Letter: Change in the Security Council
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: As one of the drafters of the Charter of the United Nations, I should like to say how much I agree with your excellent leading article 'An anachronism that works' (28 January).
The fact is that the Security Council can only be changed with the consent of all five Permanent Members and a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. It is just possible that such majorities might be found to favour the election of Japan and conceivably of Germany (though this would mean three vetoes for Europe). But this is extremely unlikely, given the fact that similar claims for membership would at once be made by (at least) India, Nigeria and Brazil.
Since there is no doubt whatever that, rightly or wrongly and things being as they are, neither France nor the United Kingdom would be prepared to surrender their present membership of the Security Council, the prospect of a Council of 20, with no fewer than 10 with a veto, is barely conceivable. Certainly it would involve paralysis in any peace-keeping activities. The only way out would be if the British and the French agreed that Europe should have only one representative on the Council. But that would depend on European political union, which has not yet come about.
No; change in the membership of the Security Council is, unfortunately, impossible at present. Of course, if President Clinton feels that the system is really unworkable, he can always change it if he wishes. He has merely to get the United States to resign from the UN and summon a conference to consider a New World Organisation. Whether that would result in a valid new 'world order' is open to considerable doubt.
Yours truly,
GLADWYN
House of Lords
London, SW1
1 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments