Developing Countries Pushing for Reform of U.N. Security Council by Sean OíDriscoll NEW YORKóLast September, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad addressed the United Nations General Assembly with a very stark message. The entire assembly, he complained, was "unfortunately subservient to the Security Council, which in turn is subservient to any single one of the five victors of war fought more than half a century ago." This message was echoedóalthough not in the same forceful languageóby Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who warned that the U.N. Security Council needs to take into account the emergence of developing countries onto the international scene. Their comments came the month that the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks in Cancun, Mexico, broke down because developing counties were dissatisfied with the trade proposals wealthier nations were offering. The U.N. Security Council has been a lightning rod for growing global dissatisfaction among developing countries pushing for stronger representation among influential world organizations. Along with calls for reform of the World Bank, the Internati onal Monetary Fund and the WTO, developing countries have been arguing for a change in the structure of the U.N. Security Council for more than a decade. These countries have met with increasing support from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, whose home continent, Africa, has no representation among the permanent members of the Security Council. Annanís response at the September meeting of the General Assembly was his most vocal support of reform to date: "If you want the council and the councilís decisions to command great respect, particularly in the developing world, you need to address the issue of [its] composition with greater urgency," he told the permanent members. Those five membersóChina, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russiaóbelong to a post-World War II legacy designed to maintain international stability and prevent Japan and Germany from gaining too much power. As the secretary-general implied in his speech, some of the permanent security members have been deliberately slowing reform efforts. Both on an official level and behind the scenes, there is intense lobbying to get those members to accept some type of change. One U.N. ambassador, who spoke to The Washington Diplomat on condition of anonymity, said that France and the United Kingdom were considered amenable to change, while the United States was thought to be the most obstructive. China, the source said, was flexible but only if the right country were involved. The potential consequences for developing countries to wield more influence on the Security Council are enormous. The five permanent members are able to veto the decisions of the United Nations, effectively creating what Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad called "a U.N. within the U.N." However, according to Rezlan Ishar Jenie, the Indonesian ambassador to the United Nations, many of those pushing for reform would like to see new overall criteria for membership into the Security Council rather than a crude lobbying drive by individual countries. "[The criteria] could include whether or not the country is democratic, the geographical spread of the members, the contribution the country has made to U.N. peacekeeping effortsóthere are many criteria on which to choose a country, not just its overall population," Jenie said. Indonesia, both because of its large population and geographic location, is seen as a possible member of a new Security Council, but the legacy of the East Timor conflict has left a serious dent on the countryís international reputation. It is a factor that Jenie is eager to overcome. "We are working very closely with East Timor to overcome residual issues and to share a common future. I donít think that it should be a factor," he said. Jenie noted that Australia has already publicly backed Indonesia at the U.N. General Assembly and that there is a general feeling on the international stage that Indonesia has made progress. So would Indonesia accept a place on the council if it were offered one? "We are most definitely interested," said the ambassador. Jenieís view is shared by Philippine Ambassador to the U.N. Lauro L Baja Jr., who said that his country also wants to see new criteria for Security Council membership. However, Baja warned that regional divisions could become a major obstacle to reform. "If you allow one country into the council, inevitably there are going to be cries that someone else should have been allowed to join also, especially if there are regional disputes," he said. "The U.N. needs to look at this dilemma very closely. It makes the selection process all the more difficult." For its part, China is officially in support of new Security Council member nations and argues for greater equality within the United Nations. As the only developing country with a permanent seat on the Security Council, it sees itself as an unofficial representative to the interests of more than half of the worldís population. According to Meng Mian, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Mission to the United Nations, the country advocates "a change to this system that has not been reformed since World War II." Mian said that China would like to see approval of new members by neighboring countries located in the region. "As long as there is a regional approval, it is OK with us. China is the only developing country on the permanent council, and we need more developing countries," she said. India is another developing country tipped for membership on an enlarged Security Council, but its bitter dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir may prevent Muslim countries from supporting its membership. Vijay Nambiar, the Indian permanent representative to the United Nations, admitted that Muslim counties have a "conceivable" political allegiance with Pakistan but added that India is not a threat to Muslim countries and that the country itself has a Muslim population of 150 million, one of the largest in the world. "There is no religious reason why these countries would support Pakistan. They might for political reasons, but India is a democratic country in which Muslims play a vital role," Nambiar said. Nevertheless, India is going to have a hard battle on its hands, despite the recent progress on formal talks between Pakistan and India to end the Kashmir conflict. Pakistan in fact argues for no change to the makeup of the Security Council and its veto power. At the most recent assembly session, Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said the United Nations should increase the number nonpermanent members of the council, but "new permanent members will only expand inequality. States which occupy and suppress other peoples, and defy the resolutions of the Security Council, have no credentials to aspire for permanent membership," he said in a thinly veiled attack on India. Nambiar agreed that Pakistan was part of a "coffee club" of countries that resist the idea of Security Council expansion because of regional considerations. "But India has an excellent reputation in the world, for democracy, for peacekeepingóthere is every reason for it to be considered," he said. Regional disputes would not be the deciding factor, Nambiar added, noting that there does appear to be a "natural resistance" among some Security Council members toward change but that it is not directed at any one country. "Change will come, it is inevitable. The U.N. is in general agreement about that," he said. "It is really only a matter of time." Sean OíDriscoll is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.