Reforming the United Nations

The UN Security Council is designed to meet day or night to handle threats to international peace and security. Its core consists of the P5 which were the Allied leaders in World War II. The other 10 countries serve two-year terms and are elected via the UN's caucus system to maintain a representative balance of the world.

Ideas for reforming the Security Council focus on its composition and the veto power.

The P5 are no longer necessarily the world's “main” countries as they were in 1945. The UK and France are the most obvious members to be dropped. Germany and Japan (ironically the two big losers of World War II) are the obvious candidates to join the Security Council.

Germany wants permanent membership on the Security Council because this would reflect its economic strength. It was said of the UK in the early 1960s, that it had lost an empire but had not yet found a new role. It can be said of Germany that it has regained its unity but it also has yet to find a new role. Being on the Security Council would give Germany - it evidently hopes - a clear sense of direction.

Japan has given the UN similar signals. Japan is increasing its financial contributions to UN operations. There is an element now of taxation without (permanent) representation.

An alternative approach to reforming the Security Council would be to break the nexus between the P5 and the veto power. The P5 would remain permanently on the Security Council but the veto power would be abolished entirely. The P5 would not have to worry about an election every two years - and the cost of retaining their permanent membership would be the surrender of the veto.

Another proposal is to increase the Security Council's overall size. Twenty-four is a common suggestion (since it would give each country the chance to chair the Council for one month during the two-year cycle of Security Council membership).

The chances of any immediate major Security Council reform are slim, if only because the P5 states could use their veto power to block reform. For example, the UK and France would not support their being replaced by Germany and Japan.

The UN as an instrument of national policy

There is a gulf between people who would like to see a more effective UN and most (if not all) national governments. Many of the ideas on UN reform (such as those listed above) are based on developing the UN as the major international co-ordinator of world policy.

The assumption is that if only the UN could be given more resources, and so on, then it could tackle world problems in a neutral, disinterested way and so benefit all humankind.

But governments have a different expectation of the UN. It is, for them, simply another tool by which they conduct their competing foreign policies. The UN is not so much a location for settling world problems - as for fighting them. Therefore, their proposals for UN reform are motivated by a desire to further their own national policy and not necessarily to create a more effective UN.

Indeed, in so far as a more effective UN could be developed, then it would further erode some of the national sovereignty of governments and so would be resisted by them.

Therefore, although I have long been involved in various campaigns for UN reform, I have no illusions about our chances of being successful in the near future. The lesson of history is that major tragedies bring on major international reforms (such as the creation of the League and UN following each world war). One wonders what tragedy the national governments need to have to convince them to resume work seriously for a more effective UN.