U.N. Divided Over Proposal to Expand Security Council

UNITED NATIONS —  Four nations that aspire to permanent seats on the Security Council -- Japan, Germany, Brazil and India -- are preparing a resolution to change the U.N. charter to expand the council. But the group is heading for a showdown with countries, including existing members of the Security Council, that oppose key aspects of the proposal.

Expanding the 15-member Security Council is one of the highest-profile reforms in a package proposed this year by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to reinvigorate the United Nations.

The Security Council has been modified only once since it was created 60 years ago, when permanent seats were awarded to the victors of World War II: the U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia. Annan recommended expanding the council to include more of the countries that influence international peace and security today.

The four nations, known as the G-4, plan to introduce a resolution next week that would amend the U.N. Charter to expand the council to 25 seats. Under this plan, the number of permanent members would increase from five to 11, including two African countries that have not yet been named. The number of rotating elected seats would rise from 10 to 14.

The G-4 aims to have the General Assembly vote on the proposed change in June, select the new African members in July, and have the new council endorsed by a summit of world leaders in September at the U.N.’s 60th anniversary session.

The resolution needs backing from two-thirds of the 191-member General Assembly, although some countries, including the United States and China, demand at least a “broad consensus” to ensure that the change doesn’t deepen divisions among member states.

The draft also proposes that the new permanent members have the same veto power as the five current permanent members. The U.S. and China have rejected this approach.

A diplomat from one of the G-4 countries, who asked not to be named because the draft resolution was still being discussed in the four capitals, cautioned that the proposal was just a starting point for negotiations and indicated that the group might be willing to give up the veto demand.

“What’s more important than what is in it, is how it will be received,” he said. “Every country will look at it and say, ‘What’s in it for me?’ Some might be interested in finding a weak spot and trying to stall the whole thing.”

Indeed, opposition is growing among countries that believe the plan would diminish their chances for a seat on the council or that oppose a regional rival’s ascent to power.

China, for instance, objects to Japan’s bid for a permanent seat, and aims to block it until Tokyo formally apologizes for atrocities committed against it in World War II. Beijing has until recently allowed massive street protests against Japan’s effort to join the council.

The United States, on the other hand, has endorsed only Japan for a new seat, and acting U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson said recently that raw feelings about Germany’s opposition to the American-led invasion of Iraq would make it difficult for Washington to back that nation’s bid.

Pakistan opposes a seat for adversary India, and it leads a group that includes Mexico, Canada and some Scandinavian countries that believe their power would be reduced under the G-4 plan. Pakistan’s ambassador, Munir Akram, said that if the G-4 nations “do press ahead, they will create divisions that will not only affect council reform, but the whole reform exercise.”

Pakistan and Italy have proposed alternative plans that seek more nonpermanent seats with longer terms on the council and a chance for reelection. Akram argues that those plans would give smaller countries more of a chance to have a temporary rotating seat.

“In the new world today, there are not only six powers, but about 20 countries that can contribute to peace and security,” he said.

But others think that merely expanding the Security Council is not the way to improve it.

“To make the council larger is not reforming it. You need to make it more accountable first,” said Edward Luck, a professor at Columbia University who has been active in efforts to reshape the U.N. since the most recent attempt that failed nearly a decade ago. “Otherwise, you’ll just have a bigger, more unaccountable Security Council.”