Can governments work together to maintain-- nurture-- security and
peace? This is a survival question for the United Nations. That governments
take it seriously is reflected in the long and tense negotiations about
the membership and functioning of the Security Council. The energy displayed
here does not suggest that the UN is moribund, even though the Security
Council hasn't been doing much lately. Rifts between "North"
and "South", between countries and regional blocs, are all
on display in this process of reforming the UN's most powerful organ.
The first reform occurred in 1965 when the number of non-permanent (two-year)
members was increased from six to ten, without changing the rule that
Council decisions require concurrence of all five permanent members
(translated as the right to "veto" by any one of the PERM
5). The General Assembly elects non-permanent members. Reform issues
now are:
One non-negotiable is the PERM 5 (China, France, Russia, U.K., U.S.A.):
no volunteers to fade away. Also generally accepted is that Germany
and Japan should join, probably as permanent, probably no "veto".
(Italy says, in effect, why not me? I was defeated too!) But the price
for Germany and Japan is representation of everyone else, without making
the Council so big and cumbersome that it can't-- what? The U.S. caps
membership at 21; NAM wants 26. Anyhow, that's the problem. Representation
will have to be sorted out on some kind of regional basis; and that
pretty much precludes permanents (e.g. in the Americas, Argentina, Brazil,
Mexico-- which one? permanent?). One funny idea is "rotating permanent".
As blocs shape up in the G.A., "middle powers" like Canada
have no assured basket of votes. Traditionally, Canada with its consistent
support for the UN has had a go at the Council every ten years or so.
Australia and Canada are insisting on a seat for middle powers. Canada
has also made the sensible suggestion that one way to break the log
jam is to forget more permanents. On procedure, there is general agreement
that non-members should have better access to the Council. The veto
seems a quaint anachronism: there are other vetoes. All of this was
discussed once more in the General Assembly in December-- seventy-one
speakers. No "quick fix", they say; but since this review
has been going on since 1992, it does look quick on our digital timers.
But then-- geological time and cosmic. In UN time, more time is needed
for a generally acceptable formula. Back it goes to the Assembly's Working
Group.
