UNITED NATIONS-US: Washington Yields to South on Council Seats

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 17 1997 (IPS) - The United States has dropped its five-year opposition to the inclusion of developing countries as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – but the change of heart has not resolved the long debate over Council reform, say diplomats here.

U.S. Ambassador Bill Richardson announced Thursday a shift in the U.S position on the Security Council – the first time Washington has considered adding any permanent Council members besides Germany and Japan – after a State Department policy review.

“As a result of our review, we can now agree in principle to having developing countries sit on the Council as new permanent members,” Richardson told a working group which has debated changes to the Council, without much agreement, for the past five years.

Those three seats would likely be divided equally among Latin America, Africa and Asia. Richardson added that the seats could either be held by one named candidate from each region, or rotated among a pool of regional candidates. Front-runners for any new seats from the South would likely include Brazil for Latin America slot, India for Asia and South Africa for the African continent, diplomats said.

Washington has not made any final decision on whether Japan, Germany and the three developing members should have the power to veto decisions in the Council. The five current permanent members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – all possess veto privileges.

For the new members, the U.S. ambassador suggested, any extension of the veto could be decided by a new, private U.N. working group.

Richardson’s statement came one day after many U.S. politicians – including Republican Senators Jesse Helms and Rod Grams – dismissed Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s plans to streamline the United Nations. The U.S. ambassador’s words were clearly meant to show that Washington was trying to play a constructive role here, dipolomats said.

“The pieces for a framework agreement (on Council reform) are falling into place,” Richardson declared. “We believe our decisions demonstrate our sincere interest in Security Council reform and our desire for early closure on it.”

But if Washington’s bid was made to quicken the debate on changing the Council, it may not achieve the desired effect. Many diplomats participating in the working group praised the United States for showing flexibility after resisting the notion of permanent members from the South for so long, but added that the new U.S. policy raised as many questions as it resolved.

“There’s a lot of concern about what they’re saying and a lot of uncertainty,” one European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

With members unclear how the new U.S. stance would apply to Washington’s desire to separate the issue of veto power from the addition of permanent seats, diplomats do not even know what is the U.S. vision of a viable, expanded Council, he said. For one thing, Richardson made clear Thursday that the U.S. government had “no flexibility (for including) above and beyond 20 to 21 seats on a reformed Council.”

The current Security Council has 15 members – the five current veto holders and 10 other seats which rotate among members from Africa (three seats), Asia (two), Latin America (two), and Europe and other regions (three).

Washington’s reluctance to have more than 21 of the United Nations’ 185 member states on the Security Council means that the body will still be relatively small compared to the overall U.N. membership, some countries argued.

More importantly, if five of the new seats go to Germany, Japan and three developing country permanent members, there would be at most one addition to the non-permanent seats – a proposal many smaller countries find unacceptable.

“To get general agreement, the majority of the members need to have something that benefits them,” according to Indian Ambassador Prakash Shah. “The only way you can do that is to have some increase in non-permanent seats, too.”

In fact, General Assembly President Razali Ismail of Malaysia suggested recently that the Council boast 24 members, with five permanent and four non-permanent slots added. But the White House clearly believes that too large a Security Council would be unworkable. Richardson’s predecessor, current Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, had used the same argument when she was U.N. ambassador against the extension of the veto, contending that too many veto-holding nations would dilute the Council’s effectiveness.

Other major problems remain with the reform process, which the U.S. shift does little to affect. African nations, who have 53 seats in the General Assembly, have argued that they deserve four additional seats, two of them permanent.

Some countries – notably Mexico and Pakistan – have opposed any extension of permanent seats; Pakistan has especially been worried that India, its nemesis, would garner one of the permanent seats.

Italy, opposed to Germany’s inclusion, has suggested that there be a new category of “more frequently rotating” members, who would not hold veto power but would alternate between two years in the Council and four years outside. (Non-permanent members have two-year terms, but vary dramatically in the amount of times they earn Council seats.)

Razali, who has tried to forge consensus on at least a few of the debates during his term as Assembly president, now seems unlikely to do so before the next Assembly session begins in September. As one envoy told IPS, some countries have even been wary of Razali’s efforts to secure compromises by forming private groups to discuss the reform issues.

“A number of delegates were concerned that this was a way to bypass the (official) working group,” the diplomat said of the private talks.

In any case, one Iranian diplomat opined, Richardson’s announcement came too late to help the working group, which will likely end its session Friday without any new agreement. “The U.S. proposal cannot be thoroughly discussed until next year, “he said.