Return to Transcripts main page
Diplomatic License
Is Makeup of Security Council About to Change?
Aired October 15, 2004 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICHARD ROTH, HOST: 15 nations sit here on the U.N. Security Council, but one day the game of musical chairs is going to stop and there'll be new permanent members. How many and for how long?
DIPLOMATIC LICENSE is next.
When the United Nations began after World War II, there were 51 member countries. Only five of them were given permanent veto-carrying seats on the powerful U.N. Security Council. Now there are 191 countries in the United Nations, and those same five countries still have those seats on the Security Council.
Some people say the world has changed. Is the Security Council lineup finally about to change too?
Welcome to DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth.
On Friday, the only sign of change when it comes to the Security Council every year, five countries get voted onto the Security Council, but that's only for a nonpermanent two year term. Hugs for Tanzania, kisses for Denmark. They join Japan, Greece and Argentina effective January 1 on the Council.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We got 180 votes. That is a show of confidence from the membership of the United Nations and we will do our best on the Council to live up to that confidence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a big responsibility, but we hope we'll be able to live to the world's expectations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Next year is the U.N.'s 60th anniversary. Some say it's time to adjust the outdated makeup of the Security Council, putting more countries at the horseshoe table and giving more nations veto power.
Currently, only the United States, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom pack veto power.
This should all be easy, right? United Nations countries have been talking about this for more than 11 years. The leaders of Italy and Germany talked about it this week in Rome. German Chancellor Schroeder and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi said they were in total agreement on many issues except Security Council membership. Germany thinks it should get a permanent seat. Italy, unable to really defeat Germany on this question, wants a rotating Euro spot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now we have these Councilors for the last 12 years and as you know Germany and Japan have been considered sort of natural candidates for a permanent seat.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The proposal to add new permanent members, even without veto, entails serious drawbacks. It would be highly divisive among U.N. membership.
ROTH (voice-over): You might think the big issue at the recent high- level U.N. General Assembly session was terrorism or poverty. No. It was the makeup of the Security Council.
An event which produced the most attention occurred on the sidelines. Four large countries quickly dubbed the Gang of Four, announcing they supported each others candidacy for a permanent seat with a veto: Germany, Brazil, Japan and Indian.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The expansion of the Security Council in the category of both permanent and nonpermanent members and the inclusion of countries like India as permanent members would be a first step in the process of making the United Nations a truly representative body.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We look to enhance opportunities for Security Council membership for all member states, not just a privileged few.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: The Gang of Four did say there was room for an unnamed African country to take a fifth new permanent seat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Africa, whose issues occupy a substantial part of the Security Council's time, ought to be accorded priority consideration for permanent membership and Nigeria, I strongly believe, is a well- qualified candidate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My country is ready to serve as a permanent member of a restructured and expanded Security Council.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Well, we couldn't have 191 guests today on the show to talk about the Security Council, but we do have some key players. With us, the ambassador from Germany to the United Nations, Gunter Pleuger. Also here, the ambassador from Pakistan to the United Nations, Munir Akram. At the CNN United Nations office, Nigeria's United Nations Ambassador Aminu Bashir Wali. And also with us an outside expert who has been following this issue closely. He's Professor Thomas Weiss, presidential professor and director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center in New York. Boy, it sounds like he deserves a U.N. title after that.
All right, let's start here in the studio. And by the way, Ambassador Pleuger and Ambassador Akram, these are not permanent seats. You will have to give them up after the show.
Ambassador Pleuger, give us a headline. Why does Germany deserve a permanent chair?
GUNTER PLEUGER, GERMAN AMB. TO U.N.: Well, I don't think that is the right question. It's not a question whether we or others deserve a permanent seat in the Security Council. What we want is a reform that strengthens the Security Council because we feel as the large majority of member states, that reform is necessary to make the United Nations strong enough to deal with the new tasks and new challenges of the 21st century.
ROTH: But if there was reform and Germany wasn't given a seat, you'd be a little unhappy with that. You think it's time.
PLEUGER: Well, we have been living without a permanent seat for the past 50 years and I think the German Republic will continue to flourish. That's not the point. The point is that we want a solution that enables the Council to deal with the new challenges, such as terrorism, such as failing states, such as weapons of mass destruction and the problem of how to solve the problem of.
ROTH: But for the purposes of this show, we are talking more about who is going to be in those seats to possibly deal with the change at the United Nations on issues such as you listed.
Ambassador Akram, who do you think should be on the Security Council in terms of new permanent seats?
MUNIR AKRAM, PAKISTANI AMB. TO U.N.: Well, I think those who should be on the Council are those who have joined the United Nations since the last expansion of the Council, which is small and medium sized states.
We do not believe that adding permanent members will enhance the effectiveness of the Council, which arises from its working methods, from its decision making. Having nonpermanent members would complicate the decision making process.
ROTH: The Gang of Four statement, was that helpful? What do you think? India would get the seat, Pakistan wouldn't.
AKRAM: Well, that is not a reason to oppose it, but we oppose it because we believe that the reform of the Council must address the real problems, which is working methods, which is procedure, decision making. The composition is important. It must be enlarged, but it must be enlarged to give representation to the majority of the states in the United Nations who are small and medium countries and not big countries.
ROTH: All right. Nigeria is a big country. Ambassador, should Nigeria get it instead of South Africa? You may see a trend here. I'm looking to get an argument going here, but there are the big issues of course of what this new Council and how it can handle it. What do you think?
AMINU BASHIR WALI, NIGERIAN AMB. TO U.N.: Well, it's not a question of -- the first thing that we should consider is to make the Security Council representative, to accommodate or at least to carryout the interests of the various regions that constitute the United Nations, and I tend to agree with the German ambassador. It's a question of trying to make sure that proper representation is made on the Security Council.
ROTH: Can I ask the professor, describe this chase for seats, the behind the scenes struggle that's been going on for 11 years.
PROF. THOMAS WEISS, RALPH BUNCHE INST.: Well, Richard, birthdays are always a good time to bring up controversial issues. That's why 10 years ago we talked about Security Council reform and 10 years later we're talking about Security Council reform, in pretty much the same terms as existed 10 years ago.
The United Nations, God bless it, is like my friends the Quakers. I like them both, but they're both far more concerned with process than results.
ROTH: Well, it's my birthday Tuesday. Is this going to succeed, professor? Will I get a Security Council expansion gift? How will this work itself out when there are so many different interests at play?
WEISS: It seems to me that with past as prelude, that the future will be exactly like the last 10 years. It seems to me that the only thing that has changed in the last 10 years is that four members, you kindly called them the Gang of Four, have become more assertive about their rights to a seat. But other than that, nothing has changed.
PLEUGER: I wouldn't agree with that. I think a lot of things have changed. The Security Council has become more and more important in settling international conflicts. The Security Council in the last two or three years for the first time has been used as a legislative body.
We have the Counter-Terrorism Committee. We have the Counter- Proliferation Committee. These bodies are setting international law and if you set international law by 15 members out of 195, you have to make sure of two things. First of all, you need legitimacy of the decisions and legitimacy is being created by representativeness of the Council. And secondly, you need to implement your decisions, and for that you need major players and major powers, especially from the third world countries who are not represented among the permanent members as of yet.
ROTH: Ambassador Bashir Wali, much of the United Nations membership is from Asia and Africa developing countries, yet it doesn't seem like they have the power.
BASHIR WALI: Well, it's not a question of power, because of if it's a question of power, then we might as well continue the way it is. But what we are talking about, legitimacy of decisions of the Security Council.
Now 60 percent of the time and the business of the Security Council is being dominated by African issues.
ROTH: But can Nigeria handle the responsibility? I think the professor may have some comment after this.
BASHIR WALI: Absolutely.
ROTH: Some would say, look, you've got oil strikes. You've got many issues internally at home. How can you deal with other issues that might be peace and security around the world.
BASHIR WALI: These are things that we ought not look at the negative side of what we are talking about. What we are talking about is representation of Africa, and Nigeria is very much ready. And we have a track record.
I mean, over the past years, I mean, we have done a lot in terms of peace and security, and we have exhibited our own commitment to the peace and security in the world.
Therefore, if one looks at the track record of Nigeria, then Nigeria is definitely qualified. Now, what you are saying is -- I'm not talking in terms of just one seat for Africa.
ROTH: All right. I've got to hold on there -- Ambassador Akram, of Pakistan.
AKRAM: Well, the question is that no state which is on the Council represents anybody else. They represent national interests.
If a country claims to represent a region, it has to come and be selected by that region to represent it. In that case, perhaps the European Union would like a seat for itself and perhaps the African Union would want a seat for itself. But no country so far under the charter has a right to represent anybody else, and Security Council membership, if it is going to be representative, has to be done through the regional groups and it has -- the permanent membership in no way ascribe representation to any country.
BASHIR WALI: No. We are not talking about regional groups. I mean, whenever you are selected, or elected, onto the Council, you've got to represent the entire international community. But before then, you ought to come from somewhere, and what we are saying is by the time you arrive in the Security Council, then you represent the whole international community, but before then you ought to come from somewhere. We said Africa has to have a representation on the Security Council.
AKRAM: But what gives the right to a larger country to represent smaller countries? Smaller countries have different interests from larger countries. Larger countries have larger interests, national interests, and therefore are not able to represent other countries.
(CROSSTALK)
BASHIR WALI: We have to believe in the principles of democracy. I mean, the whole point is when you -- the whole of the 199 members of the General Assembly are there to represent their countries.
Now, not every member of a country would want to come to the United Nations and represent his country. Now, on that principle, we have to allow, we have to accept some measure of representation.
ROTH: I've got to get Germany in here. Go ahead.
PLEUGER: I think a quick look at the charter might help us solve that problem, because in Article 23, the two benchmarks that are necessary to solve that problem are given.
The charter says those people who are supposed to be elected on the Council should be elected because of their capacity to contribute to the maintenance of peace and security in the first place. And in the second place, it is adequate regional distribution of seats.
So you have to combine these two principles that are embodied in the charter.
(CROSSTALK)
AKRAM: That applies to elected, nonpermanent members.
ROTH: Go ahead, professor, very briefly. We'll be back with you in a moment. Go ahead.
WEISS: Well, I don't want to be misunderstood. I'm certainly not saying that the Council would not be more legitimate and perhaps, although I doubt it, more effective after a reform, but this discussion in your lead in suggests why my argument that nothing is going to happen is quite on target.
ROTH: OK. You can't settle the Security Council scores in one section of the program. Stay tuned and reflect on the views of Singapore, which told delegates change the composition of the Council, but also open up those closed meetings to avoid country reps from feeding off rumors and misleading information. As we say farewell to Nigeria's ambassador, we remind you that Singapore's Ambassador Ganu Gopala Menon says in the old days Security Council sessions were open for examination, like the very first Security Council meeting January 17, 1946.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GANU GOPALA MENON, SINGAPORE'S AMB. TO U.N.: In fact, there was so much transparency at the first meeting of the Security Council that the United Kingdom delegate, without realizing that his microphone was switched on, was heard saying, and I quote, "That bloody German has double crossed me again," unquote.
That, by the way, does not appear in the copy of the verbatim records that I have circulated.
Paradoxically, I submit that if the Council becomes more transparent in its normal work, we will gain confidentiality where confidentiality matters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, you can argue that the most efficient Security Council would be one of one member, but democracy is always a balance between effectiveness and legitimacy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Brazil's foreign minister on today's topic on DIPLOMATIC LICENSE; what should a new Security Council look like. How many countries, how many vetoes. All part of the reform effort.
As we try to get as many views in here on the program, we welcome Australia's U.N. Ambassador John Dauth. We always invite him for the easy to solve issues. Last time, it was Iraq.
And still with us, the ambassador from Germany, Gunter Pleuger, Pakistan's Ambassador Munir Akram, and Professor Thomas Weiss, of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His title is longer than the amount of time we've given him on the program so far.
Let's start with Ambassador Dauth of Australia. Which countries in your view should get permanent seats?
JOHN DAUTH, AUSTRALIAN AMB. TO U.N.: Well, I think it's not especially productive to talk about individual countries.
ROTH: Nobody wants to talk about that on this show. But OK.
DAUTH: OK. I'll talk about it. I think Japan has got a very clear case. There is no doubt, it seems to me, that Japan deserves a seat on the Security Council.
We've mentioned some others as well. India, Brazil, possibly Indonesia. But that's not the point. I think the Council needs to change in order to broaden its membership. There's no doubt of that.
ROTH: Why don't you want Germany?
DAUTH: I haven't ruled Germany out. I just haven't ruled them in.
ROTH: All right. Ambassador Pleuger of Germany, why not just one European Union seat encapsulating France and everyone else, which gives more access for other countries in the region?
PLEUGER: Well, that's very easy to answer, because France and Britain are not prepared to give up their own permanent seats, and you cannot have the European Unions represented twice on the Council, once through the permanent seats of France and Britain and then by another European seat. And that's why it is not possible to reach at the moment.
If in the long run the European Union will have a common security and foreign policy and will have the necessary institution, that might happen. But that's not for now.
ROTH: Professor Weiss, who do you think should be on this new expanded -- how many countries, how many members?
WEISS: Oh, if I were God of the United Nations, I would probably go with the proposal of 24 or 25. And it seems to me there is an argument, as the German ambassador has noted, that Article 23 says that people who are candidates, countries who are candidates, ought to be able to contribute something. I'd actually like to see that apply to the permanent members too, because I'd say that out of the five, probably the United States is the only one that would qualify under those criteria at the present moment.
ROTH: Wouldn't 23 or 25 countries be too unwieldy? It becomes almost a mini General Assembly?
WEISS: Oh, it is. It would be a rough General Assembly. And it seems to me, back to my original argument, that that is one of the reasons why process, which is important for certain issues like legitimacy, works directly against the efficiency that one would like to see for something like Darfur, for example.
ROTH: Ambassador Dauth, go ahead.
PLEUGER: One word. We are in the European Union, a union of 25, and I can tell you, it works.
AKRAM: But I would add, I think that we have to start from where the agreement is possible, and an agreement is possible that the Council should be enlarged to be more representative of the general membership of the United Nations on behalf of (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
That means adding the nonpermanent members. The disagreement starts because of the claim of some for permanent membership. That is the bone of contention.
If you were to add nonpermanent elected members, everybody would have a chance to go to the General Assembly and say I'm a good candidate, I want to be elected, and put it to the rest of the United Nations.
ROTH: Ambassador Dauth, you know the General Assembly president says he wants this reform to be settled by next years 60th anniversary. Go ahead, what do you think?
DAUTH: Well, I think that it won't be settled through the General Assembly. Let me tell you that.
I think Munir is right. There's going to have to be some give and take here, but I think we need to set ourselves, next year's General Assembly, the high level event next year, as a deadline for getting some of this sorted out.
Let me say, I mean, I've got a totally different take on all of this. I think there is altogether too much focus on the Security Council when we talk about changing the United Nations and too little on the other organs. I think too much time is being wasted right now, frankly, on this debate. Sorry to condemn your program in this way, Richard, but I think that we ought to be thinking about the other organs as much as we are about the Security Council.
ROTH: All right, and on that optimistic note about our program, we're going to have to leave it there. Ambassador John Dauth of Australia, I know what his point is there, and we will as always examine each one of those issues in this program.
In the monitor you're looking at now, in the upper left, geographically, Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan. We thank him for appearing on the program. On the upper right, Gunter Pleuger of Germany and Professor Thomas Weiss, thank you very much. And Ambassador Dauth, thank you.
Pending Security Council change, the race is always on to win votes to get on the Security Council, even if it's just for two years. At the General Assembly, Timor-Leste's foreign minister said he is already being lobbied for a vote for as far ahead as the 2020 selection campaign.
Jose Ramos-Horta offered this pledge from his own tiny Asian nation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSE RAMOS-HORTA, U.N. AMB. FROM TIMOR-LESTE: To reassure you, I will say that Timor-Leste is not seeking a permanent seat in the Security Council. So do not worry about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTOPHER REEVE, DECEASED ACTOR AND ACTIVIST: I would just ask the members of the United Nations to adopt a convention on the rights of people with disabilities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Christopher Reeve, who died this week, made several appearances at the United Nations since he was paralyzed from the neck down after a horse-back riding accident in 1995.
Reeve campaigned on issues ranging from disabilities to stem cell research. There was another visit to the U.N. General Assembly in 1987. This time as an actor pleading another cause.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REEVE: Madame Secretary, I don't represent any country, but I'd like to address the delegates.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, in that case you will need a sponsor.
I believe that will do. Please.
REEVE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's he going to say?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Something wonderful.
REEVE: Madame Secretary, honorable delegates, ladies and gentlemen, for many years now I've lived among you as a visitor. I've seen the beauty of your many cultures. I've felt great joy in your magnificent accomplishments. I've also seen the folly of your wars.
As of today I'm not a visitor any more because the Earth is my home too. We can't live in fear and I can't stand idly by and watch us stumble into the madness of possible nuclear destruction.
And so I've come to a decision. I'm going to do what our governments have been unwilling or unable to do. Effective immediately, I'm going to rid our planet of all nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Christopher Reeve wrote the original story for the last Superman film, "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace." He vowed not to be typecast. Escape the cape, he said. Reeve died this week at the age of 52.
That's DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. Thanks for making us part of your weekend plans. I'm Richard Roth, in New York.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired October 15, 2004 - 21:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICHARD ROTH, HOST: 15 nations sit here on the U.N. Security Council, but one day the game of musical chairs is going to stop and there'll be new permanent members. How many and for how long?
DIPLOMATIC LICENSE is next.
When the United Nations began after World War II, there were 51 member countries. Only five of them were given permanent veto-carrying seats on the powerful U.N. Security Council. Now there are 191 countries in the United Nations, and those same five countries still have those seats on the Security Council.
Some people say the world has changed. Is the Security Council lineup finally about to change too?
Welcome to DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth.
On Friday, the only sign of change when it comes to the Security Council every year, five countries get voted onto the Security Council, but that's only for a nonpermanent two year term. Hugs for Tanzania, kisses for Denmark. They join Japan, Greece and Argentina effective January 1 on the Council.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We got 180 votes. That is a show of confidence from the membership of the United Nations and we will do our best on the Council to live up to that confidence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a big responsibility, but we hope we'll be able to live to the world's expectations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Next year is the U.N.'s 60th anniversary. Some say it's time to adjust the outdated makeup of the Security Council, putting more countries at the horseshoe table and giving more nations veto power.
Currently, only the United States, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom pack veto power.
This should all be easy, right? United Nations countries have been talking about this for more than 11 years. The leaders of Italy and Germany talked about it this week in Rome. German Chancellor Schroeder and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi said they were in total agreement on many issues except Security Council membership. Germany thinks it should get a permanent seat. Italy, unable to really defeat Germany on this question, wants a rotating Euro spot.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now we have these Councilors for the last 12 years and as you know Germany and Japan have been considered sort of natural candidates for a permanent seat.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The proposal to add new permanent members, even without veto, entails serious drawbacks. It would be highly divisive among U.N. membership.
ROTH (voice-over): You might think the big issue at the recent high- level U.N. General Assembly session was terrorism or poverty. No. It was the makeup of the Security Council.
An event which produced the most attention occurred on the sidelines. Four large countries quickly dubbed the Gang of Four, announcing they supported each others candidacy for a permanent seat with a veto: Germany, Brazil, Japan and Indian.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The expansion of the Security Council in the category of both permanent and nonpermanent members and the inclusion of countries like India as permanent members would be a first step in the process of making the United Nations a truly representative body.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We look to enhance opportunities for Security Council membership for all member states, not just a privileged few.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: The Gang of Four did say there was room for an unnamed African country to take a fifth new permanent seat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Africa, whose issues occupy a substantial part of the Security Council's time, ought to be accorded priority consideration for permanent membership and Nigeria, I strongly believe, is a well- qualified candidate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My country is ready to serve as a permanent member of a restructured and expanded Security Council.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Well, we couldn't have 191 guests today on the show to talk about the Security Council, but we do have some key players. With us, the ambassador from Germany to the United Nations, Gunter Pleuger. Also here, the ambassador from Pakistan to the United Nations, Munir Akram. At the CNN United Nations office, Nigeria's United Nations Ambassador Aminu Bashir Wali. And also with us an outside expert who has been following this issue closely. He's Professor Thomas Weiss, presidential professor and director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies at the CUNY Graduate Center in New York. Boy, it sounds like he deserves a U.N. title after that.
All right, let's start here in the studio. And by the way, Ambassador Pleuger and Ambassador Akram, these are not permanent seats. You will have to give them up after the show.
Ambassador Pleuger, give us a headline. Why does Germany deserve a permanent chair?
GUNTER PLEUGER, GERMAN AMB. TO U.N.: Well, I don't think that is the right question. It's not a question whether we or others deserve a permanent seat in the Security Council. What we want is a reform that strengthens the Security Council because we feel as the large majority of member states, that reform is necessary to make the United Nations strong enough to deal with the new tasks and new challenges of the 21st century.
ROTH: But if there was reform and Germany wasn't given a seat, you'd be a little unhappy with that. You think it's time.
PLEUGER: Well, we have been living without a permanent seat for the past 50 years and I think the German Republic will continue to flourish. That's not the point. The point is that we want a solution that enables the Council to deal with the new challenges, such as terrorism, such as failing states, such as weapons of mass destruction and the problem of how to solve the problem of.
ROTH: But for the purposes of this show, we are talking more about who is going to be in those seats to possibly deal with the change at the United Nations on issues such as you listed.
Ambassador Akram, who do you think should be on the Security Council in terms of new permanent seats?
MUNIR AKRAM, PAKISTANI AMB. TO U.N.: Well, I think those who should be on the Council are those who have joined the United Nations since the last expansion of the Council, which is small and medium sized states.
We do not believe that adding permanent members will enhance the effectiveness of the Council, which arises from its working methods, from its decision making. Having nonpermanent members would complicate the decision making process.
ROTH: The Gang of Four statement, was that helpful? What do you think? India would get the seat, Pakistan wouldn't.
AKRAM: Well, that is not a reason to oppose it, but we oppose it because we believe that the reform of the Council must address the real problems, which is working methods, which is procedure, decision making. The composition is important. It must be enlarged, but it must be enlarged to give representation to the majority of the states in the United Nations who are small and medium countries and not big countries.
ROTH: All right. Nigeria is a big country. Ambassador, should Nigeria get it instead of South Africa? You may see a trend here. I'm looking to get an argument going here, but there are the big issues of course of what this new Council and how it can handle it. What do you think?
AMINU BASHIR WALI, NIGERIAN AMB. TO U.N.: Well, it's not a question of -- the first thing that we should consider is to make the Security Council representative, to accommodate or at least to carryout the interests of the various regions that constitute the United Nations, and I tend to agree with the German ambassador. It's a question of trying to make sure that proper representation is made on the Security Council.
ROTH: Can I ask the professor, describe this chase for seats, the behind the scenes struggle that's been going on for 11 years.
PROF. THOMAS WEISS, RALPH BUNCHE INST.: Well, Richard, birthdays are always a good time to bring up controversial issues. That's why 10 years ago we talked about Security Council reform and 10 years later we're talking about Security Council reform, in pretty much the same terms as existed 10 years ago.
The United Nations, God bless it, is like my friends the Quakers. I like them both, but they're both far more concerned with process than results.
ROTH: Well, it's my birthday Tuesday. Is this going to succeed, professor? Will I get a Security Council expansion gift? How will this work itself out when there are so many different interests at play?
WEISS: It seems to me that with past as prelude, that the future will be exactly like the last 10 years. It seems to me that the only thing that has changed in the last 10 years is that four members, you kindly called them the Gang of Four, have become more assertive about their rights to a seat. But other than that, nothing has changed.
PLEUGER: I wouldn't agree with that. I think a lot of things have changed. The Security Council has become more and more important in settling international conflicts. The Security Council in the last two or three years for the first time has been used as a legislative body.
We have the Counter-Terrorism Committee. We have the Counter- Proliferation Committee. These bodies are setting international law and if you set international law by 15 members out of 195, you have to make sure of two things. First of all, you need legitimacy of the decisions and legitimacy is being created by representativeness of the Council. And secondly, you need to implement your decisions, and for that you need major players and major powers, especially from the third world countries who are not represented among the permanent members as of yet.
ROTH: Ambassador Bashir Wali, much of the United Nations membership is from Asia and Africa developing countries, yet it doesn't seem like they have the power.
BASHIR WALI: Well, it's not a question of power, because of if it's a question of power, then we might as well continue the way it is. But what we are talking about, legitimacy of decisions of the Security Council.
Now 60 percent of the time and the business of the Security Council is being dominated by African issues.
ROTH: But can Nigeria handle the responsibility? I think the professor may have some comment after this.
BASHIR WALI: Absolutely.
ROTH: Some would say, look, you've got oil strikes. You've got many issues internally at home. How can you deal with other issues that might be peace and security around the world.
BASHIR WALI: These are things that we ought not look at the negative side of what we are talking about. What we are talking about is representation of Africa, and Nigeria is very much ready. And we have a track record.
I mean, over the past years, I mean, we have done a lot in terms of peace and security, and we have exhibited our own commitment to the peace and security in the world.
Therefore, if one looks at the track record of Nigeria, then Nigeria is definitely qualified. Now, what you are saying is -- I'm not talking in terms of just one seat for Africa.
ROTH: All right. I've got to hold on there -- Ambassador Akram, of Pakistan.
AKRAM: Well, the question is that no state which is on the Council represents anybody else. They represent national interests.
If a country claims to represent a region, it has to come and be selected by that region to represent it. In that case, perhaps the European Union would like a seat for itself and perhaps the African Union would want a seat for itself. But no country so far under the charter has a right to represent anybody else, and Security Council membership, if it is going to be representative, has to be done through the regional groups and it has -- the permanent membership in no way ascribe representation to any country.
BASHIR WALI: No. We are not talking about regional groups. I mean, whenever you are selected, or elected, onto the Council, you've got to represent the entire international community. But before then, you ought to come from somewhere, and what we are saying is by the time you arrive in the Security Council, then you represent the whole international community, but before then you ought to come from somewhere. We said Africa has to have a representation on the Security Council.
AKRAM: But what gives the right to a larger country to represent smaller countries? Smaller countries have different interests from larger countries. Larger countries have larger interests, national interests, and therefore are not able to represent other countries.
(CROSSTALK)
BASHIR WALI: We have to believe in the principles of democracy. I mean, the whole point is when you -- the whole of the 199 members of the General Assembly are there to represent their countries.
Now, not every member of a country would want to come to the United Nations and represent his country. Now, on that principle, we have to allow, we have to accept some measure of representation.
ROTH: I've got to get Germany in here. Go ahead.
PLEUGER: I think a quick look at the charter might help us solve that problem, because in Article 23, the two benchmarks that are necessary to solve that problem are given.
The charter says those people who are supposed to be elected on the Council should be elected because of their capacity to contribute to the maintenance of peace and security in the first place. And in the second place, it is adequate regional distribution of seats.
So you have to combine these two principles that are embodied in the charter.
(CROSSTALK)
AKRAM: That applies to elected, nonpermanent members.
ROTH: Go ahead, professor, very briefly. We'll be back with you in a moment. Go ahead.
WEISS: Well, I don't want to be misunderstood. I'm certainly not saying that the Council would not be more legitimate and perhaps, although I doubt it, more effective after a reform, but this discussion in your lead in suggests why my argument that nothing is going to happen is quite on target.
ROTH: OK. You can't settle the Security Council scores in one section of the program. Stay tuned and reflect on the views of Singapore, which told delegates change the composition of the Council, but also open up those closed meetings to avoid country reps from feeding off rumors and misleading information. As we say farewell to Nigeria's ambassador, we remind you that Singapore's Ambassador Ganu Gopala Menon says in the old days Security Council sessions were open for examination, like the very first Security Council meeting January 17, 1946.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GANU GOPALA MENON, SINGAPORE'S AMB. TO U.N.: In fact, there was so much transparency at the first meeting of the Security Council that the United Kingdom delegate, without realizing that his microphone was switched on, was heard saying, and I quote, "That bloody German has double crossed me again," unquote.
That, by the way, does not appear in the copy of the verbatim records that I have circulated.
Paradoxically, I submit that if the Council becomes more transparent in its normal work, we will gain confidentiality where confidentiality matters.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, you can argue that the most efficient Security Council would be one of one member, but democracy is always a balance between effectiveness and legitimacy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Brazil's foreign minister on today's topic on DIPLOMATIC LICENSE; what should a new Security Council look like. How many countries, how many vetoes. All part of the reform effort.
As we try to get as many views in here on the program, we welcome Australia's U.N. Ambassador John Dauth. We always invite him for the easy to solve issues. Last time, it was Iraq.
And still with us, the ambassador from Germany, Gunter Pleuger, Pakistan's Ambassador Munir Akram, and Professor Thomas Weiss, of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His title is longer than the amount of time we've given him on the program so far.
Let's start with Ambassador Dauth of Australia. Which countries in your view should get permanent seats?
JOHN DAUTH, AUSTRALIAN AMB. TO U.N.: Well, I think it's not especially productive to talk about individual countries.
ROTH: Nobody wants to talk about that on this show. But OK.
DAUTH: OK. I'll talk about it. I think Japan has got a very clear case. There is no doubt, it seems to me, that Japan deserves a seat on the Security Council.
We've mentioned some others as well. India, Brazil, possibly Indonesia. But that's not the point. I think the Council needs to change in order to broaden its membership. There's no doubt of that.
ROTH: Why don't you want Germany?
DAUTH: I haven't ruled Germany out. I just haven't ruled them in.
ROTH: All right. Ambassador Pleuger of Germany, why not just one European Union seat encapsulating France and everyone else, which gives more access for other countries in the region?
PLEUGER: Well, that's very easy to answer, because France and Britain are not prepared to give up their own permanent seats, and you cannot have the European Unions represented twice on the Council, once through the permanent seats of France and Britain and then by another European seat. And that's why it is not possible to reach at the moment.
If in the long run the European Union will have a common security and foreign policy and will have the necessary institution, that might happen. But that's not for now.
ROTH: Professor Weiss, who do you think should be on this new expanded -- how many countries, how many members?
WEISS: Oh, if I were God of the United Nations, I would probably go with the proposal of 24 or 25. And it seems to me there is an argument, as the German ambassador has noted, that Article 23 says that people who are candidates, countries who are candidates, ought to be able to contribute something. I'd actually like to see that apply to the permanent members too, because I'd say that out of the five, probably the United States is the only one that would qualify under those criteria at the present moment.
ROTH: Wouldn't 23 or 25 countries be too unwieldy? It becomes almost a mini General Assembly?
WEISS: Oh, it is. It would be a rough General Assembly. And it seems to me, back to my original argument, that that is one of the reasons why process, which is important for certain issues like legitimacy, works directly against the efficiency that one would like to see for something like Darfur, for example.
ROTH: Ambassador Dauth, go ahead.
PLEUGER: One word. We are in the European Union, a union of 25, and I can tell you, it works.
AKRAM: But I would add, I think that we have to start from where the agreement is possible, and an agreement is possible that the Council should be enlarged to be more representative of the general membership of the United Nations on behalf of (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
That means adding the nonpermanent members. The disagreement starts because of the claim of some for permanent membership. That is the bone of contention.
If you were to add nonpermanent elected members, everybody would have a chance to go to the General Assembly and say I'm a good candidate, I want to be elected, and put it to the rest of the United Nations.
ROTH: Ambassador Dauth, you know the General Assembly president says he wants this reform to be settled by next years 60th anniversary. Go ahead, what do you think?
DAUTH: Well, I think that it won't be settled through the General Assembly. Let me tell you that.
I think Munir is right. There's going to have to be some give and take here, but I think we need to set ourselves, next year's General Assembly, the high level event next year, as a deadline for getting some of this sorted out.
Let me say, I mean, I've got a totally different take on all of this. I think there is altogether too much focus on the Security Council when we talk about changing the United Nations and too little on the other organs. I think too much time is being wasted right now, frankly, on this debate. Sorry to condemn your program in this way, Richard, but I think that we ought to be thinking about the other organs as much as we are about the Security Council.
ROTH: All right, and on that optimistic note about our program, we're going to have to leave it there. Ambassador John Dauth of Australia, I know what his point is there, and we will as always examine each one of those issues in this program.
In the monitor you're looking at now, in the upper left, geographically, Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan. We thank him for appearing on the program. On the upper right, Gunter Pleuger of Germany and Professor Thomas Weiss, thank you very much. And Ambassador Dauth, thank you.
Pending Security Council change, the race is always on to win votes to get on the Security Council, even if it's just for two years. At the General Assembly, Timor-Leste's foreign minister said he is already being lobbied for a vote for as far ahead as the 2020 selection campaign.
Jose Ramos-Horta offered this pledge from his own tiny Asian nation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSE RAMOS-HORTA, U.N. AMB. FROM TIMOR-LESTE: To reassure you, I will say that Timor-Leste is not seeking a permanent seat in the Security Council. So do not worry about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTOPHER REEVE, DECEASED ACTOR AND ACTIVIST: I would just ask the members of the United Nations to adopt a convention on the rights of people with disabilities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Christopher Reeve, who died this week, made several appearances at the United Nations since he was paralyzed from the neck down after a horse-back riding accident in 1995.
Reeve campaigned on issues ranging from disabilities to stem cell research. There was another visit to the U.N. General Assembly in 1987. This time as an actor pleading another cause.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REEVE: Madame Secretary, I don't represent any country, but I'd like to address the delegates.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, in that case you will need a sponsor.
I believe that will do. Please.
REEVE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's he going to say?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Something wonderful.
REEVE: Madame Secretary, honorable delegates, ladies and gentlemen, for many years now I've lived among you as a visitor. I've seen the beauty of your many cultures. I've felt great joy in your magnificent accomplishments. I've also seen the folly of your wars.
As of today I'm not a visitor any more because the Earth is my home too. We can't live in fear and I can't stand idly by and watch us stumble into the madness of possible nuclear destruction.
And so I've come to a decision. I'm going to do what our governments have been unwilling or unable to do. Effective immediately, I'm going to rid our planet of all nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Christopher Reeve wrote the original story for the last Superman film, "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace." He vowed not to be typecast. Escape the cape, he said. Reeve died this week at the age of 52.
That's DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. Thanks for making us part of your weekend plans. I'm Richard Roth, in New York.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
