Arseny Oganesyan
RIA Novosti political commentator

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently presented a report on the main principles of radical reform at the United Nations.

Russia took a positive view on Annan's concept. Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said the report "deserves the broadest support, as the secretary-general is proposing a series of specific measures designed to increase the UN's authority and improve its ability to react promptly and appropriately to new challenges and threats to international stability."

Moreover, Fedotov continued, Annan's report, like the preceding report of the "wise men" (who worked out the reform concept), "corresponded to our Russia's own considerations and ideas for the UN's new role in the changing world. This is true for all areas", he said, "efforts to consolidate international security, prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to avert the threat of international terrorism, and so on."

However, according to Andrei Denisov, Russia's ambassador to the UN, the decisions on the key issues of the UN reform, including the expansion of the Security Council, should be based on achieving the widest possible accord among member countries. The diplomat welcomed how the report "confirmed the secretary-general's commitment to consolidating the multilateral principles of international relations and to setting up a more effective collective security system under the auspices of the UN in compliance with international law." The Russian Foreign Ministry has confirmed, "Russia is enthusiastic about discussing the document, which may underpin the decisions of the 2005 Summit scheduled for this fall as part of the 60th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly in New York."

According to a RIA Novosti source in Moscow, Russia believes that making the UN more effective is a far broader task than the single aspect of the Security Council's reform. "We are interested in finding ways to make the organization more capable of dealing with modern threats and challenges," he said. "Of course, the Security Council also needs to be overhauled. If new seats are created on the Council, Russia believes a series of strong and worthy candidates will aspire for them. "

Annan backed both options for expanding the Security Council suggested by the "wise men," as they failed to reach a compromise on the issue. Both would see the number of Council members increase from 15 to 24. However, while the first option proposes that six new permanent members be introduced, the second envisages only non-permanent members, whose term in the UN would be increased from two to four years. Neither scenario offers the new Council members the power of veto. Hence Russia's insistence on securing the broadest possible accord among member states. But this has not yet been achieved.

The permanent representatives to the UN from Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - potential members of the expanded Security Council - have jointly voiced their support for the first option of the reform. This is hardly surprising, as the second option does not guarantee them a permanent presence on the Council.

Nonetheless, Sergei Rogov, the director of the Institute of Canada and the USA, believes that the second option to establish new semi-permanent members is more promising than a mere increase in the number of permanent members.

"If we speak about the UN Security Council's reform, who would argue that Japan or India should become permanent members?" he says. "But then the question is, what about Germany, Italy, and Brazil? If Brazil is to become a permanent member from Latin America, why not Mexico or Argentina? If Egypt is to join the Council from Africa, why not South Africa and so on? It is a kind of Pandora's box, as many nations would like to have their status raised." He believes semi-permanent membership would indeed raise their status, but not to the level of the original five members.

However, it would be naive to expect any quick consensus on any of the options. If the secretary-general, who should be theoretically unbiased, has failed to make his choice, what can be expected from the apparently prejudiced potential members?

Moscow understands the difficulty of the situation. Delaying the reform, or, conversely, pushing it through without broad agreement, would be disastrous, as either option would de-legitimize and split the UN. Therefore, Russia is in favor of intensive negotiations in search of an accord, however difficult it might be.