United Nations Security Council expansion — the haggling begins, courtesy the Dark Continent.
The African Union on Monday introduced a U.N. resolution on Security Council expansion, despite behind the scenes negotiations on a rival proposal presented by Japan, Brazil, Germany and India.
The draft resolution was a chance for Africa to put forward the case for why it needed permanent seats in the Security Council. But it was not clear whether the resolution would be put to a vote.
Nigeria’s envoy, Aminu Bashir Wali, who presented the resolution to the U.N. General assembly called it “a reference point for negotiation with other member states and interested groups.”
[…]
Most Africa speakers said Africa was the only continent that did not have a permanent seat in the current 15-member Security Council. Latin America does not have a permanent seat, but the Africans consider the United States a representative of the Americas, while South American countries do not.
“If we fail to seize this opportunity, the credibility and legitimacy of the Security Council and the entire system of global government will continue to erode,” said South Africa’s representative, Xolisa Mabhongo.
[…]
Germany, Japan, Brazil and India have called on the General Assembly to enlarge the Security Council from 15 to 25. This plan has six new permanent seats, including two for Africa, but new members would not have veto power.
The African Union’s draft resolution asks for the council to be enlarged to 26 seats, one more nonpermanent seat than the four aspirants’ proposal. It also advocates six new permanent seats but with veto privileges.
I’ve blogged before my thoughts on the proposal by expansion by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. I agreed that, individually, each country had valid arguments for representation and even mentioned the viability of an argument for a permanent presence for Africa. That said, I was against expansion because it would leave a handicapped, commonly-ineffective UNSC hobbled by further numbers, leading to greater room for indecisiveness.
Expanding the Security Council has been under discussion for a dozen years without a solution, mainly because each region or nation has its own aspirations. The issue was given momentum this year by Annan who argued the council was unrepresentative and should be reformed before the summit.
Without African Union support, the four aspirants will not get enough votes for their resolution.
“It’s not possible for any group to get two-thirds by itself,” Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Sing said on Sunday. “So we have to find a way for our differences not only to narrow, but to disappear.”
Among the current five permanent council members with veto power, the United States and China are lobbying against all the plans under consideration. France and Britain support the four aspirants. The last step in changing the council composition needs approval from the five powers.
In Berlin on Monday, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said the fact that no deal was reached on Sunday was not surprising.
“Nobody expected that the African Union, which has its own resolution proposal, would quietly file it away after a talk with the G-4 foreign ministers,” he said.”
Aye, even given African expansion, does a single country garner a permanent seat? I should hope not, as none are currently both stable and have a sufficient history of being globally positively influential, in my opinion. Perhaps Nigeria? Were one nation to be singled out, I would arbitrarily select Senegal. My reasoning? I did an amazingly-pathetic term paper on the country in college for an upper-level course on the Political Economy of Sub-Saharan Africa; the paper got me an “A-” when I really deserved not only an “F” but also to be ceremoniously drummed out of the classroom. Vive le Senegal!
I’ll certainly be keeping an eye on this pending debate to see just how far the UN will elect to further cripple itself.