Question: Analyze the Implications of an Enlargement of the United Nations

Security Council.

The United Nations, formerly known as the League of Nations, was founded by 51 countries in

1945 at the International Conference on International Institutions in San Francisco with the aim

of ‘maintaining international peace and security…, to develop friendly relations among

nations…, and to achieve international co-operation…’1

The United Nations Security Council is the most important organ of the United Nations and the

most powerful Council in the world composed of 5 permanent members namely China, the

United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia (Former USSR) and 10 non-permanent

members whose seats are renewed every two years as stated in Article 23 of the UN Charter.2

There has long be a debate on the way the Security Council work and the five permanent

members have long be criticized for their lack of transparency when adopting resolutions. G4

countries, that is India, Brazil, Japan and Germany, which are also the largest contributors to the

UN in terms of finance and military, have called for an enlargement of the UN Security Council

by increasing the number of permanent seats.

The United States was the only permanent member of the Council that expressed support for

expansion, which called for Germany and Japan to become permanent members, but not without

1
Article 1 of the UN Charter
2
“The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the UN. The Republic of China, France, the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of
America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members
of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council”
 2

conditions. First Germany and Japan will have to contribute to their own financial weight and

also willing to participate in peacekeeping operations and carry out other universal

responsibilities. France and Britain were the first one to reject Council reform, calling instead for

the improvement of the Council efficiency, a bigger priority. Russia, though making a low

profile in this case, supported the position of Britain and France, whereas China took an

ambiguous position since on the one hand, it recognized that there was a need for membership

expansion while, on the other hand, admitting that the time was not appropriate.

However France, Britain and Russia were forced to change their position after the status taken by

the United States., as they would have remained the European country opposed to expansion, and

after having been given the assurance that there will be no change in the status of the actual

permanent members. But the issue remained that both Japan and Germany wanted to have the

right of veto and severely criticized the position of Britain, France and the United States for their

lack of reaction on the issue, as they believed that they will be ‘handicapped’ without the veto, as

permanent members of the Council.

However as Germany and Japan attempted to improve their credibility by shouldering additional

financial burdens and increase their contributions to the UN budget as well as to the budget for

UN peacekeeping operations they made a strong connection between their financial contributions

and the legitimacy of their candidature for permanent membership at the Council. But the fact

remained that both countries were facing both legal and political problems. In June 1992, the

Japanese Diet adopted a law that, while it allowed the so-called Self-Defence Forces to be used

overseas as peacekeeping troops, did not permit Japan to take part in operations authorized by

the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter whereas in Germany, despite the
 3

Karlsruhe Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 1994, whereby it was declared that nothing in

the Constitution prevented the use of the German troops in UN missions, government was facing

difficulties in mustering sufficient public support ‘for committing the Bundeswehr to distant,

“out of area” operations where no strictly German interests were threatened’

Another issue in the expansion of the Security Council was the numbers of seats to be allocated

to the Non-Aligned countries, who felt that they way purposely excluded in the process. They

severely criticized the Council’s lack of transparency when holding meetings, especially when

there were closed meetings between the three western countries of the permanent five, away

from the public. Furthermore they wanted to play an active role in the Council Reform debate.

Indeed most of the United Nations members began to play an active role in the debate, with the

aim of making the Council more representative of the United Nations as a whole. The Non-

aligned countries were in favor of increasing the number of non-permanent seats from 15 to 26.

The majority of the non-aligned states were in favor of a balanced increase in the permanent

membership that included both developed and developing states. Whereas the countries of Latin

America and Asia opt for a ‘two plus three formula’, namely two to each Germany and Japan as

industrialized countries, and three remaining seats to Africa. Asia and Latin America from the

Southern Region, as the Northern region is already over-represented at the Council while not

recommending that the right of veto for the new permanent members, while other non-aligned

States were for the extension of the veto power for new permanent members. One of these states

was India, which stated in the Open-Ended Working Group on Council reform that there should

be no discrimination between the current permanent members and the new permanent members

on the question of the veto privilege.

 4

In contrast, various other non-aligned States, especially African States wanted to go beyond the

two plus three formula by increasing the number of three permanent seats to developing

countries and allocating Africa at least two permanent seats. They justified their position by

pointing out that Africa, with 53 members in the UN, had no permanent seat on the Council.

South Africa, Ghana, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Kenya were among

those setting forth the common African position. Some of them also argued that not only Africa,

but Asia and Latin America as well, should each have two permanent seats.

As for the mode of election, all states prefer the election on the regional basis. African States

suggest that the two permanent seats allocated to Africa should be rotational to give each country

of the African Continent a chance to siege at the Council as permanent member and represent the

continent as a whole and thus be accountable for all decisions taken in the name of the African

Continent.

But while the majority of the non-aligned countries were in favour of reform, some States like

Pakistan, Libya, Mexico and Lebanon were against the reform and believe that an increase in the

non-permanent seats will contribute more to the democratization of the Council. They disagreed

with the view that an increase in permanent members would lead to a more balanced and

representative Security Council. They believed that an increase in the number of permanent

seats, with or without the veto, would only serve the interests of these states and isolate the

majority of others, thus intensify existing inequalities in the Council. In reality, the opposition to

the idea of increasing the number of permanent seats arose out of the fear that the delegation of

enormous prestige and influence of permanent membership to a single country in their respective
 5

regions would lead to the establishment of a regional hegemony of a single country over the

entire region.

To arrive to a consensus between States forming part of the United Nations the General

Assembly adopted a resolution3 entitles “The Question on equitable representation on an increase

in the Membership of the Security Council” which called for the setting up of an Open-Ended

Working Group “to consider all aspects of the question of increase in the membership of the

Security Council and others matters…”

Also the Resolution recommends that the Secretary General to requests member States to submit

written comments on a possible review of the membership of the Security Council and to submit

a report to the General Assembly during its’ 48th Session.4

The report suggests that there should be an increase in the permanent and non-permanent

members of the Council: “Enlargement of the Council should enable inclusion of both new

permanent members and new non-permanent members from developed/industrialized and

developing countries”5.

Furthermore if there is no agreement between states on the nature of the status of new members

of the Council, the Working group has made a provision to consider only the enlargement of

non-permanent members, which would be based on the principle of sovereignty equality of states

and their geographical distribution.

3
Resolution 47/62 of 1992 and Resolution 48/26 of the 3rd of December 1993
4
General Assembly Document A/48/264 of 20th July 1993
5
Annex XIII Section 2(1)
 6

The report made suggestions that there should be an increase in the membership of the Council

ranging from 20 to 26 compared to the initial 15. Proposals for permanent seats were to depend

on regions, group of states or countries where ‘Africa should be allocated no less than two

permanent seats, a permanent seat for the group of Arab States, the seat to rotate among Arab

States in accordance with the practice of the League of Arab States, two permanent seats should

be allocated to Asia for decision of the Asian group in accordance with the system of rotation to

be established by Working Group formed for the purpose, one permanent seat should be

allocated for the European Union and two new permanent seats for Germany and Japan as

industrialized States’6.

The report favors the creation of 5 additional permanent members for the Council which will be

chosen by a vote of 2/3 majority in the General Assembly where each one of the seats will go to

developing States of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and remaining two seats to

industrialized countries.

The report further recommends that new permanent members should have the same powers as

the current five. However it does not recommend the veto power for the new members, which

mean that these new members would not really have the same prerogatives than that of the

permanent five.

For the case of non-permanent members the report recommends an increase on a regional basis

by allocating a seat to Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America and Arab group of States which will

amount to at least 15 non-permanent seats.

6
Ibid
 7

The problem of equitable representation has been in the agenda of the General Assembly since

1979 though little progress had been achieved. The Council is said not to be representative

primarily for two reasons, one quantitative and the other qualitative. While in the UN Charter,

the membership of the Council was to be based on ‘equitable geographical distribution’, the

reality is totally different. European countries tend to be over-represented with the United

Kingdom and France as permanent members whereas no countries of Africa have any permanent

seats at the Council, although it represent one quarter of the membership of the United Nations.

The qualitative aspect, on the other hand, maintain that the Council should reflect the

contribution of countries to the agencies of the United Nations, in terms of the maintenance of

international peace and security, promotion of human rights and contribution to social and

economic development. Factors like financial and military contribution were other criterias to be

considered while selecting potential permanent members.

Another problem with reforms in the Council is the question of whether the veto power, which

has long been in the hand of the P5, should be extended to new permanent members. Critics

argue that by extending the veto power, there is 100 percent chance that no resolution would be

passed as permanent members are popular for passing their own interest first than taking into

account the general interest of the international community, the case of Israel and Syria are living

proofs, where the USA, although Israel has violated the UN Charter several times and been in

breach of international law, no sanctions has ever been imposed on the country. The same hold

for Syria where China and Russia had imposed their veto to any resolution calling for military

action against the Damas Regime.

 8

If the veto power is not extended to new permanent members, there is still the possibility of clash

between those who can veto and those who can’t. We will be facing a real tug of war which will

result in the marginalization of non-permanent members where they will be stuck between two

forces of ideas.

As we can see, it is at the moment very difficult to arrive to a consensus because of the

prevailing situation because changes in the Security Council require changes in the United

Nations Charter, which in itself, a very lengthy battle. Neither the permanent five nor the

aspiring permanent members such as India, Japan or even Germany are ready to make

concessions. While the P5 are more for the improvement of the current working methods of the

Council, thus delaying as later as possible the question of admitting new permanent members,

the aspiring permanent members called for more concrete action to make this project of reform a

reality.

[2,100 words]

References and Bibliography

Websites:
 www.un.org
 9

 http://www.un.org/en/sc
 www.wikipedia.com
 www.jstor.org
 http://www.emeraldinsight.com

Documents, Articles and Journals

 The United Nations Charter.

 The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform, by Thomas G. Weiss, ‘The Washington

Quarterly’ pp. 147–161.

 General Assembly Document GA/11022-Plenary Meeting of the 11th November 2010.

 United Nations Document NR071110 Resolution 47/62

 Report of the Open-Ended Working Group General Assembly Official Records 55th
Session Supplement No. 47 (A/55/47).

 General Assembly 302nd plenary meeting of 3rd November 1950, ‘Uniting for Peace.

 Reforming the United Nations for the 21st Century –Speech by Vijay Mehta at the Royal
Over Seas Club, Edinburgh Scotland on the 8th of December 2008.

 The History and Politics of the UN Security Council Reform by Dimitris Bourantonis,
Routledge advances in international Relations and global politics.
 10

 The Quest for Regional Representation, Reforming the United Nations Security Council,
May 2008.

 General Assembly 48th Session Document A/48/264 of 20th July 1993-“Question of

Equitable Representation…” Report of the Secretary-General.