"The United Nations unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul the organization, including the Security Council, in what would be the biggest UN reform since its founding in 1945."
"What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states -- rich and poor, weak and strong," Annan said in an introduction to the report.
He said the proposals, which must be approved by member nations, set out "a broad framework for collective security and indeed gives a broader meaning to that concept appropriate for the new millennium."
In setting out a blueprint for collective security decisions, the report also takes implicit aim at the United States over the Iraqi war, which was strongly opposed by Annan and many Security Council member states.
"There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower," the panel said.
"The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown," it said. "No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats."
"It outlines three principles for collective security -- that current threats go beyond national boundaries, that no nation is strong enough to defend itself alone, and that not every nation will be willing or able to protect its own people or refrain from harming its neighbours."
Revamping the Security Council, the top UN decision-making body, is likely to be the most contentious issue, and the panel itself came up with two competing proposals for expanding the council's membership to 24 seats.
One method would add six new permanent members to the council, which has had the same five permanent states -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- since the United Nations was founded in the wake of World War II.
That proposal would also add three new non-permanent members to the 10 current non-permanent members, who hold rotating two-year seats.
The six new permanent seats, without the veto power that the current five have, would be allotted to two nations from Asia, two from Africa, one from Europe and one from the Americas.
The other proposal would create a third tier of council member nations, which would be given four-year, non-permanent seats, which could be renewed.
I know i have quoted most of the article, but i thought it was important enough to do so.
Revamping the security council is not enough, you must do away with it and provide all countries a vote on security issues with measures requiring a three fifths requirement to pass.
Security is collective and not limited to size, location, or wealth. The UN security council treats it as it is. This allows America to make a case directly to the countries, and providing information as needed to convince the reluctant ones. This would also allow the UN security council to take up clear cut regional issues, such as the Sudan issue. This will also have the effect of security the most discussed aspect of the UN.
This could also have the effect of making it nearly impossible to do anything inside of the UN inside of a security context. I personally do not have a problem with that because it would make all member countries more aware of the fact that UN cannot do jack if you are attacked.
Changing the security council to a majority rules situation would solve the veto problem, but i do not see that happening anytime soon.
As to the "no nation is strong enough to defend itself alone" comment. I would agree, but can the UN do any better in it's current configuration or future configurations?