Expanding UNSC: Integral Part Of UN Reform

Hira Bahadur Thapa

For years, the issue of reform ing the United Nations has been on the agenda before the General Assembly. Not surprisingly, the same item is being debated though with greater momentum at the current 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Following the submission of the report of the Security Council to the UNGA in recent weeks in New York, the international community's attention has again been drawn to the item of expanding the council. NegotiationsExpanding the UN Security Council has occupied a major part of the debates in the UN headquarters since 1994. The UN membership decided back in 1993 to establish an Open Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on an Increase on the Council's Membership. That group has been working on this matter since January 1994. Despite 14 years of on-going negotiations among the UN members, no tangible results have been achieved on the subject.It has been the practice with the world body to consume plenty of time to come to a conclusion on an issue to which is attached great importance. Reform of the United Nations is something that concerns each and every member of the international organisation. There are 192 sovereign member states in the United Nations at the moment. Therefore, reaching a consensus on a subject like this is really a formidable job requiring perseverance and flexibility from the stakeholders. Reform itself is an issue that involves a comprehensive approach. It cannot be limited to certain areas because reform is intended to bring about changes in the working of the organisation. A reformed institution or an organisation should have its capacity enhanced so as to be able to deliver better results. With this reality very much under consideration, the entire membership of the United Nations has been engaged in fruitful negotiations for more than a decade to arrive at an acceptable formula. No doubt about the fact that the world body has gained some success in putting the reform plans in place. We have seen changes in the structure of the body in streamlining the functioning of the institution. Various departments have been amalgamated sometimes while new ones have been created to cope with the present realities. The UN has been frequently accused of employing a bloated bureaucracy. The member states have time and again stressed on the professional integrity and competence of its officials and staff members. In line with the directives given by its members, the UN has strived to reform to achieve higher efficiency in managing its manpower. It has simultaneously made sincere efforts to improve its image in terms of financial dealings. The example of bringing those financial culprits to book who were found guilty in cases related to the Oil for Food Programme in Iraq illustrates the UN's endeavours to curb corruption.No issue has become more contentious than the one concerning the expansion of the UN Security Council. It is clearly evidenced by the stretched negotiations among the members of the organisation. The question of reforming the Security Council is not confined to increasing its size. It includes the subject of improving the working methods also where, perhaps, the member states have lesser grievances to be addressed. In terms of conducting an open debate on issues of multilateral concern, like the recruitment of child soldiers, the Council has made some improvement. Its emphasis on greater transparency has been recognised as a positive step towards improving its working methods. It is equally important to note that the working methods of the Security Council are always inseparable from its composition. One without the other carries no significance.Looking at the long drawn out negotiations for almost a decade and a half, one can lose patience and observe that expansion of the size of the Council is a never materialising dream. This is certainly a negative picture of the efforts put in by the UN membership. It is because it took 18 years from 1945, the time of the UN's inception, till 1963 to increase the non-permanent membership of the Security Council. Initially there were 11 members - both permanent and non-permanent - and they rose to 15, following the UN Charter Amendment. Therefore, everyone should be aware of the complexity involved in the subject. It is not going to be an easy affair as there are many aspirants not only for non-permanent seats but also for permanent ones.It is in the category of permanent members where the members find it hard to crack the hard nut. Obviously, permanent membership is always sought after as it provides exclusive veto power. By using such a veto, they are in a position to block any resolution that they find objectionable to them. There is a dilemma as to whether they should limit the size of the reshaped Council or compromise on its effectiveness. All agree that the enlarged Council needs to be small to be quick and efficient and large enough to be effective and desirable. Some of the aspiring members have stated during the recent debate on the issue of Security Council reform that the Council's effectiveness will be compromised if changes are not made in its size. They have a point as the Security Council's present composition still represents the Cold War realities. It is high time that the members narrowed their differences and worked towards creating a constructive atmosphere to raise the bar of mutual trust.Here, it would be interesting to note down the recommendations contained in a new report prepared by the facilitators for Security Council reform who were tasked by the 61st GA President. That report seeks to focus on five major points for building on the progress achieved so far on the subject. These are, namely, categories of membership, the question of veto, question of regional representation, size of the enlarged council and the working methods of the council and the relationship between it and the General Assembly. Political structureVisible progress can be made only when the members are prepared to agree on these points and, thus, pave the way for intergovernmental negotiations. Since the expansion of the council in both categories is essential to get rid of the political structure that rested on the balance of power of the 1940s, Nepal has been favouring a position that fully takes this reality into account.

Source: The Rising Nepal, November 27, 2007