Is There a Better Model For the U.N.?

How badly does the United Nations need reform? A blue-ribbon panel commissioned by Kofi Annan counted 101 ways in a much anticipated report released last week. Headed by former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun, the 16-member panel had something to say about everything from nuclear proliferation to looming pandemics. But the real buzz was caused by the panel's call to expand and revamp the U.N.'s most important decision-making body, the Security Council. If approved, the recommendations would produce the biggest shake-up at Turtle Bay in more than a generation. "The chances of thorough reform have never been as good as they are now," says a German official.

Of course, that's not saying much. Ideas for reforming the Security Council have been debated, and mostly rejected, since the day the organization was founded in 1945. Although membership was expanded in 1965 from 11 to 15, the Council still reflects the balance of power that prevailed after World War II. The club of permanent, veto-wielding Council members has not expanded beyond the original five: the U.S., Russia, France, Britain and China (although the People's Republic replaced Taiwan in the Chinese seat in 1971). In recent years, the Council has come under siege from upstarts who say it's time to open the doors to new powers. The Council, in the eyes of its critics, has become too doddering, risk averse and compromised by historic rivalries to cope with today's threats. Its failure to reach consensus in the months before the invasion of Iraq is largely what inspired Annan to initiate this latest attempt at reform.

How far might the U.N. be willing to go this time around? In an effort to improve regional representation, the Panyarachun panel came up with two alternatives for changing the Council's composition. The first would expand the permanent membership from five to 11 nations and increase the number elected to rotating terms from 10 to 13. The second proposal would create a middle tier of eight members elected to renewable four-year terms, and add a new two-year term. Under both proposals, the Security Council would grow from 15 to 24 seats. But neither idea grants the new members the right to veto resolutions--or the influence that it bestows. Such power would rest only with the original five.

A few nations with designs on permanent seats--India, Japan, Germany and Brazil--greeted the proposals more or less warmly, despite the disappointing denial of veto power. But they still have lobbying to do. Any amendment to the U.N. charter would have to be approved by two-thirds of the U.N.'s member countries, including all of the permanent five, as well as two-thirds of the national legislatures in those approving countries. That might prove difficult, since each contender for a permanent seat could see its hopes scuttled by jealous neighbors. India will be opposed by Pakistan, and Japan could be thwarted by China. Italy opposes Germany's candidacy, while Argentina and Mexico oppose Brazil's. Africa's leading candidate, South Africa, will have to woo its sub-Saharan neighbors, who are uneasy about its growing hegemony in the region. South Africa will also be challenged by Nigeria, whose ambitions are backed by China, and by Egypt, which has the backing of the Arab world.