|
|
|
Email this citationCIAO DATE: 10/05
Overcoming the Security Council Reform Impasse: The Implausible versus the Plausible
Thomas G. Weiss
January 2005
Abstract
Anniversaries are a typical time to take stock and think about change. The United Nations (UN) roller coaster ride has been severe in the post-Cold War era – from the euphoria surrounding Security Council decision-making to use military force against Iraq in 1990-1991 when "renaissance" was the common multilateral refrain, to the current morass after severe divisions over the decision by the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (UK) to go to war in Iraq in 2003 with a return to the "dark ages" of unilateralism.
There have been continual mutterings about the need for reform since the world organization's founding.2 The eve of the UN's 60th anniversary is remarkably like that of the 50th birthday in at least one way – the futile ink spilled and the misplaced attention given to changing the Security Council's shape and ways of doing business. The panacea for many critics is reforming the composition and working methods of the Security Council. "We have reached a fork in the road," Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the General Assembly in September 2003.3 Shortly thereafter, he established the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (HLP) to seek wisdom from 16 experts, including four former prime ministers, about a better process to maximize the chances of reaching consensus.
