Reform of Structures and Processes

The demand to reform the United Nations Security Council is nearly universal, but the world has not agreed on what exactly should change. The core problem is that the Security Council, created in 1945, reflects the power structure of the post-World War II era, not the world of today.

The Three Main Complaints (1992 UN General Assembly Resolution)

In 1992, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that crystallised the growing dissatisfaction into three clear charges:

• The Security Council no longer represents contemporary political realities. The composition of the Council, especially the permanent membership, is frozen in 1945. Countries that were major powers then (like France and the United Kingdom) remain permanent members, while rising powers of the 21st century (like India, Brazil, or Japan) are not.
• Its decisions reflect only Western values and interests and are dominated by a few powers. Critics argue that the five permanent members (the P5) — the US, UK, France, Russia, and China — use their privileged position to push their own agendas, often ignoring the concerns of the Global South.
• It lacks equitable representation. The current structure does not fairly represent the world's regions, cultures, or levels of development. Asia and Africa, for instance, are vastly underrepresented compared to Europe.

The Inquiry and Proposed Criteria for New Members

In response to these demands, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan launched an inquiry on 1 January 1997 into how the UN should be reformed. A central question was: how should new Security Council members be chosen? Over the years, several criteria have been proposed for both permanent and non-permanent seats. A new member, it has been suggested, should be:

• A major economic power
• A major military power
• A substantial contributor to the UN budget
• A big nation in terms of its population
• A nation that respects democracy and human rights
• A country that would make the Council more representative of the world’s diversity in terms of geography, economic systems, and culture

Why Each Criterion Is Problematic

Each of these criteria seems reasonable on its own, but every one of them raises difficult questions. Governments supported or opposed different criteria based on their own interests and aspirations. Even countries that did not want a seat themselves could see the flaws.

• Economic or military power: How powerful is powerful enough? Where is the cutoff? This criterion would favour a few wealthy states and exclude many capable middle powers.
• Budget contribution: Does this mean a country can effectively buy its way onto the Council? Would that be fair to poorer nations that contribute less but are equally affected by Council decisions?
• Population size: Is a large population an asset or a liability? A huge population may give a country moral weight, but it does not guarantee that the country is stable, democratic, or capable of contributing to global security.
• Democracy and human rights: Countries with excellent records would qualify, but would they be effective as Council members? A small, peaceful democracy may have no military capacity or global reach. Conversely, a powerful but less democratic country might be more effective at enforcing Council decisions.
• Representativeness: This is the most tangled issue. Does equitable geographical representation mean one seat each from Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean? Or should representation be by regions or sub-regions rather than continents? Why should geography be the basis at all? Why not give more seats based on levels of economic development — in other words, give more seats to the developing world? Even that is tricky, because the developing world includes countries at vastly different levels of development. And what about culture? Should different civilisations be given balanced representation? But how do you divide the world by culture when every nation contains many cultural streams within its borders?

The Veto Power: The Heart of the Debate

A related and even more contentious issue is the veto power itself. To understand this, you need to know how the Security Council is structured.

The UN Charter gave the permanent members a privileged position to ensure stability after the Second World War. Their two main privileges are:

1. Permanency: They never face re-election.
2. The veto power: They can block any substantive resolution.

The non-permanent members, by contrast, serve for only two years at a time and cannot be re-elected immediately after their term ends. They are elected in a manner that ensures all continents are represented. Most importantly, they do not have the veto. …