The UN Security Council holds a meeting at UN headquarters, in New York, on Dec. 19.CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP/Getty Images
Lloyd Axworthy is a former Canadian foreign minister and is the chair of the World Refugee and Migration Council. Allan Rock is a former minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada and former Canadian ambassador to the United Nations.
In this time of darkening developments on the world stage, there may be a glimmer of light from an unexpected source: the United Nations. Security Council reform is being discussed – again.
The Council’s present structure, with five veto-wielding permanent members (P5) and 10 members elected to two-year terms, is a relic of the period after the Second World War when the victorious P5 (the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China) were the world’s most significant states. Demographic and political changes since 1945 have left the Council unrepresentative and lacking in legitimacy.
There have been false starts and fruitless reform efforts in decades past. But there is reason to believe that this time might be different.
First, P5 member Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violated the most fundamental precept in the UN Charter. That such a lawless regime enjoys permanent status and holds a veto at the UN’s most powerful table brings the Council into disrepute and renders the Council unfit for its most important purpose, which is maintaining international peace and security.
Second, there is unprecedented pressure from UN member states for a more representative Council. That sentiment was reflected in the recently adopted Pact for the Future, which expressly recognizes the need for reform.
Finally, three of the P5 (the United States, France and Britain) have openly expressed their willingness to entertain proposals for change.
It is one thing to call for change. It is quite another to develop consensus about what that change would look like. In approaching that question, member states would do well to consider global public opinion, which (with one important exception) strongly favours international governance based on principles of democracy and accountability. A recent global survey showed significant international support (except in the United States) for global governance if focused on common challenges.
Proposals for Council reform must surely be assessed against that standard. Do they reflect democracy and accountability? Will they produce a Council capable of dealing with our common challenges?
By those standards, merely creating additional permanent members (the most frequently touted reform proposal) falls short. Anointing additional permanent members would simply repeat the mistake of 1945. Permanency creates impunity and comes with a total lack of accountability. Creating new permanent members would inflame regional rivalries, unfairly advantage some at the expense of others, create a false hierarchy among states and fail to address the underlying issues of legitimacy plaguing the Council. The idea that new members would have a veto is especially troubling because it would compound the existing structural flaw and create newer barriers to the Council’s effectiveness.
In 2005, Canada proposed an approach to Council reform that merits renewed attention. Instead of new permanent members, our proposal would establish new permanent seats in each global region, leaving it to states in each region to determine which member states should sit in those seats and for how long. The proposal would enlarge the Council to 25 seats, with 20 to be elected for two-year terms. It would distribute the elected seats equitably among regions, allow for consecutive re-election and leave to each region decisions about the rotation of the seats and the duration of each member state’s period on the Council. None of the new seats would come with a veto.
Consider the merits of this approach.
It is democratic. Member states would choose their own representatives, not once and forever (as with new permanent members) but periodically.
It is accountable. Permanence is the polar opposite of accountability. Here, membership would be earned by winning and keeping the confidence of one’s peers.
It is flexible, since it allows for repeated terms of different aggregate length among the elected seats permanently allocated to each global region. If a region (say, Africa) felt that one or two states (say, Nigeria and South Africa) should be on the Council for the long term, their repeated election would ensure continuous membership.
It is fair. A greater number of states could rotate through the seats allocated to each region. None of the seats would be set aside forever for a chosen few. All 20 of the elected seats would be available to all member states. In an organization of equal sovereign members, there should be no second-class countries. This proposal would give every state a voice.
In sum, the 2005 Canadian proposal for Council reform would produce a more legitimate and effective body equipped to respond to the complex challenges of the years ahead. We urge today’s Canadian government to promote this approach as UN member states consider Council reform.