Security Council reform talks to start in February

Negotiations among the world's nations on the much disputed issue of expanding the UN Security Council from its long-standing membership of 15 states are set to start on February 19, officials said on Friday. Most countries agree that the body, whose composition largely reflects the balance of power shortly after World War Two, needs to be enlarged to reflect present-day realities, but there is little agreement on how.
The council, the powerhouse of the United Nations with the ability to impose sanctions and dispatch peacekeeping forces, has five permanent veto-holding members - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China. It also has 10 members elected on a regional basis who serve two-year terms before being replaced by others. They have no veto. That number was set in 1965, after standing at six since the post-war foundation of the United Nations.
The start date of February 19 for the intergovernmental negotiations was announced to an informal General Assembly session on Thursday by assembly president Miguel D'Escoto, UN officials said. After years of deadlock, D'Escoto's predecessor began a fresh attempt in 2007 to get the negotiations under way. Discussions since then have covered the format of the talks as well as various proposals for expanding the council.
Diplomats said the negotiations were expected to be held, at least initially, among experts from missions of the 192 UN member states. They said they were awaiting a work plan from D'Escoto at the inaugural meeting on how exactly the talks would be structured.
A world summit in 2005 said reform of the Security Council would make it "more broadly representative, efficient and transparent and thus ... further enhance its effectiveness and the legitimacy and implementation of its decisions."
But many diplomats believe there will be no quick outcome to the negotiations, due to regional rivalries and a concern by the big powers that their pre-eminence should not be diluted. Numerous plans have been put forward in the past, differing over how many new council seats should be added, who should have them, whether they should be permanent, semipermanent or time-limited, and which if any new states should get the veto.