| Reform Of The United Nations Security Council |
Article Index for Reform |
Website Links For Reform |
Information About ™Reform Of The United Nations Security Council |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT REFORM OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL | |
| united nations reform | |
|
A very frequently discussed change to the UN structure is to change the permanent membership of the opposes India; and Mexico and Argentina oppose Brazil, a Portuguese -speaking country in a largely Spanish -speaking Latin America . Formerly, . The previous Secretary, Colin Powell , had objected to Japanese permanent membership because Article 9 Of The Constitution Of Japan forbids the country from going to war {Link without Title} . It has also been suggested that an African nation be given a seat on the Security Council, with South Africa being the most likely contender. Another proposal is to abolish the United Kingdom and France 's seats and give a seat to the European Union : but since the EU is not a state this would require either a change to the UN Charter or that the EU become a state. Another change frequently suggested is to remove the veto power enjoyed by the permanent members of the Security Council. It is hard to see any of the current members surrendering the veto power. The United States in particular would strongly oppose this on the grounds that it would make the actions of the United States subject to international approval, and would also increase the likelihood of resolutions critical of Israel being passed. (See also Israel And The United Nations .) One of the main drives behind this are situations in which all but one of the fifteen nations on the Security Council vote to support a measure that is relatively unimportant, such as administrative decisions. (This was the case with the battle over re-election of UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali .) ''In Larger Freedom'' On March 21, 2005 , Annan called on the UN to reach a consensus on expanding the council to 24 members, in a plan referred to as " In Larger Freedom ". He gave two alternatives for implementation, but did not specify which proposal he preferred In any case, Annan favored making the decision quickly, stating, "This important issue has been discussed for too long. I believe member states should agree to take a decision on it – preferably by consensus, but in any case before the summit – making use of one or other of the options presented in the report of the High-Level Panel"[http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/sg-statement.html . The two options mentioned by Annan are referred to as Plan A and Plan B {Link without Title} :
The summit mentioned by Annan is the September 2005 Millennium+5 Summit , a high level plenary meeting that reviewed Annan's report, the implementation of the 2000 Millennium Declaration , and other UN reform-related issues {Link without Title} . U.S. position According to the U.S. Department Of State {Link without Title} : The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform. We advocate a criteria-based approach under which potential members must be supremely well qualified, based on factors such as: economic size, population, military capacity, commitment to democracy and human rights, financial contributions to the UN, contributions to UN peacekeeping, and record on counterterrorism and nonproliferation. We have to look, of course, at the overall geographic balance of the Council, but effectiveness remains the benchmark for any reform. |
|
|