Originally published on the CGS blog on August 26, 2009.
Recent negotiations on U.N. Security Council reform were filled with difficulty. The discussions revolve around three questions:
- Composition of the Security Council, including key issues of size, categories of membership and regional representation
- Relationship of the Security Council with the General Assembly
- The veto
On the first point – virtually all agree to the need to increase non-permanent membership; the disagreement is over whether the number of permanent members should be increased.
On the second point, there was difference between the Permanent 5 members and non-permanent members. The Permanent 5 emphasized the importance of staying true to the division of power outlined in the U.N. charter, while the non-permanent members emphasized the need to increase the powers of the General Assembly relative to the Security Council.
The third point is the most controversial. The veto is a power given to the five permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, France, U.K., U.S. and China) by the U.N. Charter to block any decision of the Security Council. So, even if 14 members of the Council supported a Resolution, one of the five would be able to vote against it and block the Resolution.
Some countries support the complete removal of the veto, a point not supported by the permanent five and other countries. Others propose expanding the number of permanent members and giving them a veto. Others still say that further expansion of the veto will only intensify the gridlock at the Security Council, and that any new permanent members should not be given veto powers.
The negotiations will undoubtedly continue for years to come, but ‘progress’ is being made in that less popular proposals are being eliminated from consideration.
The matter will be addressed at the upcoming 64th General Assembly session, where the “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters” is on their agenda.
