12 6 5 6 4 6 4

(1)

What is it?

Platform for Change aims to educate and inform

the diplomatic community and civil society on the

important issues and events surrounding U.N. reform.

One of the least known, yet vitally important, topics is the decades long

debate over U.N. Security Council reform. Tasked with the maintenance of

international peace and security, any reform of the Security Council will have

a profound impact on the U.N and its role in the future. Through education

and awareness today, together we can find a way to craft a more responsible,

reliable and representative U.N. tomorrow.

The debate on Security Council reform has accompanied the Council ever since its inception in 1945. However, other than the expansion of non-permanent seats from 6 to 10 in 1965, few reforms have actually taken hold while the need to do so has only grown. The ever shifting geopolitical realities of the world today are not the same as those in 1945, and the United Nations has seen a rapid expansion of Member States. It is widely accepted that current Security Council membership does not reflect the realities of the modern world.

Security Council reform was formally placed on the agenda of the UN in 1992, and an Open-Ended Working Group was formed to help the matter progress forward. However, no major progress took place until September 2008, when Member States agreed to move the deadlocked discussions from the Open-Ended Working Group to the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN), an informal plenary of the General Assembly. It was during this time that Member States adopted decision 62/557. Unlike Security Council resolutions which can be legally binding, GA decisions reflect a common opinion or position by member states. Even so, 62/557 helped set the ground rules that

Member States would strive to follow in the years to come.

Subsection (e)(ii) of GA decision 62/557 established five key issues that would serve as the basis for the intergovernmental negotiations: categories of membership; the question of the veto; regional representation; size ofan enlarged Security Council and working methods of the Council; and the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. During the ensuing IGN rounds, the five positions discussed throughout PfC were established.

The five permanent members of the Security Council (U.S., Russia, China, U.K. and France also known as the P5) generally support a modest expansion of the Council. However, it has been made clear that they do not all share or support the same positions. Comments have been made calling for new Council members to be able to contribute financially and politically to the maintenance of peace and security (the main function of the Council). Furthermore, it is highly unlikely to expect the P5 to welcome either the abolition of their veto powers or granting of such powers to new permanent members.

The history of reform

PLATFORM FOR CHANGE

www.pfcun.org

PARSIFALSEVEN LTD

INTELLIGENT WORLDVIEWS www.parsifalseven.com

Portland House Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5RS / + 44 207 8695137

An info-graphic by

The Group of Four

The G4 proposal

firmly takes the

needs of

Africa

into account with 2

permanent seats.

6

additional

permanent

seats

4

additional

non-permanent

seats

Strengths

All of the G4 states are financially and politically willing and able to contribute to international peace

and security.

The permanent seats for Africa have not been assigned and will likely be a hotly contested

issue as there are at least several strong contenders for the two positions.

The existence of permanent seats are half

of the reason why reform of the Council is required in the first place. No country can guarantee that they will be able and willing to contribute to international peace and security permanently.

The G4 proposal does

not call for additional

veto powers to be

granted.

VETO

GERMANY BRAZIL INDIA AFRICA

JAPAN AFRICA AFRICA ASIA

EAST

EURO

PE GRULAC

Weaknesses

The G4 proposal lacks clarity on _{how or if} non-permanent seats will be apportioned to regional groups or small developing states. Imbalance of having 11 permanent and 14 non permanent. Regional distribution would not be equitable or regionally balanced. Non accountable since 11 permanent members would never have to seek re-election irrespective of their actions and votes. Non democratic since almost half of members would not be elected.

The L69 Group

6

additional

permanent

seats

4

additional

non-permanent

seats

GERMANY BRAZIL INDIA

SIDS

Reserving a

non-permanent seat for a small

developing state.

The L69 proposal appears to enjoy a wide amount of support as it encompasses many of the features of both the G4 and AU proposals.

AFRICA

JAPAN AFRICA AFRICA

ASIA PACIFIC

SIDS _GRULAC

Strengths

The existence of

permanent seats are

half of the reason why

reform of the Council is

required in the first place.

No country can guarantee

that they will be able and

willing to contribute to

international peace and

security permanently.

VETO

By insisting on veto

powers for all new permanent members the L69 proposal sets itself directly against the interests of the P5. It is highly unlikely that all P5 members will allow this to pass uncontested.

Weaknesses

Imbalance of having 11 permanent and 14 non permanent. Regional distribution would not be equitable or regionally balanced. Non accountable since 11 permanent members would never have to seek re-election irrespective of their actions and votes. Non democratic since almost half of members would not be elected.

The permanent seats for Africa have not been assigned and will likely be a hotly contested issue as there are at least

several strong contenders for the two positions.

Given that a goal of reform is the creation of a

more

diverse and representative Council then

efforts such as this will be key.

The G4 proposal firmly takes the

needs of Africa into account with 2 permanent seats.

The African Union

The AU/C10 proposal firmly takes

the needs of

Africa into account

with 2 permanent seats in addition

to 2 reserved non-permanent seats.

6

additional

permanent

seats

5

additional

non-permanent

seats

GERMANY BRAZIL INDIA AFRICA

JAPAN AFRICA

By advocating a

position of

equality in

regards to veto powers

for all permanent

members, the

AU/C10 maintains

the flexibility

necessary to one

day succeed

in its goal of

abolishing the

veto power

entirely.

AFRICA

AFRICA ASIA

EAST

EURO

PE GRULAC

Strengths

The existence of

permanent seats are

half of the reason why

reform of the Council is

required in the first place.

No country can guarantee

that they will be able and

willing to contribute to

international peace and

security permanently.

VETO

By advocating for equality in veto powers, the AU/

C10 is effectively insisting on veto powers for all new permanent members, which sets itself directly against the interests of the P5. It is highly unlikely that all P5 members will allow this to pass uncontested.

Weaknesses

Imbalance of having 11 permanent and 15 non permanent. Non accountable since 11 permanent members would never have to seek re-election irrespective of their actions and votes. Non democratic since almost half of members would not be elected.

The permanent seats for Africa have not been assigned and will likely be a hotly contested issue as there are at least

several strong contenders for the two positions.

11

15 Uniting for Consensus

12 additional non

permanent

members

20 non permanent seats distributed by region:

The UFC

proposal

has been

criticized for

not giving

Africa a permanent seat

although it provides the

best regional

representation and

“permanent” rotating seats.

By not allowing any

additional permanent

seats, the UfC proposal

has been said to be

blocking economically

and politically powerful

states from full

participation in the

maintenance of worldwide

peace and stability.

The UfC proposal is the only platform that does not propose any additional permanent members to the Council. Reform under this type of flexible system would be able to more accurately reflect current and future

global realities.

Clear partitioning of

non-permanent seats by region. Given that one of the 5 Key Goals of reform is the creation of a more diverse and representative Council, efforts to partition seats among the regional groups will be key.

AFRICA ASIA _EUROPEEAST

AFRICA ASIA GRULAC SMALL _STATE

AFRICA ASIA GRULAC MEDIUM _STATE

E EUROPE WEOG

AFRICA ASIA GRULAC

EAST EUROPE WEOG

SMALL STATE MEDIUM STATE

Regular and longer term seats

5

new longer term

7

new regular term

Strengths

Weaknesses

Reserved seats: Non permanent seats for small states (under 1 million) and medium states (between 1-10 million)