- The Security Council remains central to international peace
and security matters. Its decisions command attention and
are binding on UN member states. It is pivotal to conferring
international authority and legitimacy on interventions, as
exemplified by the build-up to the deployment in Libya earlier
this year, compared with the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
- Since the end of the Cold War, the Council has functioned
more efficiently: adopting twice as many resolutions as
previously, significantly expanding UN peacekeeping,
particularly in Africa, and widening its agenda to address
issues such as women and security, climate change and
civilians in armed conflict. The low incidence of inter-state
war in the last 66 years is surely no coincidence.
- The Council's five permanent members (China, France,
Russia, the UK and the US) have only exercised their veto on
24 substantive occasions since 1990, compared to 193 times
in the 45 years before then. They have even, on occasion,
refrained from using it to block resolutions concerning
situations where they have strong national interests.
- While permanent membership of the Security Council
has accorded these countries much influence at the UN, it
has also encouraged them to continue to work with it and
through it. An expanded Council might prove too unwieldy
for timely decisions. This could encourage powerful nations
to resort to unilateral action more frequently.
- An expanded Council would not necessarily be more likely
to take action. Germany and India, two possible candidates
for permanent membership, abstained on the recent vote
on Libya. South Africa has blocked action on Zimbabwe,
and Brazil and Turkey have done so in relation to Iran.
»» Regional rivalries between potential candidates also mean
there is no definitive list of future permanent or semipermanent
(e.g. 10- or 15-year terms) members.
|
- The Security Council no longer reflects the balance of power
in the world. At least two of its five permanent members
can no longer claim to be "major powers".
- The Council has failed to bring effective action to bear on the
most difficult issues, such as the Middle East peace process,
Iraq and Kashmir. It has struggled to agree on situations
strongly linked to the interests of its five permanent members,
and it did not respond adequately to events in Rwanda, Sri
Lanka or the former Yugoslavia.
- The Council's 10 elected members only serve two-year terms.
This means its membership often excludes big economic
players such as Germany and Japan; emerging powers like
India and Brazil; and smaller countries that provide many of
the UN's peacekeeping troops, such as Bangladesh.
- Widening the membership could lead to more engagement
by regional organisations and emerging powers. This would
help to spread the risks and burden of tackling threats and
encourage active participation within a rules-based system.
- The Council does not give adequate representation to
African countries, although the continent is the focus of
much of the Council's work.
- The longer the Council's composition is seen as outdated,
the more likely it is to be bypassed.
- Calls for reform are unlikely to abate now that the issue has
taken on such a high profile. It cannot remain unresolved.
|
