Reform of the UN security council is the Rubik’s cube of international diplomacy, yet Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, wants the world body to have another crack at this puzzle.
In a report earlier this month, Mr Annan indicated that the time may have come for a radical restructuring of the UN after its crisis of legitimacy over the war in Iraq. Such reform would inevitably mean changes in the security council, the UN’s main decision-making body
Power resides with the council’s 15 members, especially with the five veto-wielding permanent members – the US, Britain, China, France and Russia. The other 10 members are very much second-class citizens; they come and go for two-year stints and of course lack veto privileges.
The make-up of the council reflects the constellation of power following the second world war. But while the world has moved on, the council remains frozen in time. The presence of Britain and France, two middling European powers, as permanent members, with the absence of a permanent presence from Africa or Latin America is an anomaly increasingly hard to justify.
If the council were to have some semblance of democratic legitimacy, Britain and France would lose their place at the top table to be replaced by one EU seat, while room would be found for an African and a Latin American country.
Proposals for enlarging the council and making it more democratic have been around for years, but do little more than gather dust in the UN archives. When Mr Annan became secretary-general in 1997, there was much optimism over reform of the UN.
I remember attending a grand lunch hosted by a senior British diplomat, where the subject of security council reform was the topic of the day. One diplomat after another was convinced that the momentum for reform was unstoppable. But attempts to bring up the council up to date simply fizzled out.
For all the talk of reform, the current situation suits the five permanent members. Britain and France are in no hurry to give up their seats as their presence ratifies and reinforces their self-image as important diplomatic players.
To be fair – and for better or for worse – Britain and France do take a far more activist approach in international affairs than the other council wannabes from the G7 club of leading industrial powers – Japan and Germany. Britain will send troops to Sierra Leone to halt mayhem and bloodshed.
The same goes for France and the Ivory Coast. Germany and Japan, however, are timid as mice when it comes to deploying military power – although that seems to be changing with Berlin, which has troops in Afghanistan.
The impetus for change will have to come from those on the outside of the club. But those who seek entry must sort out the divisions that have allowed inertia to rule. Latin America has to decide on its representative, with Brazil and Argentina vying for the honours.
From Africa, will it be Nigeria or South Africa? If there is to be an Arab permanent representative, should it be Egypt? If Asia wants a second permanent member, watch out for the sparks between India and Pakistan.
Perhaps broadening the council opens such a can of worms – not just for present permanent members, but for aspiring members – that states prefer to leave the issue alone. If that is the case, then Mr Annan’s calls for radical reform will just reverberate uselessly in the cavernous meeting halls of the UN.
Yet there are reasons for optimism. The recent WTO summit at Cancun saw the emergence of a bloc of 21 developing countries that included China, Brazil and India. This new grouping stuck together and refused to be steamrolled by the rich countries on agricultural subsidies. If that spirit of solidarity carries over into this week’s deliberations at the UN general assembly and beyond, Mr Annan may make some headway. — Guardian Unlimited Â