The fact that the idea was approved by a majority vote does not mean that it will go through at the 63rd session, or even in the foreseeable future.
There is no doubt that the United Nations requires reform. No matter what diplomats may say about its progressive nature and steady advance into the future, its operation on the basis of principles and structure established 60 years ago is a flagrant anachronism in this day and age.
Throughout its entire existence, the United Nations has been reformed only once, in 1965, when the number of non-permanent members (elected for two years without the right of veto) was increased from six to ten.
Nobody in the United Nations objects to reform -- quite the contrary. However, when one group of countries makes proposals on a reform, the other group immediately submits its contrary proposals to the Secretariat. This happened, for instance, in 2005 when Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan started talking about the need for reform.
The Group of Four (G4) suggests extending the number of permanent members by six countries, and non-permanent ones by four. Instead of 15 members (five permanent ones with the right of veto - Britain, Russia, China, the United States, and France) and 10 non-permanent ones, the Security Council will have 25 members. Naturally enough, the G4 has included itself and two African countries in the number of the proposed permanent members.
An alternative proposal was made almost immediately, and is also valid. It was initiated by India's eternal antagonist Pakistan, Brazil's long-standing rival Argentina, and Italy and Spain, which do not want to see Germany made a permanent member. They were backed by Kenya, which was upset that the G4 wanted to make South Africa, and not it, a permanent member.
The most radical members of the United Nations, which include some Latin American and African countries, are calling for its complete overhaul. They propose that the General Assembly's decisions, rather than Security Council resolutions, should be binding for all UN members.
Russia has emphasized more than once the need for a sensible approach. Any extension of the Security Council should be within reasonable limits, and voting on the Security Council's reform should not split either the Council or the United Nations. Obviously, any changes in the configuration of the Council will not be in Russia's favor. The same is true of the United States, China, and, to a lesser extent, France and Britain. Other UN members have long disliked these big powers.
The process is now underway, and will continue for months.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
