Why Does the UN Security Council Need Reform?
The issue of equitable representation in the Security Council, at the forefront of the General Assembly’s agenda since 1979, has gained a renewed sense of urgency amid widening conflict worldwide. With member states increasingly questioning the body’s adequacy as the international community’s principal organ for conflict management and peacekeeping, reform is imperative to remain relevant.
The Security Council’s decisions are binding for all member states. However, its current configuration reflects the geopolitical reality of 1945, failing to reproduce the diverse composition of an institution which has seen 142 new members join since. Despite the body’s enlargement in 1963-65, its slowness to act is evident when addressing threats to international peace and security, prompting remarks of it ‘dangerously falling short’ and no longer being ‘fit for purpose’.
Antje Leedertse, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Germany, states that the current composition of the Council means it cannot effectively address contemporary challenges. Others such as James Fares Alrowaiei, Ambassador and Permanent Representative to Bahrain, highlight the urgent need for reform, especially with regards to the arbitrary use of veto power and the challenge this poses to the body’s credibility.
Given the Council’s wholistic jurisdiction, the upkeep of its authority is of the utmost importance. Mr Dennis Francis, President of the General Assembly, has issued a warning regarding the corroding state of the governing organ, stating that without structural change, its ‘performance and legitimacy will inevitably continue to suffer’.
At the forefront of the demanded structural reform is the need to make the Security Council more representative. The multilateral organ is overarchingly Western, with Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean lacking the representation that their current standing demands. A geopolitically balanced distribution of seats is therefore essential to safeguard international peace, stability and security, reform intrinsic to the survival of the collective body.
Furthermore, with the Permanent Five Members (the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom) dominating the socio-political and economic world stage, the rotation of non-permanent members seems to fade into the background. Elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly, the political scope of Guyana, Algeria, South Korea, Sierra Leone and Slovenia does not effectively reach the international community, let alone their own nation.
Some have argued that a two-year term could be too short a period to fully implement new bureaucratic legislation even within a Western democracy.
A strong example is that of Mozambique, currently residing on the Security Council. In 2023, President Filipe Jacinto Nyusi declared that Mozambique’s political agenda would focus on addressing wider terrorism concerns within Sub-Saharan Africa, representing a unified cultural front, battling energy security and combating climate change.
Terrorism has been at the forefront of Mozambique’s push to become a non-permanent member for the 2023-2024 year. The northern Cabo Delgado region, bordering Tanzania, has been particularly troubled as a result of Al Shahab’s numerous civilian attacks and the concerning displacement of one million people. This Southern African region has become a hornet’s nest for organized crime, the trafficking of heroin and precious gemstones rising dramatically in the past decade.
Mozambique’s unofficial three-pronged legal system makes this an arduous battle to fight. With Portuguese civil law, customary “Mozambican” law, and many rural communities observing Islamic law and customs, implementation on a national scale may require more time than the fixed two-year term.
Proposals for Reform
The Charter of the United Nations suggested that countries which make considerable contributions to the organisation should become permanent members of the Security Council. Following this rationale, Germany and Japan would be considered for permanent seats. Other proposals include that of the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan), calling for the enlargement of both permanent and non-permanent categories, supporting each other’s bids for permanent seats while doing so. On the other hand, the African Union proposes to expand the Council by giving African and Latin American countries permanent seats and increasing representation for all regional areas.
However, issues often arise regarding the possibility of new members vetoing proposals put forward. Many view veto power as anachronistic, speaking out against the possibility of new permanent members enjoying the right as part of the demanded reform. For instance, the G4 group proposed that new members should not have the right to veto initially, reviewed upon 15 years of their joining. On the other hand, groups like the African Union call for the immediate extension of veto power to new members.
Frequent council paralysis, together with the deepening of geopolitical tensions mean that this international organism is ‘trapped in amber’, the division of UN members over the shape of reform hindering its progress. The imminent consequences of such stagnation are evident. With decision-making processes shifted to other forums, competition among nations and transnational organisations is bound to increase. The destabilisation of the present power because of increased rivalry jeopardises international security and further triggers crisis worldwide.
Image courtesy of The Brussels Times, ©2024. 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.
