The UN Security Council, steps towards reform

Changing the UN’s top executive body requires the de facto approval of veto countries

September 23 () –

The reform of the UN Security Council is one of the eternal demands of the countries and regions that were left out of the first great distribution of power after the Second World War. Although there is an apparent consensus about the need for such reform, doubts persist as to how the institution should adapt and, above all, who should have more say and vote in this new scenario.

The Security Council, created in 1945, reflected the will of the victors in World War II and granted veto power to the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom. Almost four decades later, the UN’s main executive body has only seen a minor facelift, in 1965, when the number of members was increased from eleven to 15 with the addition of four non-permanent seats.

The way things work has remained the same since then: the five permanent members remain and the ten remaining seats are renewed in turns, every two years, based on territorial distribution. In this way, entire regions such as Latin America or Africa still do not have leverage in the Council, beyond what they can obtain through their alliances with the veto countries.

The power to hypothetically reform the Security Council lies with the UN General Assembly, the body in which the 193 member states of the organisation are represented and which usually gives space, in events such as the general debate in September, to voices calling for changes in the structure of international organisations, both political and economic.

Reforming the Security Council requires amending the founding Charter of the United Nations, which in turn establishes in Article 108 the need to obtain the endorsement of at least two-thirds of the members of the Assembly. This is a feasible threshold, but it implies that all five permanent members of the Council must also be in favour.

The veto power has been used by Russia to block resolutions on the military offensive against Ukraine and by the United States to defeat proposals concerning Israel, its main ally in the Middle East. Inaction on some key issues has revived the debate and damaged the image of the Security Council.

In April 2022, amid international outcry against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution paving the way for convening sessions in the event that any of the five powers uses its veto right. It also requires these countries to justify the reasons for resorting to a theoretically exceptional mechanism.

YES, BUT HOW

Concrete proposals have emerged over the past few years on how to approach reform, and one of the points that has generated the most consensus is giving Africa a greater voice. African leaders presented the so-called ‘Ezulwini Consensus’ in 2005, which proposes giving Africa two permanent seats and five rotating seats – instead of the current three.

The G4, a group comprising Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, formally proposed enlargement to 25 members, including two new permanent seats, nearly two decades ago, while the United States has also proposed expanding African representation, with two permanent seats but no veto power, and granting island states their own rotating seats.

Russia and China, for their part, have flatly rejected giving more voice to Western countries, as they consider them to be overrepresented, and suggest reaching out to emerging powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India, of whom they are partners in the BRICS.

The United for Consensus Group, which emerged in the 1990s and includes Spain, Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, San Marino and Turkey, advocates enlargement but calls for not continuing to foster “unequal privileges”, that is, for there to be no more countries with the capacity to single-handedly overturn proposals. They advocate a “more democratic, responsible, representative, transparent and effective” body, far removed from “historical injustices” and where there is “broader representation and a greater voice for developing regions and small countries.