Treading a tortuous path

In fact, the US opposition has been not to new permanent members other than Germany and Japan: America knows that the UN’s 185 members will hardly swallow an expansion with only Germany and Japan as permanent members.

Rather, it is opposed to an expanded UNSC with a total membership of more than 21, convinced that a larger number would mean a too unwieldy body. The UNSC’s present strength is 15, five permanent — US, China, Russia, Britain and France members and ten non-permanent ones.

One of the stickier spots in the tortuous path to UNSC expansion is that too many countries harbour ambitions of UNSC membership for 21 seats to accommodate the more genuine claims.

Officials in Germany, the prime candidate for permanent UNSC membership alongside Japan, maintain that a membership of 24-26 is more realistic. Yet Germany has found the barest hope in the Razali proposal that things could at last be moving. America’s decision boosts this hope.

So what is this proposal? After years of painful negotiations on the UNSC going nowhere, Razali Ismail consulted with 165 of the UN’s 185 members and made a proposal for UNSC expansion on March 20. His plan would increase the number of UNSC members, permanent and non-permanent, from 15 to 24.

Razali has said two of the permanent seats should go to two industrial countries, which are obviously Germany and Japan. Indeed, the whole debate about UNSC expansion began some years ago with the UN then approaching its 50th anniversary, an internationally more assertive Japan, an America anxious for other rich countries to better share the UN’s costs, and a Germany less nervous about a high-profile international role.

Razali proposed three more permanent UNSC seats, one each for an Asian, a Latin American and an African country. The American decision is an indication of its concurrence although it has desisted from naming regions or individual countries.

Razali also proposed four new non-permanent seats, one each for the three aforementioned regions and another for Eastern Europe. Since the US has not changed its position on the total number, the arithmetic of this part of the plan does not work. Five new permanent members already means a UNSC of 20.

The Razali plan does not envisage a veto for new members. Instead it calls on the permanent five to decide how they will restrict the use of their own veto. (Interestingly enough, according to German officials, the US is not opposed to the veto for new permanent members.)

The three stages of the Razali plan envisage an agreement on the basics of UNSC reform by a two-thirds majority voting before the new General Assembly starts in September. It requires agreement on the new permanent members by the end of February next. Finally, it would see agreement on non-permanent members by the end of March, before the new UNGA begins in April. It suggests voting on the new members some time next year, rounding off this long-postponed reform.

America has indicated, in a confirmation of the Razali plan, that if new members cannot be agreed upon by consensus then voting in the UN General Assembly could be the answer.

For all the excitement evinced by the media in the wake of the American move, a great deal stands in the way of expansion and even more in the way of India’s permanent membership. While US agreement with the basics of the Razali plan is half the battle won, America has crucially not endorsed increased non-permanent membership. Countries with this lesser ambition will not be amused. The cautious Indian response and the observation that non-permanent membership should also be expanded fit in this context. The Razali proposal is also hemmed in by its own tight deadlines and the clash of ambitions. It would be reckless to suppose that India will sail through in a secret ballot on permanent members. Pakistan and Indonesia see themselves as serious contenders — India is in much the same boat.

Argentina, Brazil and Mexico each harbours hopes from the Latin American region; as do Egypt and Nigeria from Africa, with South Africa emerging as a new claimant not to be lightly dismissed. “If these countries lose out, they become second-class category,” sighs a German official.

There is a definite view in the Indian foreign policy establishment that a delayed UNSC expansion will help India’s prospects. If expansion were to happen now, India’s chances would be uncertain and that is not a risk many want to take. In five to 10 years, though, India’s legitimate claim to a permanent seat could be far greater in economic and regional-power terms.

India never could be sure about the result of a secret vote in the UN General Assembly. It has reason to be cautious after the defeat of its recent bid for a non-permanent seat against Japan. It may well perceive it to be in its interest to work on delaying an expansion rather than jumping at the half chance of getting in.

Germany, though cautiously hopeful about the plan, is not over-anxious. It not only knows that when expansion happens, it will be there. The Germans also say their interests are well enough represented by the P-5. Besides, many Germans believe that the whole business of permanent membership is meant to saddle their country with a greater share of the UN’s expenses. True enough, from America’s point of view.

The Razali Proposal

*Increase Security Council seats from 15 to 24
* 5 new permanent seats: two for industrial countries (Germany and Japan); one each from Asia, Latin America and Africa
* 4 new non-permanent seats: one each from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Eastern Europe.
* No veto for new members; permanent five should restrict their vetoHow America differsOn permanent seats, it agrees. But it says total seats should not exceed 21. This leaves no room for new non-permanent members.The Razali timetable* Stage one: Agreement on basics of UNSC reform by 2/3rds majority voting before new UNGA in September.
* Stage two: Agreement on the new permanent members by end-February 1998.
* Stage three: Agreement on non-permanent members by end-March next, before new General Assembly in April.
* Finish: Voting on new members some time next year after these stages are complete.

The contestants:
Asia: India, Indonesia, Pakistan
Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, MexicoAfrica: Egypt, Nigeria and, lately, South Africa