Iraq split triggers appeals to expand Security Council

NEW YORK — After the split in the United Nations over the U.S.-led war on Iraq, proposals for reforming the world body are emerging in an effort to salvage its relevance. Most center on expanding the 15-member Security Council to better reflect world opinion.

Britain, for example, would like to see the council expanded to 24 members, including five more permanent members, including India, Japan and Germany. Canada, Australia and Russia, among others, have called for U.N. reforms.

Critics say global political and economic realities have changed since the United Nations was founded in 1945 and that a voice must be given to increasingly vital but underrepresented countries.

Africa, Latin America and the Islamic world, for example, have no permanent representation on the council, which is dominated by the five veto-wielding permanent members: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, who were the victors of World War II.

The Security Council also includes 10 nonpermanent members that are elected by the 191-member General Assembly for two-year terms.

With greater regional representation, some advocates of U.N. reform say, troubled nations may be more likely than Iraq was to pay heed to Security Council demands. Iraq under Saddam Hussein ignored for more than a decade U.N. resolutions to disarm.

But others worry that expansion might only make debates more contentious. Because of the veto power that accompanies the permanent-member status on the council, the issue of Iraq might not have been handled any differently under a reformed United Nations.

“Because of the veto, the United Nations can be paralyzed by any disagreement among the big five,” said Rodger Payne, a political science professor at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

In the weeks prior to the U.S.-led war against Iraq, the council failed to reach a consensus on the use of force. The threat of a veto, especially from France, stopped the United States from obtaining U.N. authorization for war.

But Mr. Payne said that “permanent additions would make the Security Council reflect current power realities and assure ongoing representation for unrepresented regions.”

Even in an expanded Security Council, none of the permanent members is likely to dilute its power by giving up the veto, meaning that there will remain the possibility that the body can be paralyzed by a single vote.

Still, appeals for reform are growing.

“This is an incredibly difficult and contentious issue, and in the past the United States hasn’t had much energy for this sort of thing,” said Susan E. Rice, a former assistant secretary of state who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

One reason is politics. For example, if India were given a permanent seat, archrival Pakistan surely would balk.

Story Continues →