The UN Security Council - Will it reform

Reform of the United Nations Security Council took a step forward last week. The four countries with the most hope of winning a new permanent seat - Japan, Germany, India and Brazil - agreed to delay a decision on veto rights, the most controversial of all issues, for another 15 years at least. The four are circulating their "final" draft resolution on reform to the 191-member General Assembly, in the hope of attracting a two-thirds majority.

Yet America is not in favour. On June 8 the secretary of state, Condolezza Rice told the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, that expansion of the UN Security Council should come second to other reforms, such as streamlining the UN's bureaucracy. American officials immediately intervened to say that this was not a slap-down on Germany's hopes of a permanent seat. But lingering unhappiness with Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor, is a factor.

Many, not just Americans, doubt that the security council can ever be reformed. Except for the addition of four non-permanent members in 1965, its composition has remained unchanged since it was set up in 1945. Regarded as unrepresentative and lacking in moral authority it has evaded any attempt at real reform. Too many vested interests and national rivalaries are at stake.

The G4, as they are known, are proposing that the existing 15-member council of which five are the permanent veto-weilding members (The US, Britain, France, Russia and China) known as the P5 should be expanded to 25. Six new permanent members would be added, then four non-permanent ones. Special attention would be given to countries from Africa and Latin America.

In the G4's draft they propose that the new permanent members, who are un-named at pesent, should have the same powers as the current P5.

Under the G4's three-stage plan, the resolution for expansion would be put to the General Assembly by the end of this month. The resolution has the backing of 25 co-sponsers including France, but as it involves an amendment to the UN Charter, it requires the approval of two-thirds of member states. Countries interested in a permanent seat would be asked to submit their candidacies to a vote by a secret ballot of members.

The G4 would submit their own proposals however each has it own opponent. Pakistan cannot envisage India getting a seat, China is appalled that Japan could get a seat on the 'top table', Brazil's neighbours are jelous simply because it is Latin America's most powerful nation. Italy, always feeling left in the cold by Europe's big three (Britain, France and Germany), strongly opposes Germany's canditure.

None of the apponents could block selection on their own. But America's attitude is crucial. At the moment the US is only supporting Japan's bid and that bid is linked to Germany's. The US strongly opposes Germany's bid, mainly due to its past. This all seems rather disheartening for advocates of security council reform.