The nations of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have unveiled their proposal for a large expansion of the United Nations Security Council, including more than doubling the number of permanent members.
Japan, Brazil, Germany and India – known as the Group of Four nations – who are seeking permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council, presented a draft resolution Monday calling for the council’s expansion.
The draft, unveiled at a meeting of representatives from about 70 countries, calls for the creation of an additional six permanent and four nonpermanent seats.
The draft also states the new permanent members should be elected at the U.N. General Assembly, which should then adopt a revised U.N. Charter bearing the names of the newly elected members no later than two weeks after the vote.
The four countries aim to have the resolution adopted by the end of June in the General Assembly and new permanent members to be elected in mid-July.
Two-thirds of the 191 U.N. member countries – or at least 128 votes – must vote for the resolution at the General Assembly for it to be passed.
Monday’s meeting, at Germany’s permanent representatives office in New York, aimed to explain the resolution and solidify support among the 70 or so countries believed to be in favor of the proposed expansion.
With approximately 70 countries viewed at favoring UNSC expansion, I feel that enough momentum can be attained to garner the others needed if the proposal is put forth in a flexible, go-along-to-get-along manner. A strong argument in its favor is the current make-up of the permanent members of the council, with its strong European representation and lack of membership for South America, Africa and the Arab nations. The Group of Four are all deserving nations when judged on their populations, economic strengths, and prominence globally and in their respective regions. These four obviously aim to be among the six new permanent members, but one wonders which six would eventually attain the prize. Germany would only add to the Eurocentricism already present, Africa and the Arab nations still must be considered but have no obvious candidates, and at least two unnamed nations must be selected. Expect Italy, also desiring a seat, to push for a voice in this matter.
Will the four nations go forward with enough flexibility to successfully manage passage? They will if they follow Japan’s lead.
The latest draft, which the four countries initially had expected to finish in early May, was delayed by almost two weeks, mainly due to prolonged debate between India and Japan, according to sources.
The sources said Japan and India had argued fiercely over the wording of the document as India insisted the new permanent members “shall have” the same veto rights as the so-called big five, while Japan supported a compromise under which new members “should have” veto rights.
Japan feared a direct demand for veto rights would inevitably invite opposition from such countries as the United States.
The current version states that the new permanent members “should” have the same “responsibilities and duties” as current permanent members.
But Japan’s proposal to insert “in principle” to further weaken the demand for veto rights was omitted.
Any new permanent nations should be happy with their constant presence on the council; expansion of the veto power would only serve to render the UNSC more hamstrung than it has already become. For that matter, though I expect it to pass in some form or other, I personally oppose this expansion. The greater the numbers involved in making a decision, the less likely a decision will be actually be made.
If expansion must be, I would argue for the inclusion of Australia, Brazil, India and Japan. Heck, throw in Israel and Syria, give them both veto power, pick up a six-pack and tune in to watch the UN dismantle itself.