“It costs us nothing to try to sell more motorcycles in India and propose something that is not going to go anywhere,” said Thomas G. Weiss, a political science professor at CUNY and the author of “What’s Wrong with the United Nations.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/world/09nations.html
Change Will Not Come Easily to the Security Council
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
Published: November 8, 2010
The idea of overhauling the Security Council, even by the slow standards of the United Nations, has been under negotiation for about 18 years with no end in sight. Vague talks initiated under the auspices of the Open-Ended Working Group, mocked as the “never ending” committee, gave way in 2009 to what was supposed to be real negotiations.
But those who attend basically read their position papers and then leave, according to diplomats involved; no bartering occurs. Even with real talks, the potential for reaching a consensus are formidable.The main issues include how to expand the current council beyond 15 seats; whether the seats should be permanent or elected; and whether new permanent members would get a veto. A welter of proposals exist: five new permanent members without veto power plus five more elected for a total of 25, for example, or establishing a middle tier of seats for countries heavily involved in United Nations, who could serve for three or four years.
There is basic agreement that the council, outdated because it reflects the world in 1945 when the United Nations was founded, needs to be expanded to include emerging powers. The council was expanded to 15 members from 11 in 1965, and China took over the permanent seat of the nationalist Chinese in 1971.
But beyond the idea of expansion, any consensus falls apart, with fierce regional rivalries over who might gain new permanent seats making any change problematic, if not impossible. President Obama’s announcement on Monday was novel in that he actually named India as a candidate for a permanent seat.
About five years ago Washington offered a similar endorsement for Japan. Anti-Japan riots soon erupted in Beijing, and the Chinese government made it clear that Japan’s World War II aggression should prevent it from gaining a permanent seat. China does not now openly oppose new permanent members, but instead urges “compromise” over the various proposals, which diplomats interpret as opposition to any additional permanent members.
Of the other four permanent members, in addition to the United States, Britain and France are the most flexible, fearing that an outdated council will cost them even more of their diminishing global clout. Russia, like the United States, occasionally endorses a possible new permanent member; a few years ago it was Brazil.
But basically the five permanent members have veto power over any proposed overhaul of the council and do little to move it forward. Analysts also ask the larger question of whether an expanded council would be any more effective. Many deem it likely to be even slower to reach decisions.
Analysts noted that Mr. Obama can easily propose such a change, making it sound like the United States is recognizing an enhanced role for India in the world, without necessarily expecting any real change.
“It costs us nothing to try to sell more motorcycles in India and propose something that is not going to go anywhere,” said Thomas G. Weiss, a political science professor at CUNY and the author of “What’s Wrong with the United Nations.”
