FREE ESSAY ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

Security Council Reform
Background
UN Security Council is the organ with primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security, the UN Security Council must work constantly to enhance
its potential for the prevention and settlement of conflicts. The Council's current
structure is 5 permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, the U.S.) each with the
right to veto, and 10 non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for 2 year
terms. Under the UN Charter, it is the only body that can take decisions binding on all
UN members. The U.S. and other permanent members of the Council must ratify any changes
to the UN Charter, including any changes to the Council's size or powers. The creation of
a broader, more representative Security Council should be pursued on the basis of general
consensus, and with a view to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness of Council
operations.
The problem arose with the veto and closed-door antics of the five permanent members are
behind a lot of what's wrong in the dysfunctional UN these days. Narrow national
objectives, not international good, are what drives decisions. And a power structure
based on the world 55 years ago has no place at the UN today. The Reform would affect all
the world and the permanent members are the ones with the major say in this matter, but
none of them state an explicit position. However, it seems like there are two things that
are clear. First, there are odds about how large the Security Council should be and
second, uncertainty about what would be appropriate allocation of seats between the
permanent and non-permanent category and between the industrialised and developing
countries in a reformed Security Council.
Country's involvement with the issue
Bangladesh's priorities will be guided by our prime preoccupation to see an effective and
efficient United Nations. It is our conviction that in the pot-Cold War era, the UN
should assume its rightful primary role in world affairs. Bangladesh will therefore favor
a more proactive role of the Security Council. We will make every effort to ensure that
the Security Council has the commitment, the unity and the capacity to address, in any
expeditious and effective manner, all issues of international peace and security. We
shall promote openness and transparency in the work of the Council as well.
Bangladesh's fundamental tenets of the country's foreign policy involves resect for
national sovereignty and equality, non-interference in the international affairs of other
countries, peaceful settlement of international disputes, right of people to
self-determination and respect for international laws. It is inevitable that the
representation of the P-5 tends to get into self-interest more than the world-wide good.
Therefore, there should be representation on the Security Council by more countries. The
matter does not lie in whether Permanent members should be added or not, it lies in that
developing countries and different regions should also have representation. 
There seems to be disagreements amongst the P-5 also. First of all, all of them seem to
agree on the enlargement of the Council. Nevertheless, the cannot get to specific
numbers. They also refuse to name the candidates for future "Permanent members". Even
though Japan and Germany seem to be the favorites, Japan publicly bases its clam on the
fact that it contributes 19.9 percent of the UN's general budget, more than any other
country except the U.S. , which contributes 25 percent. Germany, with 9.8 percent, is the
third payer, followed by Britain and France. We would like the stress that the UN
Security Council Permanent membership is NOT for sale...
Because of the absence of a clear set of objective criteria for Security Council
membership, jockeying at the UN for any new seats will be fierce. There would be possible
conflicts and tension between different countries if there are open seats in the
Permanent membership. For example, if India (which is a regional power in Asia) becomes a
Permanent member, Pakistan would not quietly accept it. It would then, become an issue
for Bangladesh as well. Assuming sheer economic size and weight within regions as the
lowest common denominator for judging potential new members, obvious candidates under
some sort of semi-permanent arrangement quickly emerge. In Asia for example, Pakistan,
India and Indonesia are major regional powers. Under more detailed criteria such as human
rights or economic development, on the other hand, many of these same countries might
disqualify themselves.
Middle powers oppose this reform route give the stakes involved in adding new permanent
members. We would like to support the proposal of adding no permanent members, but rather
a new class of rotating seats, to which some 20 or 30 states (the ones making significant
contributions to the UN's peace and security functions and to the other purposes of the
Organization) would have access. 
We also would like to see a change in the power of veto of the Permanent Five. Until
1990, the US and the Soviet Union combined to cast a total of 279 vetoes. In the last
five years, the veto has been used only twice. However, the veto is still a powerful
tool. The new members should not be allowed to veto. And, since no one expects the
Permanent Five will abandon their vetoes soon, we support the possibility of requiring a
double or triple veto to defeat a resolution, and also suggest limiting the kids of
issues over which a veto can be exercised. At a minimum, the P-5 should not be able to
veto Charter amendments or the appointment of the Secretary-General. (possibly, veto
should only be allowed on peace-keeping and enforcement measures). This change should be
done in order to improve the transparency of the Security Council and avoid having
countries acting upon their narrow interests. Also, this would help improve the
relationship between the Security Council and the Secretarist. Also, the flow of
information between the two should be done more on public, to let the world know what is
going on (in order to make it more transparent and efficient). 
In conclusion, we would like to say that we would make efforts for the best of the
Security Council, for its efficiency and transparency. For this, we would like to propose
enlargement of Security Council with more representations from different regions as well
as developing countries, but with no more new permanent members. As for the existing P-5,
we would like to suggest limitation of their power of veto and a more public relationship
with the Secretarist.