[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 6372-6373]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       SECURITY COUNCIL EXPANSION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JAMES A. LEACH

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 13, 2005

  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, one of the most talked-about issues in 
foreign policy today relates to the nature and possibility of United 
Nations reform, including the question of whether to expand the number 
of permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.
  Not unexpectedly, the People's Republic of China has expressed great 
angst about several of the proposed methodologies for expanding the 
number of permanent members--possibly because of historical friction 
between China and Japan and, to a lesser extent, India.
  My sense is that the issue of the make-up of the Security Council 
should be the subject

[[Page 6373]]

of serious review. As a former member of the United States Delegation 
to the U.N. as well as a former co-Chairman of the U.S. Commission on 
Improving the Effectiveness of the U.N., I am convinced that 
constructive reform of the Security Council is in order.
  It is in the world's interest and the U.S. national interest to 
expand the Security Council. The claim of India, Japan and Germany for 
a permanent seat is compelling. Likewise, there is a credible case that 
the Security Council could be modestly expanded on a shared co-country 
basis as well. For example, Brazil and Mexico might be awarded a seat 
in which they would alternate terms. In a similar way, Egypt, Nigeria, 
and South Africa might be given the right to alternate terms with each 
other, as might the Muslim-majority countries of Indonesia, Pakistan 
and Bangladesh. Such an approach would expand the Security Council by 
six seats, involving the granting of new rights to eleven countries.
  The case for granting veto power to new full-time members may be 
credible, but for various reasons one or another of the current five 
permanent members can be expected to object to the dilution of their 
own veto authority. Hence, realistically membership but not veto 
expansion is likely to be the agenda issue subject to serious review at 
this time.
  Expansion of the number of permanent seats under this approach would 
involve a substantial change in the Security Council, but this change 
would be more likely to be stabilizing than destabilizing because it 
would better reflect power balances in the world today and lead to more 
equitable financial burden-sharing of U.N. actions. It would cause the 
Council to reflect greater religious and racial diversity and also be 
composed of a higher percentage of the world's population. Such a new 
Security Council arrangement would underscore the role of Asia in world 
affairs as well as reflect a more credible African and Latin American 
presence.
  In any regard, I would hope that the Executive Branch as well as 
other member countries of the U.N. might give this and other comparable 
approaches serious consideration.

                          ____________________