Trends in Multilateral Cooperation III - UN Security Council Reform Posted by David Shorr

I was in South Africa recently to meet with our counterpart experts and discuss basically same question in which I'm always interested: how to spur collective action on big global challenges like climate change, economic growth, and nuclear proliferation. In other words, what really matters the most about the growing clout of rising powers like South Africa isn't the power shift itself, but the implications for how the world community will respond to the major problems of our times.

Since I was merely initiating a dialogue, I can only offer preliminary thoughts -- though the conversations definitely laid the ground to discuss the issues in greater depth. Today I'll focus on the one issue that was clearly on people's minds. With striking consistency, every expert highlighted the issue of reconfiguring the UN Security Council to, among other things, give South Africa a permanent seat. My reaction is that posing council reform as a near-term priority begs two questions:

• Is the United States the key to Security Council reform, or is it barking up the wrong tree to focus on the US?
• Do the candidate countries for permanent membership bear any burden of proving their qualifications, or is already clear that they deserve places at the "high table?"

The way I see the main hurdles to UNSC reform, the United States is an odd focus of attention and pressure. Truly, Washington is the least of the problems. Just as with the recently agreed reforms to the voting shares in the IMF, there are tricky issues of European representation given that France and the United Kingdom currently occupy two of the council's five permanent seats. Even knottier, though, is China's staunch resistance to two of the world's strongest candidates: India and Japan. Which is another way of saying, "don't look at us." [I should note a very effective retort raised in my meeting with the South African Institute of International Affairs. One of their scholars asked why the US hadn't at least taken a clear position the African Union's Ezulwini Consensus, which calls for the addition of two permanent and two non-permanent seats for African nations?]

Obviously the United States can't deny that we have our own stake in the status quo or that policy makers will be leery of changes that will dilute American influence. But those concerns aren't the only ones keeping the US from diving into council reform. I'm not sure they're even the main ones; they aren't the basis of my own wariness. As hinted above, the international politics and diplomacy of Security Council reform will inevitably be messy as hell. Frankly, I'm less skeptical about the possibility of a sensible solution for the composition of a reformed council and a lot more worried about the tortured and tortuous process involved in trying to reach agreement and overcome objections from China and others. With all the important multilateral work that demands political leaders' attention, I'd hate to see enormous time and effort devoted to the equivalent of amending the international community's constitution.

More positively, a recent report from Kara McDonald and Stewart Patrick of the Council on Foreign Relations proposes a constructive link between security council reform and the rest of the multilateral agenda. They suggest a criteria-based approach that stresses the responsibilities permanent council members would be expected to bear, and not just the status and prestige. Here's how they describe it:

Proposing a criteria-based approach, however, would usefully shift the focus of conversation from entitlement to qualifications, without a priori excluding any aspirant. In so doing, it would provide a baseline to assess candidates, grant greater transparency to the reform path, and encourage aspirants to exercise globally responsible behavior in international institutions. This approach would also steer negotiations away from framework proposals that leave the selection of permanent members to regional groupings.

The authors list a number of pertinent criteria for a lead role in the United Nations -- financial contributions, willingness to use the council's Article VII authority to deal with renegade leaders (like Qaddafi), leadership in brokering compromise on sensitive issues. Their approach holds a lot of appeal, aiming to ensure that as the US lessens its role as guarantor of the international system, others show their willingness to pitch in.

Comments

[Account Deleted]

That was a great piece of information., I enjoyed reading it..,
oakley sunglasses

[Euro 2012 Football Shirts]

What else can we do but go with the flow. Unless the concerned authorities again change their minds.

[seks izle]

That was a great piece of information.

[冷夜]

bers would be expected to bear, and not just the status and prestige. Here's how they describe it:

Proposing a criteria-based approach, however, woul

[diş beyazlatma kalemi]

All properties of the formulation applied by dentists with whitening quality, strong, safe and very appropriate addition to the price, you will not missing handbag is a unique product design, fashion styling ..

[Speakers]

It’s very rare that you find the relevant information on the net but your article did provide me the relevant information.

[wood pellet mill]

I am Happy to be here! Interested parties can contact a lot!

[wholesale shoes]

I’ve been looking for something like this! Thanks for sharing this great tool!

[Oil Mill]

I like they way you evaluated it.

[ed hard]

Police didn't release that name in the business or the business owner which consented towards search. Police also didn't say should they arrested any one.