The Status of the P5 and Possibility of a UNSC Reform
The effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and its member states has been the subject of debate for years, with calls from regional groups such as the European Union and African Union as well as from member states themselves. In September 2023, U.S. President Joe Biden called for "support expanding the Security Council, increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members." The previous year, he specified that the Permanent Five members of the council (Russia, France, China, the United States and the United Kingdom), or the “P5” should include not only long-standing U.S. allies but also Latin American and African countries to help with diversity issues. However, calls for restructuring the UNSC have received criticism concerning the instability and disputes that will undoubtedly ensue following a transformation of a global institution of this power and magnitude.
Since the founding of the United Nations in the post-World War II era, the P5 have held a special role in the body due to their permanent status in the General Assembly and on the Security Council. They also have unlimited veto power, meaning any of the P5 members can shut down a motion of proposal in the General Assembly whenever they want. This is an extensive power and responsibility, and over time, has been the cause of myriad political tension. For example, during the Cold War, the P5 was essentially split between the Soviet Union and the West, led by the U.S. In the 21st century, this has continued to cause political tensions, especially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s human rights violations and threats to invade Taiwan.
Additionally, the U.S. and the U.K. have been criticized for their role and complicity in various conflicts, resulting in human rights violations. These events have caused many to question the efficacy of the P5. Many scholars have argued that the P5 is supposed to be effective even if the countries in the UNSC have intense relations with each other. Additionally, other countries have argued that it is not fair to give the P5 permanent membership only and that it should expand to give other countries power. Especially given that the international political climate has changed drastically in the post-WWII era, many argue that the P5 should be modified to reflect the present political climate.
While the power distribution in the UNSC is objectively unequal, the calls to change the structure of the Security Council have been met with doubts regarding how to go about this. Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, led discussions concerning the reform of the P5 system and which criteria should be considered for entry into a permanent position. His main concerns were the growing irrelevance of the UN due to its reliance on outdated geopolitics and its inability to deal with contemporary issues such as self-defense, terrorism and global health crises. He proposed two models reflecting the interests of major and minor regional powers. Model A (G4) proposed adding six permanent seats and three non-permanent seats, whereas Model B (G11) would add eight non-permanent seats and one additional two-year post. The criteria considered in choosing the member states were mainly composed of the country's financial contributions and commitments to peacekeeping. However, disagreements between the G4 and G11 camps and an inability to compromise on a specific ruling led to a stalemate in negotiations and the eventual abandonment of a reform.
The ability to reach a satisfying conclusion to the legitimization process of the UNSC is greatly hindered by the desires of the current member states, many of which vary as they focus on particular political agendas rather than the promotion of international peacekeeping, which the UN is meant to be based on. France, the U.K., and Russia in particular highlight the importance of the organization in the global order, as it helps to validate and uphold their international influence. While China and the U.S. recognize the authority of the UN, their voting patterns reflect their larger interests (Berdal 2003: 20). China's veto of the UN's ability to interfere in member states' internal affairs demonstrates their unwillingness to be challenged over their claims to Taiwan and geographic disputes. At the same time, the U.S. used its influence within the UN to convince the body to allow a confrontation with Iraq, going against the wishes of a majority of the member states. Overall, one can see the specific political visions of each member clouding their ability to act on behalf of the institution as a whole.
Ultimately, the restructuring of the UNSC is reliant on the compliance of the current member states. Their power both within the UN as well as in global politics indicates that a reform is only possible with the recognition of a mutual goal. The increasingly assertive nature of Chinese foreign policy as well as the desire of the United States to retain its position as a world power mean that an agreement is becoming more and more unlikely. The alteration of the UN Charter to diminish the authority of the P5 seems to be one of the only solutions to include more countries in the decision-making process, but also seems to be highly unlikely. While there may be another call for restructuring in the future, the current nature of the UNSC and the interests of the P5 confirms the unlikeliness of this happening anytime soon.
Image courtesy of ABC News, ©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.
