6

There is a proposed Reform of the United Nations Security Council, but there seems to be no time line of implementation and vote. The latest update I found is that there was a meeting of 120 UN member states in Rome back in 2011.

For what reasons hasn't a reform of the UNSC taken place yet? If the permanent members of the UNSC are vetoing this reform, what are their reasons?

Improve this question
7
  • @Chad, you're right, let me update my question.
    – ChrisR
    Commented Jul 31, 2014 at 16:02
  • 2
    "The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC, enjoying the veto right". That should clearly explain the reasons. All 5 of them. Would YOU voluntarily relinquish veto rights if doing so could easily cause you to suffer major negative strategic consequences?
    – user4012
    Commented Jul 31, 2014 at 16:09
  • @DVK, I've just edited my question to reflect that I am looking for specific reasons, broader than just "enjoying the veto right." Thanks for the comment.
    – ChrisR
    Commented Jul 31, 2014 at 16:12
  • 3
    I voted to reopen. I suspect the answer is, as DVK notes, basic self interest of the current permanent members of the security council. But maybe someone can find a source that will provide official reasons(that will basically be double talk for we do not feel like giving up our power)
    – SoylentGray
    Commented Jul 31, 2014 at 16:54
  • 1
    It can also be argued that it is not even in the permanent members own interest to retain a veto because it undermines the credibility of the institution and thus its ability to act more effectively.
    – Brett Zamir
    Commented Mar 8, 2015 at 22:50

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
5

The main reason to veto the Reform is: Power. Since 1945 until today, The Permanent Five (P5) rejected all kinds of reforms and even don't accept to share the power. Several proposal were introduced to include the expansion to include more permanent members.

The most popular is the G4 (India, Germany, Japan, Brazil), which want to include seats for Western Europe, Latin America, Africa and one more seat to Asia. To pass the reform they need the approval of the P5 plus the backing of the two-third of the UNGA. The hard part is the China's agreement; remember that China historically has several issues regarding their foreign policy with Japan, the last was the Senkaku controversy.

Another proposal is the one made by the other G5 (Argentina, South Korea, Pakistan, Mexico and Italy); the support the creation of new rotative permanent chairs. For the same reason of the G4's rejection, I think this one won't work either.

Kofi Annan several years ago proposed to expand the number of permanent seats, but without the veto power and more permanent seats but this was rejected by the regional blocks.

There's no reason why the P5 want to accept one more permanent member. Even if the growth of the regional power, still not being enough reason to add more permanent members with veto power.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .