The public is anxiously following developments in the crisis in Mali, where terrorism and organised crime are jeopardising the peace and stability of the Sahel and the Sahara and threatening to spread across North Africa. The international community is aware of the risks and is organising efforts to support the African force deployed in Mali in pursuance of resolution 2085 adopted by the UN Security Council in December. This is not the first time the UN has been able to act effectively and rapidly to stabilse a nation or a region in defence of international peace and security. The success of the mission in Timor Est, the mission in southern Lebanon, which Italy supported and today commands, support for the completion of the transition in Somalia, are all examples that confirm how, 60 years on, the intuition in San Francisco to create a body responsible for maintaining international peace and security retains its validity. Nevertheless, there are other cases in which, called upon to offer concrete responses to equally serious crises, the Security Council has shown its limitations, either paralysed by the veto of one of its permanent members or swayed by the predominance of alliances over the general interests of the international community.
THE HUMAN PRICE
In the past there were Rwanda, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo; today we have Syria, and the shocking numbers — 60,000 dead, 2 million displaced, 650,000 refugees — that illustrate the high human price go hand in hand with a political one: immobility undermines the credibility of the UN itself. At a time when the collective conscience precisely within the United Nations — spurred not least by Italy — has awakened to themes such as the death penalty, religious freedom and the international responsibility of States to protect their citizens, the world needs a Security Council that is up to the new challenges to peace and security. The situation is that more than 70 Member States have never taken part over these 68 years in the highest level body assigned to the defence of international peace and security, where almost 200 countries are represented by only 15 States — 5 of which on a permanent basis and with veto power. What we need is a Council with which every UN member can identify.
ITALIAN INTERESTS
That African countries continue, for example, to be under-represented runs counter not only to history, but also to Italy’s interest in fostering the increased assumption of responsibility, stronger regional cooperation and socio-economic development of an area of the world to which we are close and that is the coming decades will have the highest rates of demographic growth on the planet. Therefore, it is strongly in our interests to continue to pursue the goal of a seat that would allow the European Union to speak, also within the UN, in a single voice. Reform of the United National Security Council can no longer be postponed if we want a safer future for our children. And it is with this sense of urgency that, along with Spain, I decided to unite the representatives of over 60 nations here at the foreign ministry in Rome in order to place the theme of Security Council reform back at the top of the international political agenda. Italy has always based its approach on consensus; only a broadly embraced solution will succeed in reinforcing the UN’s credibility as a champion of international peace and security and in laying the solid foundations of a new architecture of collective security.
THE PROPOSAL
As for formulas, the proposal is a simple one: expand the number of members of the Council to make it more representative, not least through recognition of those regional integration processes of which the EU is a supreme example, and in consideration of States’ contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security and the Organisation’s other aims. Increasing the number of countries elected by all the UN members to a rotating seat on the Council would mean greater legitimacy, credibility and, consequently, effectiveness. While an increase in permanent members would run the risk of crystalising situations that may not over time reflect the balance of international relations and create new categories of privileged States. Rome, like New York, Geneva and Vienna, has confirmed itself as a “hub” and centre for reflection and negotiation on the future of the Organisation. The countries united today in what has become a fixed appointment for international diplomacy will confront a challenge that can no longer be postponed: the United Nations, an extraordinary development of the 20th century in the formulation of an international rule of law, must be updated to a world that has little to do with that of that past century and that remains exposed to the risk of repeating its horrors. And once again, as has often happened in recent months, Italy is a protagonist on this international stage, not only in its response to current crises but also in the definition of the instruments needed to anticipate and manage those of the future.
