the United States was ready for Security Council reform, including any delineation of use of force criteria, and that to push the US would effectively kill the window of opportunity. The only answer to this dilemma would be to call for more time. Cárdenas added that the Human Rights Commission is a shame to us in its current state, but that efforts towards democratization should spread beyond the commission to all organs of the United Nations.
Written by Joseph Tulchin with help from Alana Parker
Brazil Confident Its Suggestion for UN Reform Will Win
Written by Bruno Bocchini
Sunday, 26 June 2005
The Brazilian government is confident that the project proposed by the G4 (a group of countries formed by Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India) for reforming the UN Security Council will be approved.
"We are confident we will have a large majority in favor of this text," said Ambassador José Vallim Guerreiro, of the Ministry of Foreign Relations' Department of International Organs.
The G4 proposal calls for the inclusion of six additional countries as permanent members of the Council: two African countries (still to be determined) and the four members of the G4.
It also suggests expanding the number of temporary Council members from 10 to 14. The Council is currently composed of five permanent members (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) and ten temporary members, for a total of 15 countries.
The chief task of the UN Security Council is to maintain world peace and security. Among its other powers, the Council can authorize the use of force to settle controversies between countries.
All of the Council's decisions must be approved by at least 9 of its 15 members. A negative vote by just one of its permanent members, however, is sufficient to defeat a motion.
In the G4 proposal, the new permanent members would renounce this veto power for 15 years. At the end of this period, a new round of negotiations would be initiated to reconsider the question.
In order for the G4 proposal to be adopted, the text must first receive ayes from two-thirds of the 192 member countries of the UN General Assembly, that is, 128 votes in favor. This vote, according to Ambassador Guerreiro, should take place in July.
If the Assembly approves the new Security Council model, with its new members, the G4 proposal will be transformed into an amendment to the UN Charter.
But, for the Charter to be altered, the amendment must be approved by the parliaments of two-thirds of the member countries of the General Assembly and the parliaments of all the permanent members of the Security Council.
According to Ambassador Guerreiro, among the five permanent members of the Security Council, the G4 proposal has the support of France, and there are indications that the United Kingdom and Russia might back it.
UN Security Council Reform: A Challenge for the South Global Dialogue
Volume3.3
December 1998
Developing countries have argued that the structure of the Security Council is anachronistic and unreflective of the current realities of the post-cold war world. Their proposals for its reform, however, have not been met with enthusiasm by the G7.
SHANNON FIELD argues that South Africa, as chair of the Non-Aligned Movement for the next three years, should unite Southern countries on this issue. Only then can the Movement fully utilise its leverage in the United Nations to bring about Security Council reform.
The subject of United Nations (UN) reform has attracted increased attention over the past year, following UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's proposals for the reform of what is seen as a beleaguered organisation. The issue of UN reform featured at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit held in Durban in September and is likely to remain prominent on the NAM agenda over the next three years, with South Africa as NAM chair.
Kofi Annan's reform proposals have focused on the UN Secretariat, calling for administrative changes to improve the functioning of the UN system. This is in line with the agenda of powerful Northern countries that seek to downsize UN operations and eliminate bureaucratic waste. The United States, in particular, has been able to ensure that administrative reform takes place by using the financial whip and withholding its dues to the organisation, which amounts to almost 80 per cent of the total arrears owed to the organisation.
While many of these measures are necessary to enhance the effectiveness of UN operations, larger issues of UN reform such as the democratisation of certain UN structures have not been adequately addressed by recent reform initiatives. It is developing countries that tend to be more concerned with substantive reform like the restructuring of the Security Council. The reform of the Security Council is crucial given its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is clearly not a priority for the permanent members of the Security Council - the US, UK, France, Russia, and China - to agitate for the democratisation of this body, which would only see their power reduced.
There is currently a consensus among the developing countries that the structure of the Security Council is anachronistic and unreflective of the current realities of the post-cold war world. Developing countries now make up more than two-thirds of the total UN membership, but are grossly underrepresented on the Security Council. This can be explained by the fact that many did not exist as sovereign independent states at the time the organisation was founded.
Some in the developed world would rebut the arguments of developing countries. They claim that the Security Council was never designed to represent the UN membership geographically, but was intended to be a concert of great powers who had the right to make major decisions by virtue of the fact that they held economic and military power. However, greater representation of developing countries on the Council is now more important than ever, considering the frequent intervention of the UN in conflicts occurring within the South. The more representative the Council, the more legitimate its actions will seem and the easier it will be to build consensus and have its actions carried out.
Perspectives on Security Council reform
While it is generally accepted that the Council should be enlarged to make it more representative, the United States, France, Britain and Russia are opposed to any enlargement that will bring its total number to over 23 members. The United States insists that Germany and Japan should be included among the new permanent members, as they are both the world's second and third largest economies and UN dues payers, thus giving them the right to greater influence. Permanent members have not stated clear objections to the extension of veto power to new permanent members, but oppose any limitation of the veto power.
The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) has argued for an expansion of the Security Council to bring its total number to no less than 26 members. According to the OAU proposal, Africa should have at least two permanent rotational Security Council seats and five non-permanent seats. The representatives for the permanent seats would be nominated by the region and elected by the General Assembly. The OAU has stipulated that limitations be placed on veto use.
NAM pronouncements on Security Council expansion have been noticeably vague. The Movement argues for an increase in membership by no less than 11 states but does not specify to which regions these seats should be allocated. South Africa has officially supported the OAU position to expand the Security Council to 26 members and create a rotational seat system. Its position on the veto power has been that the veto should either be abolished in a new Security Council or extended to incoming members.
Recommendations for a restructured Security Council
As chair of the NAM South Africa will have the opportunity to present a detailed and clearly defined position on the reform of the Security Council to the South and attempt to rally developing countries behind a common proposal. To truly democratise the Council South Africa would need to advocate for the elimination of all permanent seats and the creation of regional seats elected by the General Assembly, although this would not be acceptable to the existing permanent members. It is recommended that South Africa adopt the following position on
Security Council reform:
Expand the Security Council to a total of 26 members, broken down as follows: Existing permanent members
United States
Russia
China
Britain
France Additional permanent members
African seat
African seat
Asian seat
Latin American seat
Industrialised country seatExisting non-permanent members
Asian seat
Asian seat
African seat
African seat
African seat
Latin American seat
Latin American seat
Eastern European seat
Western Europe and others
Western Europe and othersAdditional non-permanent members
African seat
African seat
Asian seat
Asian seat
Latin American seat
Arab seat
The permanent African seats should be rotating, enabling a number of key African states to exercise their influence and share the cost of permanent member status. Asia and Latin America can decide as regions whether or not their permanent seats should be rotational.
One permanent seat should be reserved for industrialised countries enabling states such as Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy and Sweden to contend.
Veto power should be extended to incoming permanent members and its use limited to actions taken under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Countering objections
The viability of such a position on Security Council reform may be challenged on a number of fronts. One foreseeable objection may be to the recommendation for rotational regional seats. Rotational seats may be seen as discriminatory by some in the South when powerful Northern states are guaranteed consistent influence as existing permanent members. While a rotational seat system for incoming members is discriminatory there is little hope that the existing permanent members would forego some of their power in order to create regional seats across the board. Regional hegemons like Brazil and India have already stated their objections to a rotational seat system. This is problematic given that other powers such as Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan and Indonesia insist on this system. Developing consensus within the South will require compromise between these positions.
It is also questionable whether African countries have the financial resources to assume permanent status, even within a rotational system. While it is true that the majority of African states would have difficulty mobilising the resources for such a position, key African states like Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya, Tunisia, and Nigeria claim the ability to assume such responsibility. Within South Africa skeptics have challenged the wisdom of diverting much needed resources from development projects to finance a term for South Africa on the Security Council in the permanent category.
The additional costs of permanent status are not significant in real terms, however, especially given the opportunity for South Africa to become a truly influential international actor. According to the South African department of foreign affairs, South Africa's contribution to the United Nations is currently about R16m a year, and permanent member status would only involve a one to five percent increase in this amount. A rotational system might also impede the ability of permanent members to develop fully the necessary structures and mechanisms within their own governing system to engage with the Security Council before their term expires.
In addition to objections concerning the viability of rotational seat system, there could possibly be opposition to the argument for extending the veto power to new members, even with stringent limitations. The point that has been made in the past is that a proliferation of veto holders would paralyse decision-making in the Council by doubling the number of potential nay-sayers and making it difficult for the Council to act promptly and effectively. This potential problem could be resolved by increasing the number of vetoes necessary to block the adoption of a resolution to a minimum of two. The existing permanent members will oppose the curtailment of veto power but will have a hard time ignoring the demands of the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly, of whom more than 95 per cent support future restrictions on the use of the veto.
Another challenge to the position outlined here is American professor Craig Murphy's argument that the ambivalence and disunity of the Group of 7 assures that no more than piecemeal UN reforms are likely in the near future. Murphy has pointed to France and Britain's disinterest in changing the current system of Council membership as it will diminish their influence, as well as the lack of political will on the part of the Canadian and Italian governments to use their influence to ensure substantive UN reform. As for the United States (US), Murphy contends that the conservative nature of the US congress and the distrust of many Republicans of the UN system will lead American policy-makers to block any efforts to empower developing countries. He also characterises Japan and Germany as distracted supporters of fundamental UN reform - Japan due to its growing regional focus and Germany due to its preoccupation with economic and environmental issues. The conclusion therefore is that if the G7 are indifferent, then fundamental reform is unlikely.
This defeatist line of argument does not take into account the power of developing countries as a bloc to bring about change. The NAM consists of 114 developing countries, which makes up almost two-thirds of the General Assembly, and its power to influence UN reform should not be underestimated. The UN Secretary General has publicly recognised the importance of positions taken by NAM, suggesting that objections held by NAM members as a whole would probably prevent certain proposals from being realised. Kofi Annan specifically referred to the objection of NAM members to the provision of a permanent seat to Germany and was of the view that their objection made German inclusion unlikely.
The way forward
The prospects of the above proposal for substantive UN reform being accepted by two-thirds of the General Assembly and the five existing permanent members will largely depend on the political will of Southern countries to compromise and agree on a common position. NAM has proved to be a house divided in the past on many issues but the challenge to South Africa as it heads the organisation over the next three years will be to unite the South. One way in which South Africa can hope to achieve this would be to reach out to civil society organisations within the South, many of which are pro-UN reform, in an effort to get them to influence the views of their governments. It does not seem unrealistic to expect that consensus among developing countries on UN reform can be achieved by the year 2001. Policy-makers should not lose sight of the fact that UN reform of the kind discussed here has enormous ramifications for the future of developing countries.
Shannon L Field was an FGD researcher and is presently working for Canada's Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs in Ottawa.
