Conflict, Security, UNSC, Defence, UN Reforms

1995

Ambassador Paolo Fulci of Italy to the GA on SC Reform (November 13, 1995)

Canadian Roundtable on Security Council Reform (September 1995)

Argentina Paper on the "Cascade Effect" of Permanent Membership

GPF Perspectives l Documents | Articles

GPF Perspectives

Towards a Democratic Reform of the UN Security Council (July 13, 2005)James Paul and Céline Nahory argue that adding more permanent members to the Security Council would enlarge a discredited oligarchy rather than build for a democratic future. They also oppose the addition of elected members, arguing that an expanded Council would be too large to function effectively and not substantially more representative. Instead, they propose a process of stronger regional representation as a future-oriented approach that can develop in stages and without the headache of Charter change. (Global Policy Forum)

Security Council Reform Remains Deadlocked (August 5, 2009)

Open-Ended Working Group has been working for past 15 years on revamp of 15-member Security Council of the UN. An overwhelming majority agrees that membership should be increased; however there is no consensus on the choice of members. This article reviews the deadlock condition of the reform effort. While talking to IPS, James A. Paul of Global Policy Forum expressed that "beyond the doomed idea of enlarging the oligarchy, other reform ideas stand a better change of adoption." (IPS)

Documents
What Impact? The E10 and the 2011 Security Council (March 2011)

This IPI Report focuses on the changes in Council dynamics with emerging powers making up a signification portion of the E10. It examines the Council’s change in focus with these  countries leading efforts to sustain UN post-conflict involvement and greater support for international justice mechanisms like the ICC. (International Peace Institute)

UN Security Council Elections 2010 (September 17, 2010)

This Special Report on the upcoming UN Security Council Elections outlines the candidates for the five open non-permanent seats. India, South Africa and Colombia appear to be guaranteed seats as there are no competing candidates for those regions. Two seats for the Western European and Others Group are contested by Canada, Germany and Portugal. The report highlights possible outcomes of the elections. For example, five UN members who have asserted bids for permanent membership could be on the Council in 2011. It also considers the effect of clean slate elections and potential partnerships between future Council members. (Security Council Report)

The New General Assembly President Opens Session with Call for UN Reform (September 15, 2009)

The new General Assembly President, Ali Treki of Libya, calls for further efforts in reform of the Security Council to make it more representative of all UN member states. He supports a larger role for Africa, Latin America and small states in the Council. Treki also mentioned that the General Assembly ought to have a larger influence in UN decision making. (UN News Centre)

Press Conference by General Assembly Facilitator on Security Council Reform (July 20, 2009)

A third round of negotiations on Security Council reform is scheduled to begin on August 27, 2009. Zahir Tanin, the ambassador of Afghanistan and facilitator of the negotiations, has presented an overview. He announced that there is a consensus among all states on continuing the process. Tanin said that he saw "a light at the end of tunnel" after the first two sessions, but "there is a long way to go." (United Nations)

Second Round of Security Council Reform Talks Ends (June 29, 2009)Report of the Facilitators for Security Council Reform to the General Assembly (June 26, 2007)

In their report to the President of the General Assembly, the facilitators, Ambassadors Heraldo Muñoz of Chile and Christian Wenaweser of Liechtenstein, propose a temporary approach to expedite Security Council reform. This transition period should include a new category of membership with longer-term seats, either renewable or not. The agreement would include a mandatory review in a set number of years. The facilitators do not recommend how many new seats should be added, nor how long the transitional phase should last, but insist that the process move from consultations to concrete intergovernmental negotiations.

Review of Progress on Security Council Reform (December 19, 2005)

In this report, the President of the General Assembly Jan Eliasson reiterates its commitment towards Security Council reform, including issues related to the body's expansion and working methods. In 2005, member states put forward numerous proposals for a more representative, effective and efficient Council. Eliasson encourages member states to continue to engage in constructive dialogue to reach the broadest agreement possible.

Articles

2012| 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | Archived Articles

2012 Turkey Calls for UN Security Council Reform Over Failure to Pressure Syria (September 29,2012)

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan rebuked the UN Security Council for its members’ inability to find a common ground on a resolution to solve the crisis in Syria. Arguing that “it's high time to consider a structural change for international institutions, especially for the UN Security Council," Erdogan described the latest as an unequal and unfair system that failed to reflect the will of most countries. While Erdogan certainly has a point, this statement should be seen as Turkey’s rhetoric in the context of increasing tension and military confrontations on the border with Syria? (The Guardian)

Africa Must Have Due Representation in Security Council, Ministers Tell UN Debate (September 29,2012)

In another bid for Security Council reform, African ministers at the United Nations General Assembly called for expansion of the Security Council. "The working methods of the Security Council must be revised to ensure democratization, and its membership must be expanded to include new permanent and non-permanent members of the developing world, particularly Africa, the cradle of civilization," said Algeria's Foreign Minister, Mourad Medelci. But Africa does not have a united position on Council reform and its hopes for expansion of permanent members runs up against firm opposition from the existing five permanent members. (allAfrica)

UN General Assembly 2012: Reforming Security Council Should Be Top Priority (September 26, 2012)

The 67th annual session of the General Assembly opens the floor to an ongoing debate about Security Council reform. At present, critics of the existing structure say that it reflects the world order sixty years ago, as much of the Global South remains largely unrepresented on the Council. The question is not whether the Security Council needs reform- consent on that is largely unanimous. What needs to be addressed, rather, is the shape that this reform should take. Brazil and India have the strongest cases amongst the “G4 nations”, but their inclusion would still leave out many other groups. Agreeing on which countries may acquire permanent status is almost impossible, and the P5 have blocked any reform initiatives so far. (Policy Mic)

Five Lightweights’ Fight to Reform the Security Council (July 2,2012)

In the United Nations Security Council, the “Small Five” (Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland) are trying to stand up to the Big Five Permanent members. The Small Five have proposed to reform several of the Security Council’s working methods, the most high-profile of which is the restriction of the use of the veto. After a number of UN member countries opposed China and Russia’s use of the veto on Syria, the S5’s proposal seemed to gain momentum. However, the S5 eventually had to withdraw their proposal for procedural reasons engineered by the Big Five. (Pass Blue)

India Changes Tack to Secure UN Security Council Seat (June 25, 2012)

With only six months left of its two year membership on the Security Council, India is changing tactics. India continues to strive for permanent membership on the Security Council. In light of this, India has decided to join the L69 group (comprising 41 countries from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific) over its previous G4 agenda. New Delhi described the L69 as ‘friends of Security Council reform’ and has decided to support the L69 before the General Assembly in August.(SAFPI)

India's Bid Suffers Setback (March 16, 2012)

This article from Pakistan’s The Nation reviews India’s hopes and tactics in achieving Security Council reform. Along with the rest of the G4 (India, Brazil, Germany and Japan), India has been attempting to secure itself a place as a permanent member of the 15-member Security Council, and has claimed wide support for its efforts. However, these supporters are yet to make themselves known. The Security Council reform debate covers five key issues - the category of membership, the question of veto, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council, and the Council’s working methods and its relationship with the General Assembly. (The Nation)

G-4 Nations put Joint Bid for Security Council Expansion (January 26, 2012)

India, Japan, Brazil and Germany--- known as the ‘Group of Four’ has put in a joint bid to the United Nations General Assembly, proposing that the Security Council be expanded for both permanent and non-permanent members, as well as a permanent African Seat. Security Council reform continues to be a divisive topic of discussion at the United Nations, and the new bid will reignite the debate in the coming weeks. The motion steers clear of the more controversial areas of the UN reform debate – namely the use of the veto – but is likely to garner severe criticism from the “United for Consensus” group (lead by Italy, Argentina, Colombia, Canada and Pakistan) who wish to block any new permanent member seats. (Times of India)

2011Security Council Reform: Past, Present and Future (December 15, 2011)

Shashi Tharoor, former UN Under Secretary General for Public Information, discusses the membership of the Security Council and why it is outdated, inequitable, and unrepresentative. He describes the political tension of expanding the number of permanent members and adding representation from countries of the developing world, steps aimed at righting the current North-South imbalance. There also appears to be wide support across the full UN membership for abolition of the veto. Ultimately, emerging states (like India and Brazil) could strengthen international institutions, or they could lose interest in a body they see as increasingly illegitimate, with far-reaching implications for the future of global cooperation. (Carnegie Council)

Update on Security Council Reform (April 5, 2011)

This article gives an update on the current state of Security Council Reform discussions in the General Assembly, including summaries of the discussions from October 2010 to March 2011. (Center for UN Reform Education)

Countries Ask for ‘Tangible’ Reform of UN Security Council (February 12, 2011)

The G4 has renewed efforts towards more “tangible” Security Council reforms as three of the four are currently serving as elected members. Statements made by the G4 indicate that there may be movement this year in Council reform. (MSN News)

2010

Security Council Reform and the G-20 (November 9, 2010)

US backing India for permanent membership on the Security Council just before the G-20 summit was part of US efforts to display its willingness to challenge the status quo in the international system. This article argues that the G-20 is a more representative body that includes the largest economies in the world. As such, the G-20 could serve as a guideline for Council reform that would have greater parity and efficiency. (Center for Strategic and International Studies)

The Reform of the UN Security Council (July 2010)

This report from Istituto Affari Internazionali discusses the current proposals for Security Council Reform.  While there is a general consensus that the Council must be reformed to reflect the current world order, there is no agreement on the scope of reform and how best to implement it. The report looks at the role that regional organizations play and presents arguments for regional representation as a possible means of reforming the Council. (Istituto Affari Internazionali)

Restarting Negotiations of the Reform of the Security Council (May 2010)

Despite agreement that Security Council reform must take place, there is limited convergence on how the main issues should be addressed. This report discusses the possibility of partial reforms as an intermediary step towards larger Council reform. (Istituto Affari Internazionali)

"The United Nations is Beyond Reform... It has to be Reinvented" - Fmr. GA President Miguel d'Escoto (April 26, 2010)

Former General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto was one of the distinguished participants at the recent climate conference in Cochabamba. In his interview with Democracy Now, d'Escoto criticized the United States' "hegemonic" role in the United Nations, and further suggested that veto power is open to inappropriate use by permanent members of the Security Council. Such abuse could undermine democracy within the UN.  (Democracy Now)

UN Security Council Reform: a Gordian Knot? (April 2010)

Efforts to reform the UN Security Council have been in the pipeline for decades. However, the efforts have been scuppered by disagreements, regional rivalries and institutional obstacles, which in turn have delegitimized the UNSC reform process. The article argues that the SC reform debate must be reinvigorated and all sides need to demonstrate compromise, without watering down the reform goals. The article highlights reasons for SC reform, competing models for reform, controversial reform issues, structural obstacles to SC reform and Switzerland's role in SC reform.  (CSS Analysis)

Integrity Too High a Price for Security Council Role  (February 3, 2010)

Australia questions whether a non-permanent seat on the Security Council in 2013-14 is really worth the effort, expense and moral compromise. The Arab League informed Australia that it would block Canberra's attempts to gain a non-permanent seat because of its pro-Israel stance. Further, Australia is unsure about the purpose of the UN at all: ex-ambassador to the UN, John Dauth, called it "defunct" and "rotten."  (The Australian)

Increased Security (January 20, 2010)

Many who actively advocate for expansion of the UN Security Council's membership argue that an increase in the number of members will remedy the democratic and representative deficit from which the Council suffers. In October 2010, Canada will once again stand for election to a two-year term as non-permanent member of the Security Council. This article represents the Canadian viewpoint as it explores the need for the nation's increased role in the Council. (The Canadvocate)

Pros and Cons of  Security Council Reform (January 19, 2010)

In the heated environment that accompanies Security Council reform debates, opinions and national interests are often presented as altruistic aspirations. As a result, it can be difficult to obtain unbiased information about the pros and cons of various reform proposals that are untainted by national sentiment. The author outlines and explores the advantages and disadvantages of "five key cluster reform areas." It explores two main arguments - one that considers reform an indispensable part of a "just solution," and the other that argues it would only weaken the Council's ability to carry out its duties without solving the problems of equitable representation. (Center for UN Reform)

UN Reform Process Mired by Lack of Consensus (January 5, 2010)

In a recent statement, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called for "a strengthened United Nations" which is "effective, efficient, coherent and accountable." This article suggests that the challenge lies in defining what shape UN reforms should take, and what a reformed UN should achieve. It also briefly considers issues concerning reform of the Security Council. (Deutsche Welle)

Bosom Buddies? Ban and Obama's Curious Relations (2010)

President Obama's election pledge for a close US-UN partnership has failed to materialize. Following tokenistic, initial engagement with the international organization, Obama now rarely talks, let alone acts with the UN. The US has sidelined the UN on Pakistan, Afghanistan, global warming, terrorism, Iran and North Korea (except for sanctions). Sources within the Obama-administration argue that US-disenchantment with the UN stems from Ban Ki-Moon's weak and ineffectual leadership. However, this does not tell the whole story.  (World Policy Institute)

2009D'Escoto: "The UN Has Failed" (October 2009)

In this video interview, Miguel d'Escoto speaks out on the obstacles he has encountered during his term as General Assembly President. D'Escoto held the democratization of the UN as a key pillar of his Presidency, but ran up against the limits of the General Assembly's power. According to d'Escoto, the UN is failing to effectively address the two objectives for which it was created - the prevention of war and the eradication of poverty - because of the most powerful states' disproportionate influence over the organization. (The Real News Network)

European Nations Highlight the Need for Security Council Reform (September 24, 2009)

During the UN General Assembly debate, several European leaders have expressed an urgent need for a Security Council reform. According to some, reform is urgent because further delay in will undermine the Council's credibility. In addition, the structure of the UN needs improvement for more effective and successful peacekeeping operations. (UN News)

UN Reform: Don't Hold Your Breath (August 26, 2009)

According to Ian Williams, member states of the UN have presented many suggestions for a reform of the Security Council. However, other states reject the proposals to protect their own power in the UN. Williams believes that reaching an agreement on a reform of the Security Council is not likely in the near future. He urges citizens of the permanent members to put pressure on their governments to agree to democratic reform. (Foreign Policy in Focus)

Iran urges reform of UN Security Council (July 14, 2009)

Iran has urged reform of the UN Security Council at a recent meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement stating that the current structure of the Council poses a "challenge" to global peace. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated that sanctions imposed by the Council, in dealing with issues that are "not necessarily a threat to global peace and security," are often inappropriate and have violated human rights. He complained that various Council reform proposals, especially those submitted by the NAM, are weakened by differences within the movement and lack of a strong common position.(PressTV)

Official Statement from China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States (April 4, 2009)

The P-5 members of the Security Council have resisted Council reform, but are making open statements to argue that they must be included in the reform process. As the commentary on this statement shows, the P-5 feel largely ignored as they’re not consulted directly but must respond to proposals in the media. Ironically, it is a reversal of the Security Council where the P-5 is at the center and the rest of the United Nations is waiting for them to release statements (Wordpress)

2008Security Council Reform - An Overview of Member States' Positions (December 8, 2008)

This chart by the Center for UN Reform Education outlines the positions of various UN member states on issues relating to Council reform, including regional seats, veto reform, and preferences for timing of intergovernmental negotiations.

UN Security Council Reform: Unrealistic Proposals and Viable Reform Options (November 25, 2008)

The Security Council does not adequately represent the world's population and its decision making process is slow and not transparent. Abolishing the veto of the five permanent members is not realistic, since all P5 members must agree with this change. The author argues that countries must exert pressure to restrict use of the veto, by requiring the P5 to justify invoking it, especially in cases that are not in their vital interest. (American Diplomacy)

Security Council Reform - the 62nd GA Session and the Road Ahead (November 11, 2008)

In 1993, UN members including Japan and Germany helped to establish a General Assembly Working Group on Security Council reform, but members of this Working Group cannot agree on various issues such as expansion of the permanent members. In February 2009, further negotiations will take place, but as in the past, the divergent interests of UN members are likely to stand in the way of any reform agreement.(Center for UN Reform Education)

UN Security Council Reform: Unrealistic Proposals and Viable Reform Options (November 11, 2008)

This article argues that discussions on Security Council reform have not been focusing on issues that would actually make the Council more efficient and representative because countries are working to increase their own power. Looking at the Council’s working methods it proposes changes to some of the procedures, such as abolishing permanent membership, and institutionalizing the presidency. Working methods of the Council are as important as membership, but few proposals have included substantial changes to make the Council more inclusive and transparent. (American Diplomacy)

A Look at the Transitional Approach to Security Council Reform (June 24, 2008)

The transitional approach to Security Council reform means that UN members would agree on basic reforms and adapt these agreements later on at a conference. Countries have not been able to decide on the timeframe for a review conference or on the proposals for the transitional reform approach because New Zealand, Germany and others fear that the initial basic reforms would become permanent. (Center for UN Reform Education)

Between Enlargement and Reform - The UN Security Council: Choices for Change (May 2008)

This article focuses on two different debates of Security Council (SC) reform. The quantitative theory wants equal representation of different regions in the SC. The qualitative theory, however, believes that countries who contribute the most to maintaining international peace and security should be permanent members of the SC. The author supports the quantitative theory because it promotes greater regional involvement instead of the interests of a single country. (Dag Hammarskjold Foundation)

Reform of the Security Council (April 2008)

This Center for UN Reform Education article reviews Security Council reform proposals from 1991-2008. The article notes that UN member states such as Italy and Pakistan cite the need for consensus to stall the reform process, and prevent regional rivals from gaining seats at the Council. Furthermore, previous efforts to increase the openness of the Council have backfired, as permanent members move the decision-making process to informal closed meeting rooms adjacent to the Security Council chambers.

2007Security Council Accused of Overstepping Bounds (April 12, 2007)

Veering from its traditional agenda of preserving international peace and security, the UN Security Council plans to hold a meeting to discuss the issue of climate change. The Group of 77 and the Non-Aligned Movement have denounced this decision as evidence of the SC's "ever-increasing encroachment" on the mandates of the UN's other main bodies. Citing the UN Charter, they argue that the Council should only "come into action when there are actual threats to peace or breaches of the peace." (Inter Press Service)

Security Council Reform: a Transitional Approach (December 3, 2007)

Member states have agreed that the UN Security Council must become more representative, efficient and transparent to be seen as more legitimate, yet a number disagree on how this reform should occur. Among various proposals from countries, the GA appointed facilitators to conduct consultations about the Council's reform. The facilitators main point consists of adding a mandatory review clause, which demands that after a couple of years, the Council has to review its reform. (UN Chronicle)

Cuba Opposes Greater Power to UN Security Council (November 13, 2007)

During a UN General Assembly (GA) meeting on Security Council Reform, Cuba called for a more democratic, representative, responsible and effective Council. Cuba's Ambassador Rodrigo Malmiera argues that the Council suffers from a lack of representation from developing countries. The Council does not represent the world's contemporary realities, raising questions about its legitimacy representative and procedures. Malmiera called for greater involvement of non-permanent members in the Council's agenda, as well as membership reform. He also expressed apprehension about the Council's jurisdiction and working methods, such as the selection of Council agenda items. (Prensa Latina)

UN Reform, Including SC Expansion Not End in Itself - Russia Envoy (November 13, 2007)

Russia, one of the five permanent members with veto power, declared at a General Assembly meeting that Security Council reform discussions should preserve the "foundations" of the United Nations. According to Vitaly Churkin, Russia's UN Representative, the Council should only expand if it can also become more effective. Even though Churkin expressed a willingness to work with non-Council members, in order to continue further peacekeeping improvements, his speech did not seem to favor the Council's enlargement. (Itar-Tass)

General Assembly Launches New Effort to Tackle Divisive Issue of Security Council Reform (April 20, 2007)

The UN General Assembly issued a report on Security Council reform, proposing that UN member states consider a temporary expansion of Security Council membership. All previous attempts at reform have failed for lack of agreement on size and composition of an expanded Council, due to national and regional rivalries. The report says that reform should increase opportunities for countries to serve as members on the Council and should increase involvement with the Council's work whilst not serving. (Associated Press)

2006UN Security Council Edicts Challenged (October 26, 2006)

This Inter Press Service article analyzes permanent member's domination and influence at the UN Security Council. The author denounces action driven by national interests and the "double standards" of the Council's resolutions, which allow some countries to possess nuclear weapons whilst forbidding others. Citing the endorsement of the Iraq occupation by the 15 members of the Security Council, the author comments on the UN inability to prevent powerful nations, such as the US, to dictate their will. The article concludes that the disregard for international law and double standards call into question the legitimacy of the top UN body.

2005Security Council Reform Debate Ends Without Agreement (November 12, 2005)

Disputes over permanent membership once again blocked UN member states from reaching consensus on Security Council reform. While the five permanent members consider the debate closed, ambassadors from countries seeking permanent seats said they might bring the issue to a vote in the General Assembly. (Voice of America)

Like Fixing the Weather, Council Reform Eludes UN (September 19, 2005)

According to David Malone, a former Canadian UN ambassador, Security Council reform failed at the UN summit because "most countries adopted a fairly self-interested position on the subject." French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said that he hoped that the African countries and the G-4 could reach an agreement by the end of the year. But asked if Council reform was dead in the foreseeable future, Pakistan's UN Ambassador Munir Akram said: "It's on life support." (Reuters)

Annan Acknowledges Delays in UN Council Reform (August 11, 2005)

Acknowledging the deadlock over Security Council expansion, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has extended the target deadline from September to December 2005 for member states to reach an agreement. Annan says he would like to see a provision in the summit's outcome document committing states to decide on Security Council reform by the end of the year. (Reuters)

Japan Ups Aid by $10bn (July 8, 2005)

At the Group of Eight summit in Gleneagles, Japan announced that it would sizably increase its foreign aid budget by $10 billion over a five year period. Japan's current official development assistance rate lies at 0.19% of gross national income, way below the UN's 0.7% target. The decision to increase aid is likely a move to "make the country's presence felt as it seeks to win a permanent seat on the UN Security Council," says Finance24.

 

Areas of WorkCorporate InfluenceGlobal Policy WatchGlobalizationSocial and Economic PolicyNGOsUN FinanceInternational JusticeUN Reform

Special TopicsWorld Food & HungerThe Dark Side of Natural ResourcesGlobal TaxesHumanitarian Intervention?Private Military and Security CompaniesTables and Charts

Archived SectionsIraq ConflictEmpireNGO Working Group on UN-NGO RelationsSecurity CouncilNations & States

Working GroupsNGO Working Group on the Security Council

More from GPF

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ß 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyrigh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThis article is incomplete. Please help to improve the section, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (September 2012)The United Nations Security Council.

Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue.[1]

The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states, and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC enjoying the veto right.[2]

Contents1 History2 General Assembly Task Force3 Increasing membership3.1 2005 Annan plan3.2 Uniting for Consensus4 New permanent member proposals4.1 Brazil4.2 Germany4.3 India4.4 Japan4.5 Membership of a Muslim-majority nation4.6 Africa5 Veto reform6 Overall positions on reforming the Security Council6.1 United States6.2 United Kingdom and France6.3 Russia6.4 India6.5 Brazil6.6 South Africa6.7 Portugal7 References8 Further reading9 External linksHistory

Even though the geopolitical realities have changed drastically since 1945, when the set-up of the current Council was decided, the Security Council has changed very little during this long period. The winners of Second World War shaped the Charter of the United Nations in their national interests, dividing the veto-power pertinent to the permanent seats amongst themselves.[3] With the enlargement of the United Nations membership and increasing self-confidence among the new members, going hand in hand with processes of decolonization, old structures and procedures were increasingly challenged. The imbalance between the number of seats in the Security Council and the total number of member States became evident and the only significant reform of the Security Council came to pass in 1965 after the ratification of two-thirds of the membership, including the five permanent members of the Security Council (that have a veto right on Charter changes).[4] The reform included an increase of the non-permanent membership from six to 10 members.[5] With Boutros Boutros-Ghali elected as Secretary-General in 1992, the reform discussions of the UN Security Council were launched again as he started his new term with the first-ever summit of the Security Council and thereafter published "An Agenda for Peace". His motivation was to restructure the composition and anachronistic procedures of the UN organ recognizing the changed world.[5]

By 1992, Japan and Germany had become the second and third largest financial contributors to the United Nations and started to demand a permanent seat. Also Brazil (fifth largest country in terms of territory) and India (second largest country in terms of population) as the most powerful countries within their regional groups and key players within their regions saw themselves with a permanent seat. This group of four countries formed an interest group later known as the G4.

On the other hand their regional rivals were opposed to the G4 becoming permanent members with a veto power. They favored the expansion of the non-permanent category of seats with members to be elected on a regional basis. Italy, Pakistan, Mexico and Egypt started to form an interest group, known as the "Coffee Club" and later "Uniting for Consensus".

Simultaneously, the African Group started to demand two permanent seats for themselves, on the basis of historical injustices and the fact that a large part of the Council’s agenda is concentrated on the continent. Those two seats would be permanent African seats, that rotate between African countries chosen by the African group.[6]

The existing permanent members, each holding the right of veto on Security Council reform, announced their positions reluctantly. The United States supported the permanent membership of Japan and India and a small number of additional non-permanent members. The United Kingdom and France essentially supported the G4 position, with the expansion of permanent and non-permanent members and the accession of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan to permanent member status, as well as an increase the presence by African countries on the Council. China supported the stronger representation of developing countries, voicing support for the Republic of India.[7] Russia, India's long time friend and ally has also endorsed the fast-growing power's candidature to assume a seat of a permanent member on the Security Council.[8]

General Assembly Task Force

The General Assembly Task Force on Security Council Reform[9] has delivered a Report (on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council) recommending a compromise solution for entering intergovernmental negotiations on reform.[10]

The report builds on existing transitional/intermediary approaches to suggest a "timeline perspective". The "timeline perspective" suggests that Member States begin by identifying the negotiables to be included in short-term intergovernmental negotiations. Crucial to the "timeline perspective" is the scheduling of a mandatory review conference—a forum for discussing changes to any reforms achieved in the near-term, and for revisiting negotiables that cannot be agreed upon now.[11]

Increasing membership2005 Annan plan

On 21 March 2005, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the UN to reach a consensus on expanding the council to 24 members, in a plan referred to as "In Larger Freedom". He gave two alternatives for implementation, but did not specify which proposal he preferred.[12]

The two options mentioned by Annan are referred to as Plan A and Plan B:

Plan A calls for creating six new permanent members, plus three new nonpermanent members for a total of 24[13] seats in the council.Plan B calls for creating eight new seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four years, subject to renewal, plus one nonpermanent seat, also for a total of 24.

In any case, Annan favored making the decision quickly, stating, "This important issue has been discussed for too long. I believe member states should agree to take a decision on it—preferably by consensus, but in any case before the summit—making use of one or other of the options presented in the report of the High-Level Panel".[14]

The summit mentioned by Annan is the September 2005 Millennium+5 Summit, a high level plenary meeting that reviewed Annan's report, the implementation of the 2000 Millennium Declaration, and other UN reform-related issues.[15]

Uniting for ConsensusMain article: Uniting for Consensus

On 26 July 2005, five UN member countries, Italy, Argentina, Canada, Colombia and Pakistan, representing a larger group of countries called Uniting for Consensus, proposed to the General Assembly another project[16] that maintains five permanent members and raises the number of non-permanent members to 20. On 11 April 2005 China "embraced"[clarification needed] this initiative.[17]

On May 2011, 120 UN members states participated in a Uniting for Consensus meeting in Rome.[18][19]

New permanent member proposals“The U.N. Security Council reform, being debated since two decades is too long overdue and the necessary expansion must be made considering how much the world has changed.”

—Ban Ki-Moon[20]

The G4 nations: Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. The G4 support one anothers' bids for permanent membership, though they are strongly opposed by certain regional rivals.[21]

One proposed change is to admit more permanent members. The candidates usually mentioned are Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. They comprise the group of G4 nations, mutually supporting one another's bids for permanent seats. The United Kingdom, France and Russia support G4 membership in the U.N. Security Council.[22] This sort of reform has traditionally been opposed by the Uniting for Consensus group, which is composed primarily of nations who are regional rivals and economic competitors of the G4. The group is led by Italy and Spain (opposing Germany), Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina (opposing Brazil), Pakistan (opposing India), and South Korea (opposing Japan), in addition to Turkey, Indonesia and others. Since 1992, Italy and other members of the group have instead proposed semi-permanent seats or the expansion of the number of temporary seats.[23]

Most of the leading candidates for permanent membership are regularly elected onto the Security Council by their respective groups: Japan and Brazil were elected for nine two-year terms each, and Germany for three terms. India has been elected to the council seven times in total, with the most recent successful bid being in 2010 after a gap of almost twenty years since 1991–92.

As of 2013, the current "P5" members of the Security Council, along with the G4, account for eight of the world's ten largest defense budgets, according to SIPRI. They also account for 9 of the 10 largest economies by both nominal GDP and Purchasing Power Parity GDP.

BrazilBrazil's first indigenously built oil platform, operated by petroleum giant Petrobras, one of the world's largest corporations by revenue and market cap.Main article: Brazil and the United Nations

 Brazil is the largest country in Latin America in terms of population, GDP and land area. It has the fifth largest population, seventh largest GDP, eleventh largest defence budget, and has the fifth largest land area. It is one of only five countries that ranks among the top ten globally in terms of physical size, population, and GDP – the others being the United States, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and India all permanent members of the UNSC except for India, which is in G4. Furthermore, with Africa and Oceania, South America is one of three inhabited continents without permanent representation on the Security Council.

Brazil has been elected ten times to the Security Council. It has contributed troops to UN peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East, the former Belgian Congo, Cyprus, Mozambique, Angola, and more recently East Timor and Haiti.[24] Brazil is one of the main contributors to the UN regular budget.[25] Prior to the UN's founding in 1946, Franklin D. Roosevelt lobbied for Brazil to be included on the Security Council, but the UK and the Soviet Union refused.[26]

The United States sent strong indications to Brazil that it was willing to support its membership; albeit, without a veto.[27] In June 2011, the Council on Foreign Relations recommended that the US government fully endorse the inclusion of Brazil as a permanent member of the Security Council.[28] Brazil has received backing from other permanent members: Russia,[29] the United Kingdom[30] and France,[31] and from the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP),[32] Chile,[33] Indonesia, Finland,[34] Slovenia,[35] Australia,[36] South Africa,[37] Guatemala,[38] Vietnam[39] and the Philippines,[40] as well as from the other G4 nations, who mutually support each other.[41]

Quick Comparison of G4 and P5 MembersPopulationGDP1UN funding2Defense
budget1Active
militaryNuclear
arsenal BrazilG4203,750,000 (5th)$2,243 (7th)2.934% (10th)$34.7 (10th)318,480 (14th) NO GermanyG480,783,000 (16th)$3,730 (4th)7.141% (3rd)$44.2 (8th)182,620 (28th) NO3 IndiaG41,265,570,000 (2nd)$1,937 (10th)0.666% (27th)$36.3 (9th)1,325,000 (3rd) YES JapanG4127,070,000 (10th)$4,898 (3rd)10.833% (2nd)$51.0 (7th)247,764 (21st) NO ChinaP51,367,730,000 (1st)$9,181 (2nd)5.148% (6th)$122.2 (2nd)2,285,000 (1st) YES FranceP566,100,000 (20th)$2,806 (5th)5.593% (4th)$52.4 (6th)215,019 (24th) YES RussiaP5146,300,000 (9th)$2,096 (9th)2.438% (11th)$68.2 (3rd)766,000 (5th) YES UKP564,105,654 (22nd)$2,678 (6th)5.179% (5th)$57.0 (5th)191,410 (27th) YES USP5320,213,000 (3rd)$16,768 (1st)22.00% (1st)$600.4 (1st)1,369,532 (2nd) YES1US$ billions 2Percent contributed to total UN budget 3Takes part in NATO nuclear weapons sharing agreement

The greatest impediments to its candidacy are the regional oppositions of both Mexico and Argentina, two important countries in Latin America.[42]

GermanyMain article: Germany and the United Nations

 Germany is the third largest contributor to the U.N. regular budgets next to Japan, and as such, argues for a permanent Security Council seat. Germany has been elected to the Security Council as a non-permanent member three times as a unified state, as well as three times when it was divided (twice for the West, once for the East).

The Frankfurt Stock Exchange, operated by Deutsche Börse, is among the world's largest exchanges.

France has explicitly called for a permanent seat in the UN for its close EU partner: "Germany's engagement, its ranking as a great power, its international influence—France would like to see them recognised with a permanent seat on the Security Council", French president Jacques Chirac said in a speech in Berlin in 2000.[43] The former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, also identified Russia, among other countries, as a country that backed Germany's bid.[22] Former President Fidel V. Ramos of the Philippines also expressed his country's support for Germany's bid, together with Japan's.[44] Italy and Netherlands on the contrary, suggest a common European Union (E.U.) seat in the Council instead of Germany becoming the third European member next to France and the UK. The former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said that Germany would also accept a common European seat, but as long as there is little sign that France and the UK will give up their own seats, Germany should also have a seat.[22]

The German campaign for a permanent seat was intensified in 2004. Schröder made himself perfectly clear in August 2004: "Germany has the right to a seat."[45] Its bid is supported by Japan, India, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and Russia, among other countries. Current German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had initially been quiet on the issue, re-stated Germany's bid in her address to the UN General Assembly in September 2007. In July 2011, Merkel's trip to Kenya, Angola, and Nigeria was thought to be motivated, in part, by the goal of seeking support from African countries for Germany's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council.[46]

IndiaMain article: India and the United Nations

 India which joined the U.N. in 1945 is the second largest and one of the largest constant contributors of troops to United Nations Peacekeeping missions.[47] Foreign Policy magazine states that, "India's international identity has long been shaped by its role in U.N. peacekeeping, with more than 100,000 Indian troops having served in U.N. missions during the past 50 years. Today, India has over 8,500 peacekeepers in the field, more than twice as many as the U.N.'s five big powers combined."[48] In supporting India's bid for a permanent seat on an enlarged Security Council last November, US President Barack Obama cited "India's long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping mission".[48] India has been elected seven times to the UN Security Council. Most recently India was elected to serve in UNSC from 2011 to 2012 as it had received 188 of the 190 total votes.[49][50]

The country currently has the world's second largest population and is the world's largest liberal democracy. It is also the world's tenth largest economy by nominal GDP and third largest by purchasing power parity. Currently, India maintains the world's third largest active armed force and is a nuclear weapon state. India and Japan are only two states among G4 that have an independent capability to place satellites in orbit, including production of the necessary launch vehicle.[51] The International Herald Tribune has stated: "Clearly, a seat for India would make the body more representative and democratic. With India as a member, the Council would be a more legitimate and thus a more effective body..." Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, said: "Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council could be chosen ... with a vote by the fans ... Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That’s more like it. India is the world’s biggest democracy, the world's largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation."[52]

India's bid for permanent member of UNSC is backed by permanent members namely France,[53] Russia,[54] the United Kingdom[55] and United States,[56] although the United States initially opposed India's candidacy on grounds of nuclear proliferation, as India has acquired nuclear weapons and not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[57] On 15 April 2011, China officially expressed its support for an increased Indian role at the United Nations, without explicitly endorsing India's Security Council ambitions.[58][59] However, recently China has expressed its support for Indian candidacy as a permanent member of the Security Council if India revoked its support for Japanese candidacy,[60] thus making India the only candidate that has received support from all permanent members and most other nations as well. Countries that explicitly and openly support India for UNSC permanent seat are – Armenia,[61] Australia,[62] Bahamas,[63] Bangladesh,[64] Belarus,[65] Belgium,[66] Belize,[67] Benin,[68] Bolivia,[69] Brunei,[70] Bulgaria,[citation needed] Cambodia,[71]Chile,[72] Croatia,[73] Cuba,[74] Cyprus,[75] Czech Republic,[76] Denmark,[77] Dominican Republic,[78] Ethiopia,[79] Finland,[80] Ghana,[81] Guyana,[82] Hungary,[83] Iceland,[84] Israel,[85] Jamaica,[86] Laos,[87] Lesotho[88] Liberia,[89]Libya (under the Gaddafi government),[81] Kazakhstan,[90] Kyrgyzstan,[91] Malawi,[92] Malaysia,[93] Maldives,[94] Micronesia,[95] Mongolia,[96] Morocco,[81] Myanmar,[97] Nigeria,[98] Norway,[99] Oman,[citation needed] Palau,[95] Peru,[100] Poland,[101] Portugal,[102] Romania,[citation needed] Rwanda,[103] Qatar,[104] Senegal,[105] Singapore,[106]Slovakia,[107] Suriname,[108] Swaziland,[109] Syria,[110][broken citation] Tajikistan,[111] Tanzania,[112] Trinidad and Tobago,[113] Tuvalu,[114] Ukraine,[115] the United Arab Emirates,[116] Uzbekistan,[117] Vietnam,[118] and Zambia.[119]

The African Union also supports India's candidacy for permanent member of UNSC.[120]

India is the only country with support vote of every member of United Nations except Pakistan which officially opposes this move.

Pakistan is the only nation which specifically opposes India's candidacy.[121]

JapanMain article: Japan and the United Nations

 Japan, which joined the UN in 1956, is the second largest contributor to the UN's regular budget.[122] Its payments had surpassed the sum of those of the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia combined for nearly two decades before 2010. Japan has been one of the largest Official Development Assistance donor countries. Thus, Japan, along with India, are considered the most likely candidates for two of the new permanent seats. China has stated that it was ready to support India's move for a permanent seat on the UNSC if India did not associate its bid with Japan.[123] This may be contrary to the Indian stand since Japan and India are both members of the G4 and support each other's candidature. Japan has been elected to the Security Council for ten terms as a non-permanent member.

Tokyo is the world's largest city and its most productive, accounting for roughly a fifth of Japan's output.

While U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, speaking at Sophia University in Tokyo, said, "Japan has earned its honorable place among the nations of the world by its own effort and its own character. That's why the United States unambiguously supports a permanent seat for Japan on the United Nations Security Council."[124] Her predecessor, Colin Powell, had objected to Japanese permanent membership because Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan forbids the country from going to war unless in self-defense.[125]

This section's representation of one or more viewpoints about a controversial issue may be unbalanced or inaccurate.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (October 2013)

Some other Asian nations have expressed support for Japan's application, including Mongolia, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, the Philippines,[126] and Vietnam[22]—all major recipients of loan and/or foreign investment from Japan. The other G4 countries, Germany, Brazil, and India, who are also bidding for Security Council seats, along with France and the United Kingdom, also back Japan's bid.[22] 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 since Japan agreed to increase financial aid to the region, even though some of these countries are very concerned with Japanese whaling in the region.[127]

For instance, Katsuyuki Kawai, then secretary for foreign affairs, member of the Japanese parliament, and special envoy to Nepal, was sent to Kathmandu to lobby for the Nepalese government's support for Japanese membership in the UNSC. Kawai met with King Gyanendra and told the press, "If Japan loses its bid this time, Japanese people will think the support Japan has been providing to the world for the last 60 years has been futile." Japan donates significantly to Nepal.[128]

Membership of a Muslim-majority nation

Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the partitions of the Middle East by the victors of the First World War, the predominantly Muslim Middle East has been an area of persistent international conflict, and the periodic flare-ups in the region have been the subject of many UN Security Council debates and resolutions. Therefore, the prospect of introducing a permanent Islamic member to the security council is highly sensitive, especially if such a member were to be granted the power of veto. Outside the Muslim world, commentators have raised concerns that a veto-wielding Islamic member could use it to restrict the UN's ability to act forcefully in the Middle East or on the boundaries of the Islamic world, rendering the UN impotent in those regions.

At the same time, the draft G4 reform proposals may leave over 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide (which is not limited only in the Middle East, and includes areas from West Africa to Southeast Asia) without any permanent representation on the UN security council. This is a highly controversial issue within the Islamic world and might adversely impact the UN's credibility in portions of the Middle East and in the Islamic world. In June 2005, the foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) called for a permanent Muslim seat on the UN Security Council.[129]

Recent resistance to the reform draft proposals emanating from the G4 states can be attributed in part to this highly sensitive issue. The US and several Western states[which?] have objected to any proposal that gives new members any veto powers,[22] and, within the African Union, Egypt has led resistance to a proposal by Nigeria to adopt a version of the G4 proposals that removes the right of veto for new members,[22] and may enable the creation of a reformed council that does not have any permanent members with a predominantly Muslim identity.

Another reason given in opposition to the inclusion of an Islamic nation is the religious aspect to which it is linked.[22] Other religious nations might also request to be provided with permanent membership in the name of religion, nations with large populations of Buddhists.[22]

Africa

It has also been suggested that an African nation be given a seat on the Security Council, with Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa the most likely contenders.[130]

Currently, no country in Africa has a permanent seat on the Security Council. Although no one nation from Africa has formally been put forward as a candidate for membership on the Security Council, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia,[131] South Africa, and Nigeria are seen as the strongest choices. Algeria has gained a great deal of respect for its neutrality over the years and its great commitment to African development; Egypt has the biggest military on the continent, was one of the founding members of the United Nations and enjoys great influence in Africa and in the Arab world; Ethiopia was also one of the founding members of the United Nations and holds the seat of the African Union Commission; South Africa has the second largest economy on the continent; and Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and consistently contributes large numbers of troops to UN peacekeeping operations.[citation needed]

Veto reformMain article: United Nations Security Council veto power

The UNSC "power of veto" is frequently cited as a major problem within the UN. By wielding their veto power (established by Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter), any of the UNSC's five permanent members can prevent the adoption of any (non-"procedural") UNSC draft resolution not to their liking. Even the mere threat of a veto may lead to changes in the text of a resolution, or it being withheld altogether (the so-called "pocket veto"). As a result, the power of veto often prevents the Council from acting to address pressing international issues and affords the "P5" great influence within the UN institution as a whole.

For example, the Security Council passed no resolutions on most major Cold War conflicts, including the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Resolutions addressing more current problems, such as the conflict between Israel and Palestine and Iran's suspected development of nuclear weapons, are also heavily influenced by the veto, actual or threatened.[citation needed] Additionally, the veto applies to the selection of the UN's Secretary-General, as well as any amendments to the UN Charter, giving the P5 great influence over these processes.

Discussions on improving the UN's effectiveness and responsiveness to international security threats often include reform of the UNSC veto. Proposals include: limiting the use of the veto to vital national security issues; requiring agreement from multiple states before exercising the veto; and abolishing the veto entirely. However, any reform of the veto will be very difficult. Articles 108 and 109 of the United Nations Charter grant the P5 veto over any amendments to the Charter, requiring them to approve of any modifications to the UNSC veto power that they themselves hold.

Overall positions on reforming the Security CouncilUnited States

According to a formal statement by the U.S. Department of State:

The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform. We advocate a criteria-based approach under which potential members must be supremely well qualified, based on factors such as: economic size, population, military capacity, commitment to democracy and human rights, financial contributions to the UN, contributions to UN peacekeeping, and record on counterterrorism and nonproliferation. We have to look, of course, at the overall geographic balance of the Council, but effectiveness remains the benchmark for any reform.

— Bureau of Public Affairs, 20 June 2005[57]

According to a formal statement by President of the United States Barack Obama in an address to a Joint Session of the Parliament of India:

We salute India’s long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions. And we welcome India as it prepares to take its seat on the United Nations Security Council. As two global leaders, the United States and India can partner for global security—especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years. Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member. The United Nations exists to fulfill its founding ideals of preserving peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. These are the responsibilities of all nations, but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century. And so we look forward to working with India—and other nations that aspire to Security Council membership—to ensure that the Security Council is effective; that resolutions are implemented, that sanctions are enforced; that we strengthen the international norms which recognize the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all individuals.

— Barack Obama, 9 November 2010[132]

United Kingdom and France

The United Kingdom and France hold similar views on reform to the United Nations Security Council. According to a formal statement made by 10 Downing Street:

Reform of the UNSC, both its enlargement and the improvement of its working methods, must therefore succeed. We reaffirm the support of our two countries for the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan for permanent membership, as well as for permanent representation for Africa on the Council. We regret that negotiations towards this goal remain in deadlock and are therefore ready to consider an intermediate solution. This could include a new category of seats, with a longer term than those of the current elected members and those terms would be renewable; at the end of an initial phase, it could be decided to turn these new types of seats into permanent ones. We will work with all our partners to define the parameters of such a reform. UNSC reform requires a political commitment from the member states at the highest level. We will work in this direction in the coming months with a view to achieving effective reform.

— Part of a joint UK-France Summit Declaration—27 March 2008[133]

Russia

As stated by then President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev at the General Debate of the 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly:[134]

The UN must rationally adapt itself to new world realities. It should also strengthen its influence and preserve its multinational nature and integrity of the UN Charter provisions. The reform of the UN Security Council is an essential component of its revitalization. The time has come to speed up the search for a compromise formula of its expansion and increased efficiency of its work.

— Dmitry Medvedev, 23 September 2009

India

As per the official website of India's Permanent Mission to UN:[135]

Activities of the Security Council have greatly expanded in the past few years. The success of Security Council's actions depends upon political support of the international community. Any package for restructuring of the Security Council should, therefore, be broad-based. In particular, adequate presence of developing countries is needed in the Security Council. Nations of the world must feel that their stakes in global peace and prosperity are factored into the UN's decision making. Any expansion of permanent members' category must be based on an agreed criteria, rather than be a pre-determined selection. There must be an inclusive approach based on transparent consultations. India supports expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members' category. The latter is the only avenue for the vast majority of Member States to serve on the Security Council. Reform and expansion must be an integral part of a common package.

— India's Permanent Mission to UN

According to a formal statement by then Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh at the General Debate of the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly:[136]

It is common knowledge that the United Nations is often unable to exert an effective influence on global economic and political issues of critical importance. This is due to its what may be called as "democracy deficit", which prevents effective multilateralism, a multilateralism that is based on a democratically-evolved global consensus. Therefore, reform and restructuring of the United Nations system can alone provide a crucial link in an expanding chain of efforts to refashion international structures, imbuing them with a greater degree of participatory decision-making, so as to make them more representative of contemporary realities. The expansion of the Security Council, in the category of both permanent and non-permanent members, and the inclusion of countries like India as permanent members, would be a first step in the process of making the United Nations a truly representative body.

— Dr. Manmohan Singh, 23 September 2004

Brazil

As stated by then President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at the General Debate of the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly:[137]

The United Nations has spent 15 years discussing the reform of its Security Council. Today’s structure has been frozen for six decades and does not relate to the challenges of today’s world. Its distorted form of representation stands between us and the multilateral world to which we aspire. Therefore I am much encouraged by the General Assembly’s decision to launch negotiations in the near future on the reform of the Security Council.

— Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, 23 September 2008

South Africa

According to a formal statement by South Africa's International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane speaking in the South African parliament in Cape Town:[138]

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) urgently requires reform to rectify inequitable power relations. We reiterate that the reform of the UNSC is urgent and would go a long way in rectifying inequitable power relations within the Security Council.

— Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, 1 June 2011

Portugal

As stated by former Prime Minister of Portugal José Sócrates :[139]

The 15-member Security Council must be enlarged so that it is more representative, transparent and efficient. In our view it is illogical that countries like Brazil or India that have today an irreplaceable economic and political role are still not permanent members of the Security Council. Africa also deserves consideration to take due account of the remarkable political and economic progresses that we have witnessed in that vast continent.

— José Sócrates, September 2010

References

UN Documents

2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2002

2011Small Five Tabled Resolution on Security Council Working Methods (April 2011)

The Small Five (S5) introduced a new resolution aimed at reforming Security Council working methods. It is an updated version of the draft resolution from 2005. (Permanenet Mission of Switzerland to the UN)

Letter from Ambassador Tanin including the Revised Text on Security Council Reform (February 23, 2011)

Ambassador Tanin presents the most up to date revisions on the working paper for Security Council reform. It includes the incorporated changes proposed by member-states up to the deadline of February 15, 2011. (Center for UN Reform Education)

2010Letter From the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (November 29, 2010)

This letter from Ambassador Tanin gives an update on the status of the text based negotiation on Security Council reform. (United Nations)

Letter from the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (May 26, 2010)

This letter from Ambassador Tanin gives an overview for the next round of negotiations on Council reform and provides the revised text based on member state input on the original text. (United Nations)

Letter and Text from the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (May 10, 2010)

The letter explains the included text, which was constructed based on input submitted by member states, and that the process of Council reform will continue based upon this text. (United Nations)

Letter from the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (March 11, 2010)

This letter from Ambassador Tanin states that he has received opinions from a large number of member states on Security Council reform and is willing to continue meeting with them while preparing the negotiating text. (United Nations)

Letter from the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (February 5, 2010)

This letter describes that the next step in the process is transparent text based negotiations. Included with the letter are the texts available on positions and proposals for Council reform. Ambassador Tanin also invites that all member states to submit proposals by writing to be used for the negotiation text. (United Nations)

Letter from the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (January 13, 2010)

Following the first round of talks in the intergovernmental negotiations, this letter summarizes the progress made and the intent of a second round of talks focusing on convergences. It also includes the letter signed by 138 member states to demonstrate their “active and constructive engagements with the process.” (Permanent Mission of Afghanistan to the United Nations)

2009
Letter From the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (November 16, 2009)

This letter from Afghan Ambassador Zahir Tanin explains that the fourth round of negotiations on Security Council reform will focus on positions and proposals “on the table” in December 2009. (Permanent Mission of Afghanistan to the United Nations)

Press Conference by General Assembly Facilitator on Security Council Reform (July 20, 2009)

A third round of negotiations on Security Council reform is scheduled to begin on August 27, 2009. Zahir Tanin, the ambassador of Afghanistan and facilitator of the negotiations, has presented an overview. He announced that there is a consensus among all states on continuing the process. Tanin said that he saw "a light at the end of tunnel" after the first two sessions, but "there is a long way to go." (United Nations)

Overview of the first round of Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform, presented by Ambassador Zahir Tanin of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (May 18, 2009)
2007Report of the Facilitators for Security Council Reform to the General Assembly (June 26, 2007)

In their report to the President of the General Assembly, the facilitators, Ambassadors Heraldo Muñoz of Chile and Christian Wenaweser of Liechtenstein, propose a temporary approach to expedite Security Council reform. This transition period should include a new category of membership with longer-term seats, either renewable or not. The agreement would include a mandatory review in a set number of years. The facilitators do not recommend how many new seats should be added, nor how long the transitional phase should last, but insist that the process move from consultations to concrete intergovernmental negotiations.

Report of the Facilitators for Security Council Reform to the General Assembly (April 19, 2007)

The ambassadors of Tunisia, Cyprus, Croatia, Chile and the Netherlands facilitated a UN General Assembly report on Security Council reform. The report proposes temporarily expanding Security Council membership as part of a transitional approach to reform. Making available more Security Council seats would increase countries' chances of achieving Security Council membership.

2006
Note by the President of the Security Council (July 19, 2006)

In a significant move, the Security Council adopted a note by the President, attempting to clarify its procedures and practice. Following months of work by the Council's Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Matters, the note codifies the terminology used in different Council sessions (including Arria Formula meetings with NGOs); lists steps at making the Council's work more transparent; and aims at improving the flow of information from the Council. The note picks up some proposals made by Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, who introduced a draft resolution calling for greater transparency in the Council's work in March 2006.

Draft Resolution on Reforming the Working Methods of the Security Council (March 20, 2006)

Switzerland together with Singapore, Jordan, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein tabled a draft resolution in the General Assembly (GA) proposing 19 measures to improve the working methods of the Security Council. Acknowledging that the Security Council is the master of its own procedures, the initiative serves as an invitation by the GA to the Security Council to open a dialogue with all UN member states. This is a revised version of the resolution put forward by group in November 2005 after consulting with other governments about the document.

2005
Small Five Draft Resolution (November 10, 2005)

This is the draft resolution proposal put forward by the S5 that emphasizes working methods reform.

Tabled Uniting for Consensus Draft Resolution on Security Council Reform (July 21, 2005)

In response to draft resolutions tabled by the G-4 and the African Union, Uniting for Consensus has tabled its alternative proposal. The draft resolution proposes adding 10 non-permanent members immediately eligible for re-election to the Security Council, leaving formalities of re-election and rotation to regional groups.

Tabled African Union Draft Resolution on Security Council Reform (July 14, 2005)

Also responding to the G-4 resolution, the African Union has tabled its proposal calling for 11 additional members on the Security Council, with Africa gaining two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats. The AU also recommends that new permanent members gain all existing privileges including veto power.

Tabled G-4 Draft Resolution on Security Council Reform (July 6, 2005)

Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have tabled their draft "framework" resolution calling for Security Council enlargement to 25 members, including six additional permanent seats. In a desperate attempt to secure permanent membership, the Group of Four (G-4) had accepted to forego their right of veto for at least 15 years. The less contentious proposals on the Council's working methods have more of a chance to succeed than membership expansion plans. Also see previous versions of June 8 and May 13 .

China: UN Council Resolution Dangerous (June 1, 2005)

In June 2005, Brazil, Germany, India and China (the "G4") will ask the General Assembly (GA) to vote on a draft resolution, which calls for Security Council expansion and gives the G4 permanent membership. The resolution meets strong opposition from China, which called it "dangerous" and has "hinted it would use its veto." According to Chinese UN Ambassador Wang Guangya, this resolution will "split UN membership" and prevent member states from discussing other UN reform issues. Nevertheless, China has indicated that if the GA and the other Security Council permanent members accept the G4 proposal, Beijing "would take into account the feelings of others." (Associated Press)

Excerpt of Kofi Annan's Report on UN Reform: In Larger Freedom (March 21, 2005)

In his report on UN reform, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan only touches very briefly upon Security Council reform, and does not recommend specific action on this vital aspect of UN reform. Annan urges member states to consider both models A and B, as outlined by the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and calls on states to reach a decision on Security Council enlargement before the summit in September 2005. (United Nations)

2004Excerpt of the High Level Panel's Report on Threats, Challenges and Change (December 2004)

Among broad recommendations for reform of the UN, this excerpt of the High Level Panel's Report focuses specifically on Security Council reform. In order to increase the Council's effectiveness and credibility and "enhance its capacity to act in the face of threats," the Panel puts forward two options for expansion without veto powers. Model A foresees enlargement with both permanent and elected members, whereas model B proposes enlarging the Council with only temporary elected members. The Panel also recommends the introduction of a system of "indicative voting" and encourages an increase in the Council's transparency and accountability. (United Nations)

2002Procedural Developments in the Security Council - 2001 (June 6, 2002)

This UN Secretariat report shows developments in the procedures and working methods that the Security Council has undertaken in 2001 to promote transparency, openness and efficiency. The document provides interesting data on the work of the Council.

 

The Security Council's membership and working methods reflect a bygone era.  Though geopolitics have changed drastically, the Council has changed relatively little since 1945, when wartime victors crafted a Charter in their interest and awarded "permanent" veto-wielding Council seats for themselves.

Since 1993, the UN General Assembly has hotly debated Council reform but has not been able to reach agreement.  A handful of states aspire to "permanent" status for themselves, while many other countries reject such claims. This site posts information and documents about the reform process, including analysis of the state-of-play and statements by nations and negotiating blocs.  In the background section, we have posted GPF's own policy paper on the problems, dynamics and options for truly Democratic Reform of the Security Council in additional to more general information about Security Council reform.

To enrich the current information, we offer a large archive on reform discussions in previous years.  These materials are divided into four sections. The Membership section looks at the addition of both permanent members and elected members.  Such changes require amendments to the UN Charter, a lengthy and onerous process. The section on Working Methods considers the procedures of the Council and the way it conducts its work.  Unlike membership changes, these reforms do not require Charter change and the Council itself can implement them. The section on the Veto looks closely at this key issue and whether it could (and should) be eliminated or curtailed. The Regional Representation section examines the arguments for and against supranational organizations, like the EU, as potential candidates for Council membership.

There are many general documents, articles and statements throughout the respective pages. Documents produced by the UN can be found on the UN Documents page and include the documents, reports, draft resolutions and official statements from the Council reform process.

The reform of the Council is part of the broader issue of UN Reform, to build a more effective and democratic global institution.  This includes the reform of other bodies like the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, as well as improvement in the organization's management and finance.

Background on Security Council ReformGeneral Articles and DocumentsUN DocumentsStatementsMembership including Expansion and Representation

This page examines proposals for changes in the Council's membership, including additional permanent and/or additional elected members. The membership issue includes discussions about how to make the Council more representative and more legitimate. Membership change requires a difficult process of changing the UN Charter.

Regional Representation

This section specifically discusses regional representation as a method of Council reform.

Transparency including Working Methods and Decision-Making Process

The Council has taken some steps to increase its efficiency and transparency in recent years. However, reform of the Council's working methods remains a work in progress. These reforms do not require Charter amendment, so in theory they are easy to implement. But the P-5 usually oppose them. This page contains articles about proposed reforms to the Council's working methods, as well as efforts to increase its transparency and improve its relationship with other UN organs.

Veto

In the Council debates, many governments express their opposition to the veto and call for its restriction or elimination. This section presents extensive information about the veto including data, articles and analyses of veto power, including the often-used but little-known "hidden veto."

UN Reform

Also see GPF's section on UN Reform, which follows different initiatives, such as the Millennium Summit and Its Follow-Up, the work of different Panels and Working Groups, as well as the reform proposals of Secretary General Kofi Annan. The site also covers the various topics of UN Reform beyond the Security Council, including reform of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the Human Rights Commission.

Conferences on Security Council ReformThis page provides links to information conferences hosted by GPF on Security Council reform and other materials associated with the conferences.Links and Resources