Reforming the UN Security Council: Breaking the Gridlock or Stuck in Neutral?
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), tasked with maintaining international peace and security, has recently faced mounting criticism following its inaction over Russia's invasion of Ukraine, alongside other major crises that have faced the world in recent months. This failure has reignited longstanding calls for reforming the Council, in order to both better reflect contemporary global dynamics and further enhance its effectiveness in a modern world. Indeed, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, has recently endorsed of expanding both permanent and non-permanent seats, with a focus on including representation from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, injecting new momentum into discussions on reform. Despite decades of debate and efforts to address the Council's deficiencies, significant challenges persist in achieving meaningful reform.
The Security Council, established in 1945, consists of five permanent members (P5) - China France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – each of whom wields veto power, alongside ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms, However, the Council's composition has remained largely unchanged since its inception, failing to accommodate the emergence of new global powers, and shifting geopolitical realities, including the expansion of the UN to over 190 member states.
Additionally, the veto power held by the P5 often leads to gridlock and undermines the Council's ability to effectively respond to crises. This was notable during the Cold War, but recently, trends in vetoes have emerged, with France and the U.K. not having used a veto since 1987, as well as the emergence of China’s interest in the veto. Russia, similarly, has recently expanded its use of the veto since 2011, and the Russo-Ukrainian war has resulted in repeated use of its veto to thwart resolutions critical of its actions, and with it, the aforementioned criticism.
Nevertheless, despite widespread acknowledgment of the need for reform, achieving consensus among UN member states remains elusive. Various hurdles impede progress, including procedural complexities associated with amending the UN Charter, divergent opinions on the acceptable size and terms of Council enlargement, and disagreements over the extension of veto privileges to new permanent members. Furthermore, geopolitical rivalries and political polarization among member states further complicate reform efforts, diminishing the prospects for meaningful change. Specifically, the resistance from the Council's permanent members, particularly Russia and China, poses a significant obstacle to reform efforts. While there is a general consensus among UN members for reform, the permanent members are determined to maintain their privileged status and veto power. Russia and China, in particular, oppose the addition of new permanent members and advocate for alternative approaches to reform that preserve their dominant positions.
The debate over Security Council reform is characterized by divergent perspectives among UN member states, particularly regarding the primary objectives of reform efforts. While there is widespread agreement on the need for reform, opinions differ on whether the focus should be on harnessing major power capabilities or increasing equitable global representation. Three main blocs hold irreconcilable positions on reform, further complicating the negotiation process. The first is the G4 coalition, comprised of Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. They seek the same status as the existing P5, although have shown some flexibility on the veto, and also advocate two permanent seats for Africa. Second is the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) coalition, led by the G4’s regional rivals, including Argentina, Mexico, Italy, Poland, Pakistan, South Korea, and Türkiye, among others. It for advocates expanding the council’s elected membership from ten to twenty—a strategy that would allow more nations to serve on an egalitarian, globally representative council, rather than reinforcing great power hierarchy. Thirdly and finally is the African Union (AU). Its fifty-four members remain committed to the 2005 Ezulwini Consensus, which insists that the continent be granted two permanent seats, with full veto rights, as well as at least three additional non-permanent seats.
Moreover, the prevailing gridlock within the Security Council has catalysed bottom-up activism, particularly evident in initiatives emanating from the UN General Assembly. There is a growing determination among UN members to hold the Council's permanent members accountable and expand the Assembly's role in international security. Initiatives like the Uniting for Peace resolution underscore a collective effort to address the Council's shortcomings and ensure greater transparency and accountability in decision-making processes.
When it comes to the reforms that have succeeded so far, initiatives targeting UNSC working methods have encouraged collaboration between permanent and elected members, facilitated regional caucusing among elected members, broadened the scope of thematic issues addressed by the Council, and expanded engagement with regional organizations and civil society actors. By focusing on these informal working methods, reformers have sought to overcome the challenges associated with amending the UN Charter.
In considering potential reforms to the Council's membership, a criteria-based approach has been proposed to ensure accountability and effectiveness. This approach advocates for aspirant countries to demonstrate their contributions to global security and adhere to certain criteria, such as political stability, diplomatic and military capabilities, financial contributions to the UN, adherence to global security norms, and willingness to authorize enforcement actions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Such criteria aim to ensure that new permanent members uphold the Council's mandate effectively.
Two main pathways for reform have been identified, each requiring significant compromises. The first pathway involves launching negotiations based on a single, comprehensive text that allows UN member states to consider various reform models concurrently. This approach hinges on consensus-building among key stakeholders, including the African Union (AU) and the G4 coalition, and necessitates flexibility on contentious issues like the veto power. Alternatively, the G4 countries could consider adopting the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) proposal for a new category of semi-permanent, renewable seats, albeit with longer tenures. However, the acceptance of such a compromise remains uncertain, particularly for countries like India.
In conclusion, the discourse surrounding Security Council reform underscores the multifaceted dynamics shaping the future of global governance. Despite facing resistance from permanent members and encountering divergent perspectives among UN members, the imperative for reform remains undeniable. Failure to update its composition and rules could undermine its effectiveness and legitimacy, potentially leading to widespread disillusionment among UN member states. Such disillusionment could manifest in reduced support for the UN, alternative venues for pursuing security objectives, and noncompliance with Council resolutions. As the world grapples with evolving challenges, adapting the Council to new global realities is imperative for advancing global peace and security. Achieving substantive reform will necessitate sustained diplomatic efforts, innovative solutions, and a willingness to navigate the complexities of representation and effectiveness within the UNSC.
Image courtesy of Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images, ©2023. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
