Compromise and credibility: Security council reform?

There have been continual murmurs about the need for reform of the United Nations since 1945. The 60th anniversary of the world organization is remarkably like that of the 50th in at least one way: calls for reform and often-contradictory suggestions to change the Security Council's shape and ways of doing business. The panacea for many critics is reforming the Council's composition and working methods. The Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in December 2004 is the latest manifestation, with a hundred or so recommendations and a 'grand bargain' to sell to the so-called international community. The linchpin for the sales pitch was predictable: it must include Security Council reform. The pitch included increasing the numbers of permanent and non-permanent members in the Council, while only the permanent members (P-5) would retain veto privilege. While altering the membership is conceivable, at least on paper, the politics behind agreeing to any changes make it more than unlikely; and there is no chance that the P-5 will ever agree to altering the veto. The best hope for meaningful change in the Security Council in the next decade lies in reinforcing pragmatic adaptations in working methods and in exploring new ones.