Democratic Reform of the UN Security Council

July 16th, 2005 at 15:05 Björn Hallberg

Global Policy Forum offers its take on reform.

Nations can agree on the Council’s shortcomings, but they differ sharply on the necessary solutions. All agree, for example, that the Council’s membership and institutional structures reflect outdated geopolitical realities and political thinking, shaped by the world of 1945. The five permanent members, with their vetoes and many special privileges, now arouse widespread criticism as a self-appointed oligarchy. But for more than a decade, nations have been debating Council reform in the UN General Assembly without result.

Powerful governments that claim to champion “freedom,” “democracy,” and “good governance,” have been known to behave despotically in the international arena, bending small states to their will and acting in violation of international law. Such powers sit in the Council and cannot be expected to solve problems that they themselves have created. This can be called the “foxes guarding the chicken coop” problem.

Adding members adds more states, with their own state interests. Such members only weakly “represent” their region or state-type (poor, island, small, etc.), since there is no system of accountability. Instead, they act primarily on the basis of their own national interest. If they are large regional hegemons, they may seek to increase their hegemony at the expense of other regional states. If they are states involved in civil conflict, they may seek to block Council remedial action (Rwanda notoriously sat on the Council during genocide) with negative effects on many neighbors. And if they are small and weak states, they may be exposed to great power pressure, bowing often to threats or blandishments and voting according to the interests of the mighty, not the interests of regional neighbors and friends.

Reform of the Council must seek to restrict (and eventually eliminate) the veto. Similarly, the 185 non-permanent states should make joint efforts to limit other special P-5 privileges, such as claims on high Secretariat posts and World Court seats. Eventually, in the more distant future, even permanency itself might be negotiated into well-deserved oblivion and the oligarchy eliminated once and for all.

Well worth a read. I think we can all agree that the privileges of the SC need to be limited and that the permanent members need to be demoted.
It is conceivable that these permanent members are trying to expand the council in order to accommodate allies and not appear undemocratic. Expansion of the council may dilute the power of the US mostly but it will on the other hand also legitimize the principle of a privileged Security Council and make it last for another half century. When you think about it, this is not a desirable development.

Entry 164 filed under: UN. This entry was posted 3 years, 5 months ago. RSS feed for comments on this post.