Via the NYT: U.N. Report Urges Big Changes; Security Council Would Expand
The Council now has 5 veto-bearing permanent members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - and 10 members elected to two-year terms.One alternative would add 6 new permanent members - the likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as 3 new two-year term members.
The other would create a new tier of 8 semipermanent members chosen for renewable four-year terms and one additional two-year term seat to the existing 10.
The right to cast vetoes, a power coveted by the nations seeking permanent status and one they are likely to press for, would continue to be limited to the 5 original permanent members.
Politically, extending the right to veto to new permanent members will be tricky, although if you don’t give them that power, I am not sure what having permanent status really means aside from simply never having to run for election. It is something, but it is a second-class permanent membership.
Of course, in terms of veto power, I don’t see the justification for adding Egpyt, Nigeria, South Africa, or Brazil to be honest, save for an attempt at geographical diversity. The hallmark of the permanent members and their veto power is that they are all significant global powers. As such, I can see, and would support, the inclusion of Germany, India and Japan.
Really, to more than double the permanent members all at once (assuming you give them veto power, which, granted, the proposal doesn’t do) is a bit much.
However, if the goal is simply to ensure geographic diversity on the SC, then add these six and forget about ever extending the veto to anybody.
I can see a strong agument, however, for simply adding a handful of key cases and giving them veto power, as noted above. However, whether thay would sell or not is an entirely different subject.
And, no kidding:
The panel was very critical of the Human Rights Commission, a body that has often brought the United Nations into disrepute by incorporating some of the worst rights violators like Cuba, Libya and Sudan into its membership. The commission, which is based in Geneva, “suffers from a credibility deficit that casts doubt on the overall reputation of the United Nations,” the report said. The official who briefed reporters added that too often the chief motivation for countries to join was to deflect attention from deplorable rights conditions at home.