Reform panel to push for UNSC expansion

It would also recommend a set criteria be used for any military action in interstate and intrastate conflicts, to avert situations such as the controversial US-led military invasion of Iraq.

Gareth Evans, a former Australian Foreign Minister and part of the 16-member panel, told reporters Monday after attending a forum in Washington that the group was discussing a proposal "which would see an additional nine or so members of the Security Council."

The new members would be divided into four-year renewable terms and two-year terms as at present, with some allocation of those seats to a revised set of regional groupings.

The system would be formulated in such a way that would make it possible for the major aspirants for permanent membership of the Security Council to play a much more regular role, Evans said.

At present, the five permanent members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- are supplemented by 10 other nations which are elected to the council for two-year terms.

Many have criticised the Security Council's composition, which they say reflects the political configuration of the world in 1945, not the 21st century.

Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have launched a unified campaign for all four nations to be awarded permanent status.

Japan, the world's second most developed economy, pays more money into the UN coffers than any nation except the United States. India is the world's largest democracy, Germany is a European heavyweight, while Brazil can make a strong case to represent South America.

"I mean Japan and India each have to wait six, seven years between successive Security Council appearances, that is manifestly not a reflection of the world as it now is," said Evans, President of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, an independent group working to prevent and resolve conflicts.

He said that ideally, the proposed nine or so members would have similar status to the existing permanent five "but what we have to contemplate is that the ideal may not be deliverable any more than it has been deliverable over the last 15 years of negotiations."

He expected some kind of compromise "which is not supposed to be the final answer to the problem of Security Council composition and legitimacy but which would be seen as significantly better off than what we have at the moment."

On the question of military force, the disposition of the panel is that the rules are very clearly in the UN Charter for such action -- either self defence properly defined or with the authorization of the Security Council, he said.

"The main emphasis of the panel I think will be on trying to (establish) a criteria for making these judgements which would give us a better chance of achieving consensus in the future," he said.

The kind of criteria the panel has in mind for military action is: seriousness of the threat and evidence to justify that, and action as a last resort until options have been properly explored.

The panel, chaired by former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun, is due to report to Annan by December.

The group has only just begun to wrestle with detailed drafting language after meeting as a group on four occasions so far to work through the issues, and is scheduled to meet at least twice more before the deadline, Evans said.

Evans said Annan had made clear he wanted the emphasis to be on the "operationally deliverable rather than the intellectually or emotionally attractive (though he may not have put it in quite these terms)."