2015-08-21
429
The No Expansion Option
Most proposals regarding the size of a reformed Council are within the "low-twenties" (20-23 members) to "mid-twenties" (23-26 members) ranges. The possibility of retaining the Council's current size is not, to our knowledge, promoted by any member states. Since it would be a continuation of the status quo, the advantages and disadvantages of the no-expansion option becomes apparent as the pros and cons of each of the other options are reviewed. In brief, those who most strongly favor expanding the Council, cite a lack of democracy and geographic representation as the most pressing reasons for expansion, while those having reservations associated with expansion express concerns on its potential negative impact on the Council's ability to carry outs its work efficiently as well as the difficulties member states are having in agreeing on the method or methods to be used to either select or elect additional members, decide on the category to put them in and the powers to include.
Allowing things to remain as they are, however, may be a much more realistic option than one might assume. One expert close to the process says that some of the G4 1 [1] countries are genuinely nervous that the no-expansion option may actually be the more likely outcome of the continuously stalled negotiations. According to this expert, Germany and Japan are particularly wary of this possibility, whereas India perceives that its case for permanent membership on the Council is only growing stronger as its population and economy grows in both absolute numbers and relative to the rest of the world 2 [1]. While no one openly favors not expanding the Council at all, it seems that some countries are actually quite satisfied with the current situation. Particularly for those who oppose expanding the Council by adding permanent members, no expansion may seem a better option than allowing a development they so strongly oppose. Furthermore, some individuals who have followed the progression of the reform debates for years believe that some of the P5 countries are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed. They note that a P5 country's distaste for reform may at times come in the guise of explicit support for one-and only one-of the potential candidates, say Germany or Japan. The country can then appear to be supporting reform while actually, knowingly blocking progress by insisting on its support for one specific country.
|
|
|
Low Twenties Option
One step up the numerical ladder we find "the low twenties option." To retain flexibility, most member states talk of numbers in intervals rather than actual digits. The "low twenties" interval could include adding either five- to seven non-permanent members or a mixed number of permanent and non-permanent members, depending on whether an agreement is reached that is closer to the proposals put on the table by the G4 [2] or the UFC [3]. The reason most often given in favor of the low-twenties model is efficiency. Particularly the US has emphasized the need for keeping the Council small and efficient. In fact, it appears as if the US would not accept under any circumstance an expansion beyond the low twenties. Others argue that a modest expansion such as this would be insufficient in thoroughly reforming the Council and that it would merely constitute a minor adjustment to the existing flawed system. Africa's oft-repeated demand for at least two permanent seats and two non-permanent seats, for example, would render it politically impossible to limit the total expansion to less than eight additional seats.
Mid-Twenties Option
"Mid twenties" includes a range of numbers that could cover most of the different proposals currently on the table. The G4, in their A/60/L46 proposal suggested that six permanent and four non-permanent members be added to the Council. They claim this would contribute to both the legitimacy and the efficiency of the Council. One insider opines that the issue of efficiency may just be an excuse for both those for and those against expanding the Council use to justify their positions. Those against adding permanent members contend that doing so would lessen the Council's efficiency while those in favor say it would strengthen it; more on this below.
High Twenties Option
Few countries openly support the "high twenties" option. As reported in an earlier article [4] by the Center Malta used the phrase "significant expansion" in a recent debate but apart from President Gadaffi's suggestion [5] during the opening debate of the 64th GA of creating a Council with 190 members, not much support has been garnered for the "high twenties" proposal. The most repeated concern about such an option is that efficiency would be sacrificed on the altar of increased geographic representation. Alternatively, there are those who contend that enhanced geographic representation, particularly of the regions that today feel underrepresented, namely Africa and Latin America, would add credibility and greater support for Council decisions. In the event that the "high twenties" model is agreed upon, groups such as the Central and Eastern European States and the Small Island Developing States may even be eyeing a chance for seats on the Council.
|
|
|
In an interview with the Center, one expert and former participant in the reform process compares the Council to national governmental cabinets, which rarely exceed 20 ministers. That is so for a reason, the expert says, arguing that a too large a Council would render it a different kind of body altogether undermining the executive powers it holds today. That is the very reason, in the opinion of this same expert, that some countries lobby for the high-twenties model: they resent the executive power of the Council and see a grossly expanded Council as the best way to curb this power. On the other hand, it can be argued that for the decisions of the Council to be efficacious, the major players on the world stage must be included in the decision-making process. Can a range of the world's largest countries be expected to buy-in to and accept policy decisions affecting the whole world if their voices have not been heard in the process of forming these policies? How important is it to address such concerns?
It is difficult to assess the claims about efficiency. There is no lack of those who contend that the Council is not particularly efficient in its current state. But whether that is due to its size is a wholly different matter. Most analysts agree that political will-or lack thereof-is the main reason for any lack of efficiency and that numbers may not, per se, be an aid to or an obstacle to efficiency.
A final aspect to consider is that an increased number of members in the Council would most likely result in a changed proportion of permanent vis-à-vis non-permanent members. As the weight of permanent members would change relative to the non-permanent members, non-permanent ones could end up with either a larger majority or just the opposite: being in a minority in a Council with, say, six new permanent members. This, of course, will depend on the categories of new memberships. Furthermore, the implications of this potential shift would depend on several factors, such as whether a new group-for example the "P11"-would act in a unified manner. In addition, how many votes would be needed to reach a decision and how these would be apportioned among the different categories of Council members would also be a factor. For instance, when the Council was expanded to 15 seats in 1965, 9 votes, not 8, to include all of the P5, was set as the number of votes needed to pass a substantive measure.
Categories of Membership
The discussion of the different categories of membership is probably the most contentious one. To some extent it includes the issue of the veto, which is discussed in more depth further below.
Intermediate Model
While the Center in a recent article [6] speculated that the intermediate model may be the one most likely to be accepted by two thirds of the GA Member States (128) required for passage, the most obvious shortcoming of this proposal is that there is very little agreement on what exactly the proposal entails. As one insider noted: for those who want an expansion in both categories of Council membership, the intermediate model is a way to get that, and for those who only want to add non-permanent seats to the Council, the model is a way to get that. This interpretive dichotomy based on the vagueness of the intermediate proposal, however, may provide the flexibility needed to allow a compromise to be reached. Evidence for this is provided by some recent conversations with the Center as well as statements made during reform debates. For instance, a G4 diplomat said that his country could possibly accept a review period that would not necessarily conclude with an automatic re-election of the "semi-permanent" members 3 [6]. At the same time, some of the ardent opponents of the both-categories model may be willing to accept the possibility of immediate re-election of non-permanent members. In a recent exchange [7] in the GA regarding reform of the Council, Indonesia said that although they favor expansion in principle in both categories, the intermediate approach appears to be the most constructive for the moment. Beyond its political feasibility, the intermediate proposal's lack of definitiveness gives it an additional advantage: using its proposed review period, countries can postpone final decisions on the most contentious issues, leaving them for their successors to resolve.
One difficulty surrounding the intermediate model, however, is getting agreement on which countries should be included in the group of member states that will get the proposed long-term seats with the possibility of re-election. Aside from groups formed primarily to reflect economic might, such as the G20, other political considerations also have to be taken into account when electing members for the Council. An expert familiar with the debate believes it may be impossible to leave out an Arab voice or to overlook regional disputes, which may make if difficult if not impossible to include one regional power while leaving out another. The guidelines from the UN Charter are sparse. Article 23 (1) just states that due regard must be paid to the contribution of potential non-permanent members to the "maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization" as well as to "geographical distribution." This definition is broad enough that Japan can argue that its monetary contribution falls within the category, while some Troop Contributing Countries can maintain that they represent the clearest example of contributing international peace and security. It should be noted that the Charter names the 5 states that are to have permanent seats and does not provide any provisions for adding additional permanent seats or standards that should be used for such a purpose. Should provisions be made for adding additional permanent or semi permanent seats, however, it would make common sense to apply the same criteria for selecting permanent or semi-permanent members that Article 23 (1) sets for selecting non-permanent members. The process to be used in making the selections of such members, however, may have to be different in consideration of the permanency or the potential for permanency of the appointment. The possible methods to be used in making the actual appointments and the differences on the views of member states on this question are taken up below.
|
|
|
Both Categories
Expansion in the permanent category is strongly promoted or strongly opposed for exactly the same reason that can be summarized in one word: permanency. For some, it would provide for a more just representation of the world (see discussion on geographical representation below), in which all parts of the globe would be included in the decision-making process of the body responsible for ensuring international peace and security. As one proponent, Brazil, recently argued expansion in the permanent category would lead to: "greater legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council's work." But for others, it would mean increased injustice, enabling more countries to wield the veto power and stay on the Council for all eternity without any restrictive measures of accountability. In this regard, one observer commented that rather than increasing democratic representation, granting permanent seats in the Council to the current frontrunners-all of whom highlight their economic weight as reasons for their candidacy-would amount to rewarding economic might with political power.
Beyond the perceived justice or injustice that permanent membership on the Council represents, some see expansion in the permanent category as a threat to regional dynamics. In the EU, granting Germany a permanent seat would skew the power balance and arguably render Italy, Spain and other "medium powers" weakened relative to France, the UK and Germany. Some have suggested merging the EU's permanent membership aspirations into either one or two seats that would rotate between member states. This would, of course, not only change the power relationships within the Union but also require France and the UK to agree to the loss of their current special status. In Latin America, the threat perceived by some countries to the power balance becomes evident when looking at the group of countries opposed to adding permanent seats to the Council, the UFC, which includes Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica and other Latin American countries.
Non-Permanent Only
In the last debate on Security Council reform of the 63rd session of the GA, Germany, with a melodic metaphor, said that expanding the Council with only non-permanent members would merely add more voices to the "choir" rather than change the "song" of the Council. It is argued that by adding only non-permanent members, the basic power structure will prevail and no substantial change will have been obtained.
But those who oppose expansion in the permanent category argue that only increased non-permanent membership will lead to more efficiency in the Council. One of the things the Council has traditionally been criticized for is its stalling tactics and failure to provide timely action when needed. Critics ask why the Council didn't take action in Rwanda in 1994 and why more wasn't done to stop the appalling situation in Darfur, and those who favor expansion in the non-permanent category ask rhetorically how endowing more member states with the right to veto would help address the lack of meaningful action in the face of atrocities and other urgent crises.
|
|
|
As pointed out by an expert and former participant in the reform process interviewed by the Center, the discussion about categories of membership really revolves around the veto more than anything else. The bigger point, in this expert's opinion, is that there are some countries, which it would be too costly to coerce into complying with the voice of the majority. He bases his analysis on a cost-benefit basis: what would be gained or lost from granting country X a permanent seat? If, for example, the GA magically succeeded in abolishing the veto altogether it is likely that the P5 would take their business elsewhere. The UN would then, in this expert's opinion, end up with a net loss. He lists the possession of nuclear weapons as another factor that should be taken into account when doing the cost-benefit analysis, adding that the moral principles one would like to apply when discussing reform may at times clash with what is most realistic and effective.
An additional question one may want to ask regarding the composition and structure of a reformed Council is to what extent the agreed-upon solution will be flexible and capable of adapting to future geo-political changes. Could it be imagined, for example, that it might be desirable to remove countries from the Council rather than adding more? The intermediate model envisions a review period that could result in not granting re-election to some candidates, which some see as a much-needed option but no one has proposed the idea that all permanent members should also be subject to review or a change in their status based on specific criteria. This, of course, would go against the very notion of permanency and would most likely be entirely unfeasible from a political perspective in view of the Charter amendment that would need to be ratified to accomplish it, but these ideas might nonetheless be worth contemplating for the sake of exploring future scenarios.
