A Peaceful Option of Choice
By Dr. Klaus Schlichtmann, Japan

In one of my classes, when I discuss the reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with my Japanese students, I always make them perform the following task. Granted, I have a strong opinion on the issue.

First I test their general knowledge, like when and where the UNO was founded etc. Eventually I tell the students to look at the five permanent members (5P) of the Security Council, and tell me what they know. Yes, the 5P are the victorious nations from the Second World War, yes, they are the main nuclear powers as well as major arms exporters, yes, yes… But what about fair, equitable representation in the Council?

What I want my students to do is look at the Council from the point-of-view of “equitable geographical distribution” (UN Charter, Article 23) which is supposed to be one of the principles in the UN Charter, concerning representation in the Security Council. Is there anything not conforming to this principle in the Council’s composition?

If I am lucky and lead them in the right direction, the students will come up with the correct answer, i.e. that the Europeans (and the North) are over-represented and the South is under-represented or rather not represented at all.

Remember Willy Brandt and the North-South Dialogue in the 1970s? The North depends with its industries on the South’s raw materials and natural resources, as well as industrial exports to these regions, to a great extent. I believe the Global South must be represented if we want to achieve peace and justice in the world.

My next question is: what can be done – or rather should be done? The answer to that can be found if we apply the principleof reaping maximum benefits from minimum effort, i.e. getting the maximum positive outcome from a minimum of change to the UN Charter, including making the performance of the Security Council more effective. I tell my students that in the initial stage we would like, if possible, to maintain the number ‘five,’ so as to facilitate the process. I also tell them that the number “5” is ideal for operating a system on the consensus principle.

Obviously, since Europe is overrepresented (and in the process of further political integration) it would be logical and expedient to reduce the two European permanent seat (Britain and France) to a single European representations. This would give us one empty seat, which should go to the South. I believe this kind of change could be accomplished with little modification in the text of the UN Charter, similar to when the Peoples Republic of China replaced the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 1971.

Now we have only one more problem, though this may be the most difficult one to agree on: Who will get the empty seat? Even if the Europeans cannot decide on a single EU representation, no time should be lost to give a permanent position, with veto, to a suitable representative of the Global South.
We now make a list of possible candidates in alphabetical order: Africa (e.g. Republic of South Africa, Egypt), Australia, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Japan… Oops! Japan does not belong to the Global South, does it? Next, we make a list of criteria: population, economic performance, peace traditions, UN contributions (e.g. troops etc.), historical and cultural background, development, geopolitical considerations etc.

What I want the students to come up with, after having checked all the options is that India, with one seventh of the world’s population, an upward economic trend, a peace tradition (both the Indian king Ashoka and Mahatma Gandhi could be named here), large troop contributions to UN Peace-keeping operations (PKO), and an ancient civilization still alive today, would be the most fitting candidate to fill the position.

If India is given this position as one of the five (or six) permanent members in the Security Council, I think it can be persuaded, if given the task, to initiate nuclear and general and complete disarmament, in accordance with Article 6 of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Japan as a powerful non-nuclear nation, contributing nearly 20% to the UN's budget, could be co-opted as a permanent consultant to support these efforts – and also provide the Security Council, concurrent with the ‘Transitional Security Arrangments’ in the Charter, with international police personnel, drawn from the jieitai. Apart from disarmament, giving India a decisive role would have a positively stabilizing effect on the situation in surrounding areas, including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Burma and Sri Lanka (Ceylon), as well as vis-à-vis the problem of Islamist fundamentalism in general.

Mind the reader, this is only meant to be the first step; comprehensive UN reforms have to be scheduled to take place after five or ten years when the measure has been successful. However, no time should be lost. The UN Security Council will not be more effective if the number of permanent members is increased, quite the contrary. You have to give politicians some other options. India may be the option of choice.
The author is a researcher and historian of international law and diplomacy

Dr. Klaus Schlichtmann - Nakakayama 452-35 - Hidaka city - Saitama prefecture - 350-1232 JAPAN - phone & fax: +81 (42) 989-2966
email: kschlichtmann@hotmail.com