Battle joined on Security Council reform

By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News website

Battle has been joined at the United Nations over reform of the Security Council - which has remained unchanged from when it was set up by the victorious powers after World War II.

UN chief Kofi Annan has spearheaded the changes

Four countries - Brazil, Germany, India and Japan (the G4) - have formally tabled a proposal to the General Assembly suggesting an expansion of the 15-member Council to 25.

The proposal follows a report on the future of the UN which called for changes not just in the Security Council, but in the ability of the UN to intervene to prevent disasters.

But there is a long way to go before a decision is reached, and there is a chance that there will be such deadlock and division that no decision will be taken at all.

Currently there are five permanent members (the P5) with the power of veto - the US, Russia, China, the UK and France - and 10 others who hold temporary seats on a rotating basis.

The G4 plan calls for six new permanent members, though they would not have a veto, and four new non-permanent seats.

The concentration of power in such few hands is one thing which annoys other member states and partly explains the demand for change Profile: UN Security Council

The six new permanent seats, their resolution says rather blandly, would be occupied by two African nations, two Asian, one Western European and one from Latin America and the Caribbean.

Naturally, their hope is that they themselves would occupy the Asian, West European and Latin American slots.

And so the first real shots have been fired in what promises to be quite an intense conflict.

The procedure is this (it is in Article 108 of the UN Charter): First the General Assembly, made up of all member states, has to vote in favour of change by a two-thirds majority.

Then, two thirds of the member states have to ratify that decision by their national procedures, and - here is the key bit - the vote has to be ratified by "all the permanent members of the Security Council".

Thus, any of the P5 will be able to block the whole thing.

The concentration of power in such few hands is one thing which annoys other member states and partly explains the demand for change.

Divisions

The problem with reform is not the need for it, but the achievement of it.

The United States, for example, opposes a permanent seat for Germany.

This is not to do with annoyance over German foreign policy on Iraq. It has to do with the US not wanting a third member of the EU having a full-time place.

Read key findings and see graphs about the BBC World Service poll on UN reform At-a-glance

The US is, however, happy to have Japan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has just told the Japanese this again.

On the other hand, China opposes a seat for Japan. It does not want another Asian rival, it seems, and the two countries still often row over World War II - which does not make for pleasant diplomacy.

African Union members have their own ambitions. They are proposing a 26-member Security Council, with six new permanent seats with veto power, including two for Africa, and five non-permanent seats, including two for Africa.

However, it is most unlikely that any of the current P5 would agree to an extension of the veto. Even the G4 has dropped that demand.

Within blocs, there is also argument. If Africa is to have one or maybe two seats who should get it or them - South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt? Would Egypt not sit better as a member from the Middle East?

Indian example

Pakistan has already had some sharp words about the G4 plan - one suspects because India is part of it.

Its UN ambassador Munir Akram told the opening session: "We will not choose to anoint six states with special privileges and stamp ourselves as second-class members in this organisation.

"It will enlarge the 'club of the privileged' who will have a vested interest in addressing most issues in the Security Council, further draining the oxygen out of the General Assembly, and enhancing the domination of the Security Council."

Britain and France support the G4.

India is an example of how pressure for reform has grown. It feels that it is not only a regional, but a growing world power.

Its growth rate is 6-7% a year. According to a senior British official with knowledge of India, it could overtake the UK in economic size by 2017 and be the third largest economy in the world by 2035.

Even if such projections have a habit of going wrong, it is clear that India is an influence to be taken seriously.

"We support a seat for India on the Council. India would not always be an easy partner, but it would be a force for good. It believes in the rule of law," the official said.

"It is both a first- and third-world economy. It has good hi-tech, bio and pharmaceutical industries, but it also has 300 million people who exist on a dollar a day. Of course it needs to solve the problem of this long tail.

"But if India was denied a seat," the official said, "it would think something was wrong with the Council, not itself."

It is likely that the discussions will come to a head in September when world heads of state and government gather in New York.