UN Security Council Reform

The UN General Assembly Working Group on Reform of the Security Council issued a report (regarding more equal representation and an increase in the number of members of the Security Council) recommending a compromise solution on the implementation of intergovernmental negotiations on reform.

The report is built on the basis of existing changed realities (transitional period) in order to propose the concept of “temporary perspective”. A “temporary perspective” means that Member States will begin negotiations, the outcome of which should be included in short-term intergovernmental arrangements. Decisive for the “temporary perspective” is the task of convening a conference on the revision of powers - a forum for discussing changes in relation to any reforms that should be implemented in the near future, and to reach agreements that could not be reached so far.

“With Greater Freedom"

On March 21, 2005, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the UN to reach agreement on expanding the council to 24 members, citing a plan called “With Greater Freedom” ^[4] . It contained two alternative methods of implementation, but it was not determined which of his proposals was preferable ^[5] . In any case, Annan opted for a quick solution, stating, “This important decision has been discussed for too long. “I believe that Member States should agree to make a decision - preferably by consensus, but in any case before the summit - opt for the first or other option from the ones presented in the report of the High-level Group.”

The two options mentioned by Annan refer to Plan A and Plan B: Plan A calls for six new permanent members, plus three new non-permanent members for a total of 24. The Plan B calls for eight new seats in the new class of members, which will be re-elected in four years, plus one fickle seat, also with a total of 24.

The 2005 World Summit mentioned by Annan ^[6] is the plenary summit discussed in the Annan report, the implementation of the 2000 Millennium Declaration, and other decisions related to UN reform.

Consolidated for

On July 26, 2005, five UN members — Argentina , Italy , Canada , Colombia, and Pakistan , representing a large group of countries called “ Uniting for Consensus ,” proposed another draft to the General Assembly ^[7] , which retained five permanent members and increased the number of non-permanent members to 20. China supported this initiative ^[8] .

The proposed change is to increase the membership of the Security Council: candidates usually mean Japan , Germany , India and Brazil (G4 nations) and the country of Africa .

Great Britain , Russia and France supported the UN members G4 ^[9] . Italy has always opposed this kind of reform and in 1992, together with several countries, adopted another proposal based on the introduction of the institution of semi-permanent members ^[10] ; in addition, Pakistan objects to the candidacy of India ; while Mexico and Argentina are opposed to Brazil , a Portuguese-speaking country in Hispanic for the most part Latin America. All these countries traditionally group themselves in the so-called Coffee Club ; officially United for Consensus .

Most of the leading candidates for permanent membership are regularly elected to the Security Council in the appropriate groups: Japan and Brazil were elected for nine two-year terms each, and Germany for three terms. India was elected to the Security Council a total of six times, although its last election took place more than a decade ago - in 1991-1992.

  Brazil

Brazil is the largest country in Latin America in terms of population, GDP and territory; in addition, it has one of the largest military budgets (11th largest in the world) and the armed forces (18th largest in the world in 2006) ^{[11] [12]} . Among other things, coupled with Africa and Oceania , South America is one of the three inhabited continents that do not have a permanent representation on the Security Council .

Brazil was elected nine times to the UN Security Council . Her armed forces contributed to UN peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East , the former Belgian Congo , Cyprus , Mozambique , Angola , and later in East Timor and Haiti ^[13] . Brazil is one of the largest contributors to the UN regular budget .

The United States expressed strong support for Brazil in its intention to become a permanent member, but without a veto .

Brazil also received the support of other permanent members: Russia ^[14] , Great Britain and France ^[15] and also Portuguese-speaking countries ^[16] . Brazil expected to receive support from China, recognizing the Chinese economy as fully marketable ^[17] , however, despite these efforts, China did not express official support.

The biggest obstacle is the resistance of the countries of the region - Mexico and Argentina , two important countries of Latin America .

  Germany

Germany is the third country in terms of contributions to the UN regular budget , and also claims to be in the Security Council after Japan .

France definitely stated about the permanent membership in the Security Council of its closest EU partner: “Germany’s entry, her taking the place of a great power , her international influence - France would be glad to see her recognized as a permanent member of the Security Council,” said French President Jacques Chirac in a speech in Berlin in 2000 ^[18] . Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, among other countries that supported the invitation of Germany, also named Russia ^[9] . Italy and the Netherlands, on the contrary, supported the proposal that the European Union instead of Germany should become the third representative of Europe after France and Great Britain . Joschka Fischer said that Germany should accept the proposal for a place for a united Europe, but since it would be less important than the places of France and Britain, Germany should also get a place ^[9] . This led to proposals to make the place of the European Union “common” for the existing two permanent members, without creating a third. Suggestions were made that the French would unite their voice with Germany in the tradition of Franco-German integration within the EU , and the UK would present European traditions as a lesser degree of integration. Thus, the campaign for Germany to gain permanent membership intensified in 2004 . Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder spoke very clearly in August 2004: "Germany has the right to a seat." This proposal was supported, among other countries, by Brazil, Great Britain, India, Russia, France and Japan. Angela Merkel , Chancellor of Germany , who at present did not initially speak out on this subject, again raised the question of Germany becoming a permanent member of the Security Council at the UN General Assembly in September 2007 .

  India

India is a nuclear power and the second most populous country in the world. It is also among the twelve largest economies and the fourth largest market. Currently, India has the third largest armed forces in the world. India also makes one of the largest contributions to UN peacekeeping contingent missions.

Obtaining a seat by India is unequivocally supported by the permanent members of the Security Council: France , Russia ^[19] and Great Britain ^[20] . The Chinese government has recently also defended its candidacy. ^[21] Although Brazil ^[22] , Australia ^[23] , and the African Union ^[24] supported the candidacy of India, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed the popular belief that “ great powers are undoubtedly hindering the candidacy of India.”

Although the People’s Republic of China initially opposed for geopolitical reasons (China is an ally of the rival of India and Pakistan , countries also fought each other in 1962 ), recent history has changed China’s official position on supporting India’s candidacy from negative to neutral, and then positive, in connection with becoming increasingly closer economic ties. On April 11, 2005, China announced that it would support India becoming a permanent member, but without a veto . However, the veto is the most defining characteristic of a permanent member and in the eyes of the G4 countries, the prohibition of a veto is nothing but a means of the five current permanent members to maintain their superiority. Although the United States has not officially supported India’s invitation - for various reasons, some of which remain unclear - "seeking bilateral cooperation with India and supporting the nation" (which translates as not using the veto). However, US-Indian relations have now improved. In early November 2010, during a state visit to India, US President B. Obama said that "Washington will support New Delhi's application for a seat on the UN Security Council." "... In the coming years, I look forward to the reform of the UN Security Council, which will include India as a permanent member," he also said. ^[25] In response , Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmoud Qureshi said that Pakistan and China unanimously adhere to that point of view. that “... the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council should not be granted to India, as this would upset the balance of power in the region” ^[25] .

Taking into account the huge population and growing economic and political weight, India is a strong contender for a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Another factor in favor of India’s candidacy is the fact that it was one of the founding members of the Security Council and participated in a number of its activities, including UN operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo , Cyprus , Cambodia , Yemen , Somalia , Rwanda , Namibia , and Sinai peninsula and others.

  Japan

Japan , which joined the UN in 1956, is the second largest contributor to the UN regular budget ^[26] . Her payments exceed the total contributions of the UK, China, Russia and France combined. Japan is one of the largest donor countries (ODA). Thus, Japan is considered the most suitable candidate for one of the new permanent members.

Japan's desire to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council met with strong resistance from the People's Republic of China , North Korea and South Korea . However, Mongolia supported the invitation to Japan.

Some Japanese people suggest that opposing countries, especially China, are more driven by current problems, such as territorial disputes . At the end of April 2005, large-scale anti-Japanese protests swept across mainland China. The reasons for the protests were varied, including history books approved by the Japanese government, the annual visits of former Prime Minister Koizumi to the Yasukuni Jinja Temple, where he worshiped the souls of 14 Class A war criminals, and territorial disputes over islands belonging between China and Taiwan . Although the protests were not officially sanctioned by the PRC , some analysts suggested that the PRC government allowed the protests to interfere with Japan’s invitation to the Security Council . Others argue that the Chinese government did not want the anger of the protesters to focus on it, as obstructing demonstrations would be seen as supporting Japan. Also, many protests took place in South Korea. The ruling and opposition parties, most of the media, and even the president of South Korea openly criticized visits that were not compatible with their political position ^[27] .

Several other Asian countries, including Cambodia , Indonesia , Malaysia , Singapore , the Philippines, and Vietnam ^[9] - all the main recipients of Japanese loans and / or foreign investment - have expressed strong support for Japan's requests. Other countries such as Australia , Brazil , Great Britain , India , Germany , France also supported the invitation of Japan ^[9] .

Despite the fact that the United States strongly supports the invitation of Japan to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, they reject the collective membership of the G4 +1 countries as a whole, for which Japan needs support. Although Russia is interested in a local counterbalance to China, it is also cautious because of Japan's strong ties with the United States. However, China has a veto and will apply it in any case inviting Japan as a permanent member.

The United States refrains from supporting Germany (as Europe is represented by two out of five permanent members) and India, but supports the invitation of Japan. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice , speaking at the University of Sofia in Tokyo , said: “Japan has earned its place of honor among the nations of the world through its efforts and its character. That is why the United States unequivocally supports the permanent membership of the UN Security Council for Japan ” ^[5] . Her predecessor, Colin Powell, objected to Japan’s permanent membership because of article 9 of the Japanese Constitution , which forbids the country from conducting military preparations. ^[28]

The People's Republic of China , as well as North Korea and South Korea object to Japan’s membership, as they are dissatisfied with its refusal to assume full responsibility for the atrocities of the Japanese imperial army during the Second World War , as well as for potential militarism ^[29] . Australia, the Cook Islands , the Federated States of Micronesia , Fiji , Kiribati , the Marshall Islands , Nauru , New Zealand , Niue , Palau , Papua New Guinea , Samoa , the Solomon Islands , Tonga , Tuvalu and Vanuatu support Japan ^[30] .

Katsuyuki Kawai , Secretary of Foreign Affairs , Member of the Japanese Parliament and Special Envoy in Nepal , was sent to Kathmandu to persuade the Government of Nepal to support Japan’s permanent membership in the UN Security Council. Kawaii met with King of Nepal Gyanendra and told the press: “If Japan now loses its invitation, the Japanese people will think that the assistance Japan has provided to the world over the past 60 years has been negligible.” Japan made significant donations to Nepal. ^[31]

Islamic Majority Membership

Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Middle East , mostly Muslim, has been the scene of ongoing international conflicts and their periodic outbreaks in the region have been the subject of many debates and resolutions of the UN Security Council . Consequently, plans to introduce a member to the Security Council - a country with an Islamic majority - are a very delicate matter, especially if such a country is vested with veto power . However, a “compromise situation” can be seen in India , a power with the third largest Muslim population (after Indonesia and Pakistan ), which has close ties with many Arab countries , but at the same time showing itself as a moderate and acceptable force for the Security Council.

Outside of the Islamic world, observers have shown growing concern that the Islamic country, which has a veto , is using it to limit the ability of the UN to act decisively in the Middle East or on the borders of the Islamic world , leading to the impotence of the UN in these regions. The impression of a lack of democracy in the countries of the Middle East, mainly Muslim ones, is another argument cited by some Western observers against the inclusion of these countries in the club of permanent, vetoed states.

At the same time, the reform project proposed by the G4 countries proposes to leave more than 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide (which is not limited only to the Middle East, but also includes territories such as Southeast Asia ) without any permanent representation in UN Security Council. This decision is extremely inconsistent with respect to the Islamic world and can unpleasantly strike the confidence in the UN among some countries of the Middle East and the Islamic world. In June 2005, the foreign ministers of the countries members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation called for the creation of a permanent member of the UN Security Council for the Islamic world ^[32] .

Recent resistance to the proposed reform project, coming from the G4 countries, may be ranked in this part as the most noticeable. The United States and several Western countries are opposed to any proposal that would give new members any veto ^[9] , while Egypt and the African Union are leading opposition to Nigeria’s proposal to accept the G4 version of the new veto ^[9] , which may it will be possible to create a new Security Council , in which there will not be a single member with an Islamic majority.

Another argument against the inclusion of an Islamic nation is the related religious aspect ^[9] . In this case, nations professing other religions could demand permanent membership in the Security Council in the name of religion, such as the majority of the Jewish state of Israel or countries with a large number of Buddhists , Hindus , Sikhs , etc. ^[9]