New Blood Propels Change

By CHEN XULONG

New Blood Propels Change

By CHEN XULONG

New make-up of the UN Security Council will influence reform

A new UN Security Council has been unveiled to the world as India, South Africa, Germany, Portugal and Colombia won two-year non-permanent seat on the council.

This changeover means all BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are now members of the Security Council—a sign of the rising influence of emerging economies. Also, with the inclusion of Portugal and Germany—along with permanent members Britain and France, Europe gets a bigger voice in the maintenance of international peace and security.

Politics

Although negotiations and votes on the reform of the UN Security Council are conducted by the UN General Assembly, no one can deny the significant role of the council itself, especially its fve permanent members. Countries that aspire to permanent seats on the UN Security Council—India, Brazil, Germany and South Africa—can use the council as a platform to press for reform. They will try to get the support of the fve permanent members, win the trust of the international community and pave their way to permanent seats.

With the emergence of the new council, the G4—an alliance among Brazil, Germany, India and Japan for the purpose of supporting each other’s bids for permanent seats on the UN Security Council—has been strengthened. The United States has been supporting Japan and India’s moves toward permanent seats.

On the other hand, the Uniting for Consensus group—consisting of Pakistan, Mexico, South Korea, Italy and others—has been weakened to a degree. The group aims to counter the G4 nations’ bids for permanent seats.

As a result of these factors, the reform of the UN Security Council will face a situation in which radicals will become more active, where-as moderates will become more restrained.

As for specifc reform programs, voices advocating an increase in both permanent and non-permanent seats will get increasingly stronger. The impact of this change will soon be revealed in intergovernmental negotiations on UN Security Council reform.

It should also be noted the council is not the best place to talk about its own reform. Excessive talk about the reform will inevitably lead to quarrels and disputes. This can only make things worse.

Furthermore, the performance on the council of the countries aspiring to permanent seats—as well as their interactions with the five permanent members—may also subtly affect reform expectations.

Obstacles

The reform of the UN Security Council is an extremely complex issue. As intergovernmental negotiations focus more on core problems after five rounds of negotiations, differences still outweigh consensus—making prospects for agreement not very bright.

Fierce competition will be inevitable during the reform of the Security Council. The number of members and veto power are the key issues of the reform. These matters touch on the redistribution of power in the most prestigious organization of the international system. It is a matter of status and dignity for a country. What the members are competing for are strategic resources. Therefore, it has obvious features of a zero-sum game. One country’s gain is another country’s loss. That’s why it is diffcult to reach a compromise.

Moreover, the reform is being used as a bargaining chip by major countries to achieve its strategic interests. This situation means that reform of the UN Security Council will be very hard to accomplish.

Structural problems in the international system make the reform even more diffcult. Regarding the UN Security Council reform, countries can be divided into four groups according to their stance on this issue—radicals, conservatives, moderates and promoters. Among them, the radicals are the focus of the dispute.

Radicals consist of two types of countries. The first type comprises developed countries that were defeated in World War II and subsequently became economically and politically strong. Japan and Germany belong to this group. They are eager to reform the current international system and thoroughly get rid of their historical burden by becoming permanent members of the UN Security Council. The second type comprises emerging countries, such as India and Brazil. They are political radicals in international relations. They are eager to increase their political power and status by becoming Security Council permanent members. It is only natural that these two groups have worked together to achieve their shared goal. But the countries’radical actions have hindered their progress.

Of the five permanent members, all of which support the reform, Britain and France are relatively more active. But as countries with vested interests, they are also subject to the impact of any reform. In addition, they have their own problems and concerns. Therefore, they have adopted a conservative stance regarding the reform.

XINHUA/AFP

SHEN HONG

Some other countries are at a relative disadvantage as they compete for permanent seats. However, they don’t want to see their regional competitors win. They also hope to have an opportunity to get permanent seats. Their policies are quite moderate, and they have formed the Uniting for Consensus movement to restrain radical countries.

Some UN agencies and nongovernmental organizations form the fourth group—the promoters—based on their desire to maintain and promote multilateralism.

Some small and medium-sized countries, which are comparatively weak, act as centrists. As other groups try to gain their support, they wait and hope to use their leverage to achieve benefits for themselves. Although African countries have chosen to take a unifed stance through the African Union, agreement is not perfectly unanimous. This adds to the complexity of the reform process.

No matter how many rounds of intergovernmental negotiations have been conducted, as long as no consensus is reached on the standards, agendas and procedures of the reform, no substantial progress can be achieved. The amendment of the UN Charter remains a signifcant problem. The UN Charter prescribes the composition and power of the UN Security Council. To reform the Security Council, the UN Charter must be amended. Based on UN regulations, amendments must be approved by at least two thirds of all General Assembly member countries and by all the fve permanent members of the Security Council. This will be a challenging task.

Although the composition of the new council may be favorable to reform, it will still be difficult to make any breakthrough. Reform needs to advance step by step through intergovernmental negotiations. The key is to fnd a compromise acceptable to all parties. This obviously cannot be done overnight.

China’s stance

China is in a favorable position on the reform of the UN Security Council. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it has veto power. No one can ignore China’s infuence. No matter how reform goes, China will be able to keep its current status. Reform should promote a multi-polar world with a strengthened international balance of power, democratic international relations and a rational international system. This is just the goal of China.

With previous experience in tough negotiations, China has good knowledge of the reform. It has adopted rational, prudent and responsible policies in this respect. It advocates a comprehensive solution with priority given to developing countries, especially African countries. It is essential for China to take into account the interests of all parties on a multilateral basis.

The new council provides new opportunities for China to cooperate with other emerging countries. It is also important for China to pay attention to those emerging countries, while continuing to support African countries’ efforts to obtain permanent seats.

The author is deputy director of the Department for International Strategic Studies at the China Institute of International Studies