The Security Council—Ready for Reform?

The renegotiation of the makeup of the Security Council has been, perhaps, the most noted recommendation since talk of UN reform began. As people discuss reform in forums such as university campuses, town hall meetings, and policy circles in Washington, numerous questions have arisen.

Debate over Security Council reform has been sparked by proposals in a high-level panel report and the secretary-general's report. The potential for change has excited many.

While the arguments are still being fleshed out, some questions are coming to the forefront of the debate:

Why is the Security Council in need of restructuring?

Critics of the current Security Council composition suggest that it represents the Cold War power structure and that the Security Council needs to change with the times. That is, it needs to represent countries that play a big role in international relations right now as well as balance the interests of emerging regional powers.

How will the Security Council be restructured?

There have not been any decisions yet about how the council will be reformed. However, there are a number of proposals put forward. The UN high-level panel and the secretary-general have made their recommendations. Now it will be an issue for the General Assembly to debate and decide on.

As an example, one solution posed by the secretary-general is that both Africa and Asia should be allowed two permanent members to represent their regional interests as well as four seats each that would rotate between countries. Europe and the Americas would each gain one more permanent seat and two or three rotating seats. The secretary-general believes this may be one way of representing everyone more equally.

Who will be the new members of the Security Council?

Currently there is only talk of new members. No decisions have been made. But many experts believe that because the secretary-general suggested membership on the Security Council could be tied to the amount a country contributes to the United Nations and the developing world, financial reputation could be one criterion.

The current permanent members of the Security Council are the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and France. Some of the countries that have been campaigning actively for permanent seats include: Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, Nigeria, and South Africa.

Will there be a consensus on the composition of a new Security Council?

The decision-making process will certainly not be an easy one. Expanding the Security Council will take a good deal of negotiating and undoubtedly some compromise.

Although decisions will not be made in the near future, there has already been protest over Japan's potential permanent membership by both China (which holds a veto in the Council) and South Korea. At the same time, Japan's financial contributions to the United Nations are substantial.

Will there be any change in who holds a veto?

Experts don't expect that veto power will change hands, nor that it will be extended to any of the new members.