United Nations Security Council

The United Nations Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United Nations (UN). It is charged with maintaining peace and security between nations. While other organs of the United Nations only make recommendations to member governments, the Security Council has the power to make decisions which member governments must carry out under the United Nations Charter. The decisions of the Council are known as UN Security Council Resolutions. Presidency of the Security Council is rotated and lasts for one month.

History

The Security Council held its second session on January 17, 1946 at Church House, London.

Members

A Security Council member must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time. This requirement of the United Nations Charter was adopted to address a weakness of the League of Nations since that organization was often unable to respond quickly to crises.

In the role of president of the Security Council, it involves setting the agenda, presiding at its meetings and overseeing any crisis. It alternates in alphabetical order of the members' names in English.

There are two categories of membership in the UN Security Council: Permanent Members and Elected Members.

Permanent members

The Council has five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:

• the Republic of China
• the French Republic
• the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
• the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• the United States of America

Two of the original members, the Republic of China and Soviet Union, were later replaced by recognized successor states:

• the People's Republic of China
• the Russian Federation

In 1971, the People's Republic of China was awarded China's seat in the United Nations by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, and the Republic of China (which had lost mainland China and was limited to Taiwan since 1949) soon lost membership in all UN organs. In 1991, Russia acquired the seat originally held by the Soviet Union, including the Soviet Union's former representation in the Security Council.

The current five members of the Security Council are the only nations permitted to possess nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which lacks universal validity, as not all nuclear nations have signed the treaty. This nuclear status is not the result of their Security Council membership, though it is sometimes used as a modern-day justification for their continued presence on the body. India, Pakistan, possibly North Korea and Israel (though Israel has never itself admitted to nuclear weapons possession) possess nuclear weapons outside of the anti-proliferation framework established by the Treaty.

Each permanent member state has veto powers, which can be used to void any resolution. A single veto from a permanent member outweighs any majority. This is not technically a veto, rather just a "nay" vote; however any "nay" vote from a permanent member would block the passage of the resolution in question.

Elected members

Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for 2-year terms starting on January 1, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. The African, North/South American, Asian, and Western European blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member. The last seat rotates every two years between Asia and Africa, currently Africa.

The current (2006) elected members are:

1. Argentina (Americas)
2. Republic of the Congo (Africa)
3. Denmark (W. Europe)
4. Ghana (Africa)
5. Greece (W. Europe)
6. Japan (Asia)
7. Peru (Americas)
8. Qatar (Asia)
9. Slovakia (E. Europe)
10. Tanzania (Africa)

See Elected members of the UN Security Council for other years.

Membership reform

There has been discussion of an increase in the number of permanent members. The countries who have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Japan, Germany, Brazil and India. Indeed, Japan and Germany are the UN's second and third largest funders, respectively, while Brazil and India are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked a team of advisors to come up with recommendations for revamping the United Nations by the end of 2004. A proposed solution is to increase the number of permanent members by five, which, in most proposals, would include Japan, Germany, India, Brazil (known as the G4 nations), one seat from Africa (most likely between Nigeria and South Africa), and/or one seat from the Arab League. On September 21, 2004, the G4 nations issued a joint statement mutually backing each other's claim to permanent status, together with an African country. France and the United Kingdom declared that they support this claim. Currently the proposal has to be accepted by two-thirds of the UN General Assembly which translates to 128 votes.

Japan

Japan is the second largest contributor to the U.N. regular budgets. Its payment even surpasses the sum of those of the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China and Russia. Japan has been one of the largest ODA donor countries. Thus Japan is considered the most likely candidate for one of the new permanent seats.

Japan's eagerness to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council has met with strong opposition from many East Asian countries, specifically the People's Republic of China, South Korea and North Korea. Mongolia has backed Japan's bid however ( [1]). There have been large-scale anti-Japanese protests in both mainland China and South Korea. Although they associate their movements with Japan's past, others speculate that these countries, especially the PRC, are motivated by more current problems such as territorial disputes. In late April 2005, large anti-Japan protests broke out in mainland China. The reasons for the protests are varied, but include tensions between Japan and China over the future of the Security Council, Japanese revisionist history books back by the government, continual visits by Prime Minister Koizumi to the Yasukuni Shrine which houses 14 class-A war criminals, and territorial disputes of islands claimed by both China and Taiwan. While the protests were not officially sanctioned by the PRC, some analysts suggested that the PRC government allowed the protests to proceed in order to upset Japan's bid to be added to the Security Council. Others still argued that the Chinese government did not want the protestors' anger to be focused on them, as preventing these demonstrations would be construed as supporting Japan. However, the PRC government then forbade further protests when it became concerned that such protests might become more about domestic issues.

Many other Asian nations have expressed strong support for Japan's application. Japan's backers in the region include Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and Vietnam. Other countries such as Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom also back Japan's bid. However, nations who have been subject to previous Japanese atrocities such as China, South Korea, North Korea and Taiwan, point to the Japanese government's continual unrepentence (as evidenced by the revisionist Japanese history textbook controversies, the controversial visits to Yasukuni Shrine by members of the Japanese government, denial of the Nanjing Massacre, etc.) as evidence of Japan's inappropriateness to hold permanent membership.

Although the United States strongly supports Japan's bid for Security Council membership, it rejects the combined G4+one bid for membership as a whole, which Japan needs to keep its support. Similarly, China wants to keep Japan from getting permanent status. Both veto holding countries could seriously jeopardize Japan's chances. While Russia is interested in a local counterweight to China, it is also wary of Japan's strong ties to the USA.

Germany

Germany is the third largest contributor to the U.N. regular budgets, and as such, claims for a Security Council seat next to Japan.

France has explicitly called for a permanent seat in the UN for Germany: "Germany's engagement, its ranking as a great power, its international influence—France would like to see them recognised with a permanent seat on the Security Council", French president Jacques Chirac said in a speech in Berlin in 2000. The former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder also identified Russia, among other countries, as a country that backed Germany's bid. Italy and Netherlands on the contrary, suggest a common EU seat in the Council instead of Germany becoming the third European member next to France and the UK. The former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said that Germany would also accept a common European seat, but as long as there is little sign that France and the UK will give up their own seats, Germany, a much larger country, should also have a seat because it frequently quantifies the United States position. There have been suggestions that the EU should "share" the existing two permanent seats that it already has, without gaining a third seat - suggestions have been voiced [2] that the French should pool their vote with Germany in the Franco-German EU integrationist tradition and the UK would represent the EU tradition of less integrationist views. Thus, the German campaign for a permanent seat was intensified in 2004. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder made himself perfectly clear in August, 2004: "Germany has the right to a seat". Its bid is supported by Japan, India, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and Russia, among other countries. Current German Chancellor, Angela Merkel has given no comment yet on the subject.

India

India, a nuclear power, represents approximately a sixth of the world's population and is the world's largest democracy. It is also the world's fourth largest economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity and maintains the world's largest armed force. India is one of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions. Its bid is unequivocally backed by permanent members France, the United Kingdom, and Russia.

Though initially opposed by the People's Republic of China due to geo-political reasons (China being an ally of India's arch-rival Pakistan and the country also having fought a brief war with India in 1962), recent history has turned China's official support for India's candidature from negative to neutral to positive. On April 11, 2005 China announced it would support India's bid for a permanent seat, but without a veto. The veto power, however, is the most defining characteristic of a permanent member and in the eyes of the G4 countries, to be denied the veto power is just a way for the 5 current permanent members to retain their superiority. Although the US officially does not back India's bid - for various reasons, some of which remain decidedly unclear - it has privately been eager to work with India and to support the nation (which translates to not using a veto). Taking into account its huge population and growing economic and political clout, India is a strong contender to clinch a permanent seat. Another factor which bolsters India's candidature is the fact that it was one of the founding members of the Security Council and has participated in several of its activities, including UN operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Cambodia, Yemen, Somalia, Rwanda and Namibia, among others.

Brazil

Brazil's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council are boosted for a of number reasons:

• Brazil recently received strong indications that the United States was willing to support its membership; albeit, without a veto.
• It is a member of the G4 nations alliance (including Germany, India and Japan). Every G4 country supports a permanent seat bid for each of the other three (whilst each has strong claims to a seat independently).
• It is the largest country in Latin America in terms of population, economy and land area.
• It has a tradition to lead UN's troops in peacekeeping missions such as the current one in Haiti.
• It has received backing from other countries such as Russia for a permanent seat.
• An important political leadership among developing nations, especially in commercial contests in the World Trade Organization.

The Islamic member

Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire the predominantly Islamic Middle East has been an area of persistent international conflict, and the periodic flare-ups in the region have been the subject of many UN security council debates and resolutions. Therefore, the prospect of introducing a permanent Islamic member to the security council is highly sensitive, especially if such a member were to be granted the power of veto.

Outside the Muslim world, commentators mainly from the United States, have raised concerns that an empowered Islamic member could wield its veto to restrict the UN's ability to act forcefully in the Middle East or on the boundaries of the Islamic world (e.g. Kashmir and Chechnya), rendering the UN impotent in those regions. The lack of democracy in Middle Eastern states that are predominantly Muslim is another reason cited by some Western commentators who argue against the idea of including these countries in the club of permanent, veto-wielding states.

At the same time, the draft G-4 reform proposals may leave over 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide without any permanent representation on the UN security council. This is a highly controversial issue within the Islamic world and would adversely impact the UN's credibility in the hotspots of the Middle East and in the Islamic world. In June 2005, the foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) called for a permanent Muslim seat on the UN Security Council.

Recent resistance to the reform draft proposals emanating from the G-4 states can be attributed in part to this highly sensitive issue. The US and several Western states have objected to any proposal that gives new members any veto powers, and within the African Union, Egypt has led resistance to a proposal by Nigeria to adopt a version of the G-4 proposals that removes the right of veto for new members, and may enable the creation of a reformed council that does not have any permanent members with a predominantly Muslim identity.

Africa

Currently, no country in Africa has a permanent seat on the Security Council and this is seen as a major reason behind the push to have an African nation be given one. There are indeed several popular reasons why Africa has a good chance of gaining a Security Council membership:

• Africa is the second-largest and second most populous continent behind Asia (in which, China already has a seat and Japan and India are petitioning for ones).
• Africa has more United Nations members than any other continent.
• Africa, as a whole, is seen as non-threatening.
• It currently has the support of most of South America and India (the South-South Alliance) and Japan of the G4 nations. There are also calls by the UK and France for more political representation from Africa.

Although no one nation from Africa has formally been put forward as a candidate for membership on the Security Council, South Africa and Nigeria are seen as the stronger choices. South Africa has the largest and best developed economy on the continent and Nigeria is the most populous country.

Veto power

Decisions in the 15-member Security Council on all substantive matters—for example, a decision calling for direct measures related to the settlement of a dispute—require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote—a veto—by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used 5 vetoes; France, 18; Russia/USSR, 122; the United Kingdom, 32; and the United States, 80. The majority of the USSR vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence, and the numbers since 1984 have been: China, 2; France, 3; Russia, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 42.

Status of non-members

A state that is a member of the UN, but not of the Security Council, may participate in Security Council discussions in which the Council agrees that the country's interests are particularly affected. In recent years, the Council has interpreted this loosely, enabling many countries to take part in its discussions. Non-members routinely are invited to take part when they are parties to disputes being considered by the Council.

Role of the Security Council

U.N. Security Council
Resolutions
1 to 100
101 to 200
201 to 300
301 to 400
401 to 500
501 to 600
601 to 700
701 to 800
801 to 900
901 to 1000
1001 to 1100
1101 to 1200
1201 to 1300
1301 to 1400
1401 to 1500
1501 to 1600
1601 to 1700

Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members.

Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security". This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.

The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which gives the Security Council the power to:

• Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
• Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
• Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and
• Enforce its decisions militarily, if necessary.

The United Nations has helped prevent many outbreaks of international violence from growing into wider conflicts. It has opened the way to negotiated settlements through its service as a center of debate and negotiation, as well as through UN-sponsored fact-finding missions, mediators, and truce observers. UN Peacekeeping forces, comprised of troops and equipment supplied by member nations, have usually been able to limit or prevent conflict. Some conflicts, however, have proven to be beyond the capacity of the UN to influence. Key to the success of UN peacekeeping efforts is the willingness of the parties to a conflict to come to terms peacefully through a viable political process.

The Council can indict nationals of countries that have not signed the International Criminal Court statute for trial before the court. Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe is an example of a possible case, whose indictment has been called for by Australia and New Zealand.

Resolutions

The legally binding nature of Security Council Resolutions has been the subject of some controversy. It is generally agreed that resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter. The Council is also empowered to make resolutions under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes); most authorities do not consider these to be legally binding. The International Court of Justice suggested in the Namibia case that resolutions other than those made under Chapter VI can also be binding, a view that some Member States have questioned. It is beyond doubt however that those resolutions made outside these two Chapters dealing with the internal governance of the organisation (such as the admission of new Member States) are legally binding, where the Charter gives the Security Council power to make them.

Within one months time, they will be discussing a resolution to put economic santions on Iran.

In popular culture

The Interpreter is a 2005 film featuring a fictional African head of state, apparently based on Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, seeking to avoid being indicted by the UN Security Council for trial before the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of crimes against humanity. Australia, New Zealand, and international human rights organisations have backed the call for Mugabe's indictment. As Zimbabwe is a non-signatory of the ICC statute, an ICC trial requires either a UN Security Council indictment or Zimbabwe to accept the ICC’s jurisdiction.