Fewer Europeans, More Europe: The recipe for a UN coup

Another session of the United Nations General Assembly has just come to an end without reaching agreement on the contentious issue of the possible expansion of the Security Council (UNSC).

The time has come for EU members - so far deeply divided over the issue, not unlike other regional groups - to make a bold, unilateral move.

With UNSC reform stalled, in fact, it may be possible to have a fresh start and, hopefully, reshape the European and international debate. In this respect, the inauguration of a new (grand) coalition government in Germany - the country whose demand for a permanent seat in an enlarged UNSC played a big role in deepening those divisions - could provide a crucial opportunity to turn the page and look to the future.

In order to achieve this, it is essential that EU members acknowledge two points: that a more representative UNSC need not be larger and that "more Europe" in the Security Council need not entail more European members - much less, more permanent or semi-permanent ones, as foreseen by all the competing proposals tabled by different coalitions of UN members last summer.

Size matters and a 15-strong UNSC is already a sub-optimal set-up. If EU members want effective multilateralism rather than creeping 'minilateralism' (with ever more layers or concentric circles within the Security Council as a likely effect of the proposed expansion), they should be consistent and insist that the Council does not grow in numbers. After all, they should know by now that moving from 15 to 25 is no recipe for more effective decision-making.

And the problem is not just functional, it is also substantial: would a 25-strong UNSC make the promotion of human rights or the fight against weapons of mass destruction proliferation any easier?

That is why the time has come for a bold and, inevitably, unilateral move: one capable of overcoming the sterility of the traditional demand for a 'single' EU seat while keeping the door open for a more comprehensive reform at a later stage, if and when agreement is reached also inside the other UN regional groups.

Currently, European membership of the UNSC amounts to one-third of the entire body: two permanent and three non-permanent members. How credible or fair is this for a bloc of 500 million in a world of more than six billion people?

Furthermore, the three non-permanent members elected every other year for a two-year stint by the General Assembly are drawn from two distinct regional groups: 'Western European and others' (two) and 'Eastern European' states (one). This, too, hardly reflects the political realities of post-Cold War Europe. From January 2006, for instance, Europe will be represented by Greece, Denmark and Slovakia, plus of course Britain and France. All five are EU members and the enlarged EU already encompasses most of the countries that once were 'Eastern European' - as either full or prospective members.

So why not come forward with a common proposal whereby a new group called 'EU and others' takes only two of those three non-permanent seats? Ideally, the General Assembly would fill one every year, preferably uncontested, so that there would always be a 'senior' and a 'junior' EU member. This would de facto coincide with a consensual nomination and, even considering the possibility of picking also EU candidates and neighbours, would allow the Union to have always at least one non-permanent member on the Security Council.

The extra seat thus made available by Europe could be assigned to the 'Asia and Africa' group, currently endowed with five overall, thus bringing about a fairer geographical distribution of seats on the Council - as required by the UN Charter - and one more in line also with the demographic (and possibly economic) realities of the 21st century.

What is in it for the EU members? To start with, such a sacrifice would demonstrate that Europeans are serious and consistent about both effective multilateralism and fair representation, so much so that they would give up the potential majority they enjoy on the UNSC with the Americas. This, in turn, would help dispel the mistrust that African countries, in particular, feel towards a Western-dominated UNSC, and arguably facilitate other reforms within the organisation. It may even come to constitute an example for other continental groups.

Finally, such a move could have a beneficial impact on the Union itself. Such an EU-centred European 'caucus' would not undermine the status of Britain and France, but would put some much-needed pressure on them. If all European countries can agree on who should represent them and give these countries a sort of political mandate - including clear reporting lines and consultation procedures - it would become increasingly difficult for the two European permanent members to go it alone and diverge from positions they have been involved in formulating at some stage.

The Security Council needs fewer Europeans but more 'EUrope'. As opposed to all the different proposals submitted recently, such a move would not require any change in the UN Charter, just a revision of UNSC resolution 1991 (1963).

It could happen with or without a EU constitution. It could give additional impetus to the wider UN reform process. And it would also represent a sensational coup in terms of European public diplomacy.

• Ulrike Gu�t is senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Berlin and Antonio Missiroli is chief policy analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. They write here in a personal capacity.

Major commentary feature suggesting an EU strategy for the proposed reform of the United Nations Security Council. Authors argue that the European Union could give up one of its seats and compensate for this by showing more initiative.