United Nations Security Council مجلس أمن الأمم المتحدة (Arabic) 联合国安全理事会 (Chinese) Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies (French) Совет Безопасности Организации Объединённых Наций (Russian) Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas (Spanish)
UN Security Council Chamber in New York, also known as the Norwegian Room
Org type	Principal Organ
Head	Rotates between members
Status	Active
Established	1946
Website	http://un.org/sc/

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The Security Council held its first session on 17 January 1946 at Church House, Westminster, London. Since its first meeting, the Council, which exists in continuous session, has travelled widely, holding meetings in many cities, such as Paris and Addis Ababa, as well as at its current permanent home at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of five veto-wielding permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—based on the great powers that were the victors of World War II,^[1] and 10 elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in Chapter V of the UN Charter. Security Council members must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time. This requirement of the United Nations Charter was adopted to address a weakness of the League of Nations since that organization was often unable to respond quickly to a crisis.

Members[link]

Permanent members[link]

The Security Council's five permanent members have the power to veto any substantive resolution:

Country	Current representative	Current state representation	Former state representation
China	Li Baodong[2]	People's Republic of China (1971–present)	Republic of China (1946–1971)
France	Gérard Araud[2]	France (1946–present)	—
Russia	Vitaly Churkin[2]	Russian Federation (1992–present)	Soviet Union (1946–1991)
United Kingdom	Sir Mark Lyall Grant[2]	United Kingdom (1946–present)	—
United States	Susan Rice[2]	United States (1946–present)	—

At the UN's founding in 1946, the five permanent members of the Security Council were the French Republic, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union. There have been two seat changes since then, although not reflected in Article 23 of the United Nations Charter as it has not been accordingly amended:

Leaders of the five permanent member states at a summit in 2000. Clockwise from front left: Chinese President Jiang Zemin, U.S. President Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and French President Jacques Chirac.

• China's seat was originally held by Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist Government, known as the "Republic of China." However, the Nationalists were forced to retreat to the island of Taiwan in 1949, during the Chinese Civil War. The Communist government was left in control of mainland China, henceforth known as the "People's Republic of China." In 1971, Resolution 2758 recognized the People's Republic as the rightful representative of China in the UN and gave it the seat on the Security Council that had been held by the Republic of China, which was expelled from the UN altogether. Both governments still officially claim one another's territory, however only a few small nations continue to officially recognize Taiwan's sovereignty.
• After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia was recognized as the legal successor state of the Soviet Union and maintained the latter's position on the Security Council.

Additionally, France reformed its government into the French Fifth Republic in 1959, under the leadership of Charles de Gaulle. France maintained its seat as there was no change in its international status or recognition, although many of its overseas possessions eventually became independent.

The five permanent members of the Security Council were the victorious powers in World War II and have maintained the world's most powerful military forces ever since. They annually top the list of countries with the highest military expenditures; in 2011, they spent over US$1 trillion combined on defense, accounting for over 60% of global military expenditures (the U.S. alone accounting for over 40%). They are also the only countries officially recognized as "nuclear-weapon states" under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), though there are other states known or believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons.

Non-permanent members[link]

Ten other members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms starting on 1 January, with five replaced each year. The members are chosen by regional groups and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly. To be approved, a candidate must receive at least 2/3 of all votes cast for that seat, which can result in deadlock if there are two roughly evenly matched candidates; in 1979, a standoff between Cuba and Colombia only ended after three months and 154 rounds of voting, when both withdrew in favor of Mexico as a compromise candidate.^[3]

The African bloc is represented by three members; the Latin America and the Caribbean, Asian, and Western European and Others blocs by two members each; and the Eastern European bloc by one member. Also, one of the members is an "Arab country," alternately from the Asian or African bloc.^[4] Currently, elections for terms beginning in even-numbered years select two African members, and one each within Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Additionally, the Arab state is represented in this group (Libya within Africa in 2008, Lebanon within Asia in 2010). Terms beginning in odd-numbered years consist of two Western European and Other members, and one within each of Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa.

The current elected members, with the regions they were elected to represent and their Permanent Representatives, are:

1 January 2011 – 31 December 2012 Country Regional bloc(s) Permanent Representative  Colombia Latin America and Caribbean Néstor Osorio Londoño  Germany Western Europe and Other Peter Wittig  India Asia Hardeep Singh Puri  Portugal Western Europe and Other José Filipe Moraes Cabral  South Africa Africa Baso Sangqu

1 January 2012 – 31 December 2013 Country Regional bloc(s) Permanent Representative  Azerbaijan Eastern Europe Agshin Mehdiyev  Guatemala Latin America and Caribbean Gert Rosenthal  Morocco Africa and Arab Group Mohammed Loulichki  Pakistan Asia Abdullah Hussain Haroon  Togo Africa Kodjo Menan

President[link]

The role of president of the Security Council involves setting the agenda, presiding at its meetings and overseeing any crisis. The President is authorized to issue both presidential statements (subject to consensus among Council members) and notes,^[5][6] which are used to make declarations of intent that the full Security Council can then pursue.^[6] The Presidency rotates monthly in alphabetical order of the Security Council member nations' names in English.^[7]

Veto power[link]

Number of resolutions vetoed by each of the five permanent members of the Security Council between 1946 and 2007.^[8]

Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, also known as the rule of "great power unanimity", by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9). Abstention is not regarded as a veto despite the wording of the Charter. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto 6 times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 123 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 82 times. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, China and France have vetoed three resolutions each; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43.

Procedural matters are not subject to a veto, so the veto cannot be used to avoid discussion of an issue. The same holds for certain decisions that directly regard permanent members.

Role[link]

Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members.

Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security". This was the legal basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 and Libya in 2011. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.

Then-United States Secretary of State Colin Powell holds a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003. Foreign ministers and heads of government sometimes appear in the UNSC in person to discuss issues.

The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which gives the Security Council the power to:

• Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
• Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
• Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations;
• Enforce its decisions militarily, or by any means necessary;
• Avoid conflict and maintain focus on cooperation.

They also recommend the new Secretary-General to the General Assembly.^[9]

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes that the Security Council has authority to refer cases to the Court, where the Court could not otherwise exercise jurisdiction.^[10] The Council exercised this power for the first time in March 2005, when it referred to the Court “the situation prevailing in Darfur since 1 July 2002”;^[11] since Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court could not otherwise have exercised jurisdiction. The Security Council made its second such referral in February 2011 when it asked the ICC to investigate the Libyan government's violent response to the 2011 uprising.

Responsibility to protect[link]

Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity".^[12] The resolution commits the Council to take action to protect civilians in an armed conflict. The Security Council's role in implementing the responsibility to protect is not limited to taking collective action against mass atrocities (pillar three of the responsibility to protect), but it can also make important contributions to structural and operational prevention of genocide, war, crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity (pillar two of the responsibility to protect).^[13]

Resolutions[link]

The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty. It is the constitutional document that distributes powers and functions among the various UN organs. It authorizes the Security Council to take action on behalf of the members, and to make decisions and recommendations. The Charter mentions neither binding nor non-binding resolutions. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion in the 1949 "Reparations" case indicated that the United Nations Organization had both explicit and implied powers. The Court cited Articles 104 and 2(5) of the Charter, and noted that the members had granted the Organization the necessary legal authority to exercise its functions and fulfill its purposes as specified or implied in the Charter, and that they had agreed to give the United Nations every assistance in any action taken in accordance with the Charter.^[14]

Article 25 of the Charter says that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, is a UN legal publication that is published by the Secretariat units concerned in accordance with their operational responsibilities and under the guidance of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Charter Repertory. It says that during the United Nations Conference on International Organization which met in San Francisco in 1945, attempts to limit obligations of Members under Article 25 of the Charter to those decisions taken by the Council in the exercise of its specific powers under Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter failed. It was stated at the time that those obligations also flowed from the authority conferred on the Council under Article 24(1) to act on the behalf of the members while exercising its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.^[15] Article 24, interpreted in this sense, becomes a source of authority which can be drawn upon to meet situations which are not covered by the more detailed provisions in the succeeding articles.^[16] The Repertory on Article 24 says: "The question whether Article 24 confers general powers on the Security Council ceased to be a subject of discussion following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971 in connection with the question of Namibia (ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16)".^[17]

In exercising its powers the Security Council seldom bothers to cite the particular article or articles of the UN Charter that its decisions are based upon. In cases where none are mentioned, a constitutional interpretation is required.^[18] This sometimes presents ambiguities as to what amounts to a decision as opposed to a recommendation, and also the relevance and interpretation of the phrase "in accordance with the present Charter".^[19]

In the preliminary rulings of the "Lockerbie" cases^[20] the ICJ held that the provisions of the Montreal Convention could be preempted by Security Council resolutions pursuant to Article 25 and Article 103 of the UN Charter. Article 103 provides that in the event of conflicts with other treaty obligations, the members obligations under the Charter prevail. There is consensus that the treaty-based powers of the Security Council are limited to preemption of other treaties. The UN cannot circumvent peremptory norms and its resolutions are subject to judicial review.^[21]

UN Security Council Resolutions
Sources: UN Security Council · UNBISnet · Wikisource
1 to 100 (1946–1953)
101 to 200 (1953–1965)
201 to 300 (1965–1971)
301 to 400 (1971–1976)
401 to 500 (1976–1982)
501 to 600 (1982–1987)
601 to 700 (1987–1991)
701 to 800 (1991–1993)
801 to 900 (1993–1994)
901 to 1000 (1994–1995)
1001 to 1100 (1995–1997)
1101 to 1200 (1997–1998)
1201 to 1300 (1998–2000)
1301 to 1400 (2000–2002)
1401 to 1500 (2002–2003)
1501 to 1600 (2003–2005)
1601 to 1700 (2005–2006)
1701 to 1800 (2006–2008)
1801 to 1900 (2008–2009)
1901 to 2000 (2009–2011)
2001 to 2100 (2011–present)
Wikisource has original text related to this article: Portal:United Nations Security Council Resolutions

Security Council Resolutions are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the Charter.

There is a general agreement among legal scholars outside the organization that resolutions made under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) are not legally binding.^{[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]} One argument is that since they have no enforcement mechanism, except self-help, they may not be legally binding.^[31] Some States give constitutional or special legal status to the UN Charter and Security Council resolutions. In such cases non-recognition regimes or other sanctions can be implemented under the provisions of the laws of the individual member states.^[32]

The Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs was established because "Records of the cumulating practice of international organizations may be regarded as evidence of customary international law with reference to States' relations to the organizations."^[33] The repertory cites the remarks made by the representative of Israel, Mr Eban, regarding a Chapter VI resolution. He maintained that the Security Council's resolution of 1 September 1951 possessed, within the meaning of Article 25, a compelling force beyond that pertaining to any resolution of any other organ of the United Nations, in his view the importance of the resolution had to be envisaged in the light of Article 25, under which the decisions of the Council on matters affecting international peace and security assumed an obligatory character for all Member States. The Egyptian representative disagreed.^[34]

Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali related that during a press conference his remarks about a "non-binding" resolution started a dispute. His assistant released a hasty clarification which only made the situation worse. It said that the Secretary had only meant to say that Chapter VI contains no means of insuring compliance and that resolutions adopted under its terms are not enforceable. When the Secretary finally submitted the question to the UN Legal Advisor, the response was a long memo the bottom line of which read, in capital letters: "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE." The Secretary said "I got the message."^[35]

Prof. Jared Schott explains that "Though certainly possessing judicial language, without the legally binding force of Chapter VII, such declarations were at worst political and at best advisory".^[36]

In 1971, a majority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) members in the Namibia advisory opinion held that the resolution contained legal declarations that were made while the Council was acting on behalf of the members in accordance with Article 24. The Court also said that an interpretation of the charter that limits the domain of binding decision only to those taken under Chapter VII would render Article 25 "superfluous, since this [binding] effect is secured by Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter", and that the "language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect".^[37] The ICJ judgment has been criticized by Erika De Wet and others.^[38] De Wet argues that Chapter VI resolutions cannot be binding. Her reasoning, in part states:

Allowing the Security Council to adopt binding measures under Chapter VI would undermine the structural division of competencies foreseen by Chapters VI and VII, respectively. The whole aim of separating these chapters is to distinguish between voluntary and binding measures. Whereas the pacific settlement of disputes provided by the former is underpinned by the consent of the parties, binding measures in terms of Chapter VII are characterized by the absence of such consent. A further indication of the non-binding nature of measures taken in terms of Chapter VI is the obligation on members of the Security Council who are parties to a dispute, to refrain from voting when resolutions under Chapter VI are adopted. No similar obligation exists with respect to binding resolutions adopted under Chapter VII... If one applies this reasoning to the Namibia opinion, the decisive point is that none of the Articles under Chapter VI facilitate the adoption of the type of binding measures that were adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 276(1970)... Resolution 260(1970) was indeed adopted in terms of Chapter VII, even though the ICJ went to some length to give the opposite impression.^[39]

Others disagree with this interpretation. Professor Stephen Zunes asserts that "[t]his does not mean that resolutions under Chapter VI are merely advisory, however. These are still directives by the Security Council and differ only in that they do not have the same stringent enforcement options, such as the use of military force".^[40] Former President of the International Court of Justice Rosalyn Higgins argues that the location of Article 25, outside of Chapter VI and VII and with no reference to either, suggests its application is not limited to Chapter VII decisions.^[41] She asserts that the Travaux préparatoires to the UN Charter "provide some evidence that Article 25 was not intended to be limited to Chapter VII, or inapplicable to Chapter VI."^[42] She argues that early state practice into what resolutions UN members considered binding has been somewhat ambiguous, but seems to "rely not upon whether they are to be regarded as "Chapter VI or "Chapter VII" resolutions [...] but upon whether the parties intended them to be "decisions" or "recommendations" ... One is left with the view that in certain limited, and perhaps rare, cases a binding decision may be taken under Chapter VI".^[43] She supports the view of the ICJ that "clearly regarded Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII as lex specialis while Article 24 contained the lex generalis ... [and] that resolutions validly adopted under Article 24 were binding on the membership as a whole".^[44]

Those resolutions made dealing with the internal governance of the organization (such as the admission of new Member States) are legally binding where the Charter gives the Security Council power to make them.

If the council cannot reach consensus or a passing vote on a resolution, they may choose to produce a non-binding presidential statement instead of a Resolution. These are adopted by consensus. They are meant to apply political pressure — a warning that the council is paying attention and further action may follow.

Press statements typically accompany both resolutions and presidential statements, carrying the text of the document adopted by the body and also some explanatory text. They may also be released independently, after a significant meeting.

Criticism[link]

This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2010)

It has been argued^{[by whom?]} that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, who are all nuclear powers, have created an exclusive nuclear club that predominately addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members; for example, protecting the oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991 but poorly protecting resource-poor Rwandans in 1994.^[45]. Since 60% of the permanent members are also European, and 80% predominantly white Western nations, the Security Council has been described as a pillar of global apartheid by Titus Alexander, former Chair of Westminster United Nations Association. ^[46]

Another criticism^{[by whom?]} of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. The veto power was adopted at the insistence of the Soviet Union and the United States after World War II. According to the by-rules of the UN, a “no” vote by any one permanent Security Council member is enough to strike down any given proposal. The “no” vote is the same as a veto. Permanent members often use this veto power to strike down measures that run contrary to their individual national interests. For example, the People's Republic of China, which, in 1971, replaced the Republic of China as a permanent Security Council member, has vetoed sparingly, but always and only on issues relating to Chinese national interests. In another example, in the first ten years of the UN's existence, Russia was responsible for 79 vetoes—more than half of all the vetoes cast during that period—and cast them to dispute the U.S.'s refusal to admit all of the Soviet Republics as member states of the UN. In another example of the use of the veto power to advance national interests, between 1982 and today, the U.S. vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel.^[47] Due to the immense power of the veto, permanent members often now meet privately and then present their resolutions to the full council, which critics from the Global Policy Forum characterise as a fait accompli.^[48]

The Security Council's effectiveness and relevance is questioned^{[by whom?]} because, in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution. During the Darfur crisis, Janjaweed militias, allowed by elements of the Sudanese government, committed violence against an indigenous population, killing thousands of civilians. In the Srebrenica massacre, Serbian troops committed genocide against Bosniaks, although Srebrenica had been declared a UN “safe area” and was even “protected” by 400 armed Dutch peacekeepers.^[49] The UN Charter gives all three powers of the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches to the Security Council.^[50]

Another criticism, posed by alternative-media researcher Anup Shah, is that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are five of the top ten largest arms exporting countries in the world.^[51]

The amount of time devoted to the Israeli-Arab conflict in the UNSC has been described as excessive by some pro-Israel political organizations such as the UN Watch^[52] and the Anti-Defamation League,^[53] and academics such as Alan Dershowitz,^[54] Martin Kramer, and Mitchell Bard. This “excessiveness” is partially due to the existence of the Security Council Resolution 1322 (2000), that serves the legal basis for a monthly discussion on this protracted conflict.^[55][56] Paragraph 7 stated that “invites the Secretary-General to continue to follow the situation and to keep the Security Council informed.” In accordance with its general practices, it is considered that this issue has to be dealt on a regular basis (i.e. every month). The resolution was adopted with 14 affirmative votes and one abstention.^[57]

Membership reform[link]

The G4 nations: Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. Most support one another's bids for permanent seats on the Security Council, though they are heavily opposed by various member nations of the UN.^[58]

There has been discussion of increasing the number of permanent members. The countries who have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. Japan and Germany, the main defeated powers in WWII, are now the UN's second- and third-largest funders respectively, while Brazil and India are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions. This proposal has found opposition in a group of countries called Uniting for Consensus.

Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked a team of advisers to come up with recommendations for reforming the United Nations by the end of 2004. One proposed measure is to increase the number of permanent members by five, which, in most proposals, would include Brazil, Germany, India, Japan (known as the G4 nations), one seat from Africa (most likely between Egypt, Nigeria or South Africa) and/or one seat from the Arab League.^[59] On 21 September 2004, the G4 nations issued a joint statement mutually backing each other's claim to permanent status, together with two African countries. Currently the proposal has to be accepted by two-thirds of the General Assembly (128 votes).

The permanent members, each holding the right of veto, announced their positions on Security Council reform reluctantly. The United States has unequivocally supported the permanent membership of Japan and lent its support to India and a small number of additional non-permanent members. The United Kingdom and France essentially supported the G4 position, with the expansion of permanent and non-permanent members and the accession of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan to permanent member status, as well as an increase in the presence by African countries on the Council. China has supported the stronger representation of developing countries and firmly opposed Japan's membership.^[60]

Chamber[link]

The designated Security Council Chamber in the United Nations Conference Building, designed by the Norwegian architect Arnstein Arneberg, was the specific gift of Norway. The mural painted by the Norwegian artist Per Krohg depicts a phoenix rising from its ashes, symbolic of the world reborn after World War II. In the blue and gold silk tapestry on the walls and in the draperies of the windows overlooking the East River appear the anchor of faith, the wheat stems of hope, and the heart of charity.^{[61][broken citation]}

See also[link]

• Military Staff Committee, a sub-organ of the Security Council
• Reform of the United Nations
• United Nations Department of Political Affairs, provides secretarial support to the Security Council
• United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee, a standing committee of the Security Council

References[link]

Further reading[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: United Nations Security Council

• UN Security Council — official site
  • UN Security Council – Background
• Global Policy Forum – UN Security Council
  • Global Policy Forum – veto patterns of the Security Council
• Security Council Report — timely, accurate and objective information and analysis on the Council's activities
• Center for UN Reform Education – objective information on current reform issues at the United Nations
• Verbatim record of the 1st session of the Security Council
• UN Democracy: hyperlinked transcripts of the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council
• Hans Köchler, The Voting Procedure in the United Nations Security CouncilPDF (238 KB)
• Reform the United Nations website — tracking developments
• History of the United Nations — UK Government
• Who will be the next Secretary General?
• (French) The different projects of reform (G4, Africa Union, United for consensus) (2006)
• UNSC cyberschool

Articles related to the United Nations Security Council v t e United Nations (UN) UN System Member states • Observers • General Assembly (President) • Security Council • Department of Economic and Social Affairs • Economic and Social Council • Secretariat (Secretary-General) • Trusteeship Council • International Court of Justice History League of Nations • Peacekeeping missions (history • timeline) • Enlargement Major[vague] offices New York (Headquarters) • Geneva (Office) • Nairobi (Office) • Vienna (Office) Programmes and agencies FAO • ICAO • ILO • IMO • IPCC • IAEA • UNIDO • ITU • UNAIDS • SCSL • UNCTAD • UNCITRAL • UNDG • UNDP • UNDPI • UNEP (OzonAction, UNEP/GRID-Arendal) • UNESCO • UNODC • UNFIP • UNFPA • OHCHR • UNHCR • UNHRC • UN-HABITAT • UNICEF • UNITAR • UNOSAT • UNRWA • UN Women • UNWTO • UPU • WFP • WHO • WMO Resolutions General Assembly • Security Council Elections 2011 UNSC • 2011 ICJ • 2012 UNGA President • 2012 UNSC Related topics Bretton Woods system • Charter • CTBTO • Delivering as One • Flag • Honor Flag • Global Compact • ICC • Laissez-Passer • OPCW • Treaty Series • UN Day • UDHR • MDGs • UN reform  Category •  Portal v t e Members of the United Nations Security Council Permanent members  China  France  Russia  United Kingdom  United States Term ends 31 December 2012  Colombia  Germany  India  Portugal  South Africa Term ends 31 December 2013  Azerbaijan  Guatemala  Morocco  Pakistan  Togo v t e United Nations Security Council elections 1946 (Jan) 1946 (Sep) 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 General Assembly UNSC (Members Reform) Regional Groups (EEG and WEOG) v t e United Nations Charter Text Preamble · Chapter I · II · III · IV · V · VI · VII · VIII · IX · X · XI · XII · XIII · XIV · XV · XVI · XVII · XVIII · XIX · Amendments History 1919 Paris Peace Conference · Treaty of Versailles · Covenant of the League of Nations · 1943 Moscow Conference · 1943 Tehran Conference · 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference · 1945 Conference on International Organization · Signatories Organs created Security Council · General Assembly · Economic and Social Council · Trusteeship Council · International Court of Justice (Statute) · Secretariat · Military Staff Committee Complete text · UN Portal v t e Global governance and identity Proposals United Nations Parliamentary Assembly World government Theories Cosmopolitanism Democratic globalization Global governance Transnational governance Global citizenship Globalism Internationalism World citizen World currency world taxation system Organisations Democratic World Federalists Global citizens movement World Federalist Movement World Service Authority

The United Nations Security Council.

Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue.^[1]

The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC, enjoying the veto right.^[2]

History[link]

Even though the geopolitical realities have changed drastically since 1945, when the set-up of the current Council was decided, the Security Council has changed very little during this long period. The winners of Second World War shaped the Charter of the United Nations in their national interests, dividing the veto-power pertinent to the permanent seats amongst themselves.^[3] With the enlargement of the United Nations membership and increasing self-confidence among the new members, going hand in hand with processes of decolonization, old structures and procedures were increasingly challenged. The imbalance between the number of seats in the Security Council and the total number of member States became evident and the only significant reform of the Security Council came to pass in 1965 after the ratification of two thirds of the membership, including the five permanent members of the Security Council (that have a veto right on Charter changes). The reform included an increase of the non-permanent membership from six to 10 members.^[4] With Boutros Boutros-Ghali elected as Secretary-General in 1992, the reform discussions of the UN Security Council were launched again as he started his new term with the first-ever summit of the Security Council and thereafter published "An Agenda for Peace". His motivation was to restructure the composition and anachronistic procedures of the UN organ recognizing the changed world.^[4]

By 1992, Japan and Germany had become the second and third largest contributor to the United Nations and started to demand a permanent seat. Also Brazil (fifth largest country in terms of territory) and India (second largest country in terms of population) as the most powerful countries within their regional groups and key players within their regions saw themselves with a permanent seat. This group of four countries formed an interest group later known as the G4.

On the other hand their regional rivals were opposed to the G4 becoming permanent members with a veto power. They favored the expansion of the non-permanent category of seats with members to be elected on a regional basis. Italy, Spain, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Pakistan started to form an interest group, known as the “Coffee Club” and later “Uniting for Consensus”.

Simultaneously, the African Group started to demand two permanent seats for themselves, on the basis of historical injustices and the fact that a large part of the Council’s agenda is concentrated on the continent. Those two seats would be permanent African seats, that rotate between African countries chosen by the African group.^[5]

The existing permanent members, each holding the right of veto on Security Council reform, announced their positions reluctantly. The United States supported the permanent membership of Japan and India and a small number of additional non-permanent members. The United Kingdom and France essentially supported the G4 position, with the expansion of permanent and non-permanent members and the accession of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan to permanent member status, as well as an increase the presence by African countries on the Council. China supported the stronger representation of developing countries, voicing support for the Republic of India.^[6] Russia, India's long time friend and ally has also endorsed the fast growing power's candidature to assume a seat of a permanent member on the Security Council.^[7]

General Assembly Task Force[link]

The General Assembly Task Force on Security Council Reform^[8] has delivered a Report (on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council) recommending a compromise solution for entering intergovernmental negotiations on reform.^[9]

The report builds on existing transitional/intermediary approaches to suggest a "timeline perspective". The "timeline perspective" suggests that Member States begin by identifying the negotiables to be included in short-term intergovernmental negotiations. Crucial to the "timeline perspective" is the scheduling of a mandatory review conference—a forum for discussing changes to any reforms achieved in the near-term, and for revisiting negotiables that cannot be agreed upon now.^[10]

Increasing membership[link]

"In Larger Freedom"[link]

On March 21, 2005, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the UN to reach a consensus on expanding the council to 24 members, in a plan referred to as "In Larger Freedom". He gave two alternatives for implementation, but did not specify which proposal he preferred.^[11] In any case, Annan favored making the decision quickly, stating, "This important issue has been discussed for too long. I believe member states should agree to take a decision on it—preferably by consensus, but in any case before the summit—making use of one or other of the options presented in the report of the High-Level Panel".^[12]

The two options mentioned by Annan are referred to as Plan A and Plan B:

• Plan A calls for creating six new permanent members, plus three new nonpermanent members for a total of 24 seats in the council.
• Plan B calls for creating eight new seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four years, subject to renewal, plus one nonpermanent seat, also for a total of 24.

The summit mentioned by Annan is the September 2005 Millennium+5 Summit, a high level plenary meeting that reviewed Annan's report, the implementation of the 2000 Millennium Declaration, and other UN reform-related issues.^[13]

[edit] Uniting for Consensus

On July 26, 2005, five UN member countries, Italy, Argentina, Canada, Colombia and Pakistan, representing a larger group of countries called Uniting for Consensus, proposed to General Assembly another project,^[14] that maintains five permanent members, and raises the number of non-permanent members to 20. On April 11, 2005, China had "embraced" this initiative.^[15]

New permanent member proposals[link]

The G4 nations: Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. Most support one another's bids for permanent seats on the Security Council, though are heavily opposed by various member nations of the UN.^[17]

One proposed change is to admit more members: the candidates usually mentioned are Brazil, Germany, India and Japan (the G4 nations). Britain, France and Russia support G4 membership in the UN Security Council.^[18] Italy has always opposed this kind of reform, and has submitted since 1992 another proposal, together with other countries, based on the introduction of semi-permanent membership;^[19] In addition South Korea opposed Japan; Pakistan opposes India; and Mexico and Argentina oppose Brazil, a Portuguese-speaking country in a largely Spanish-speaking Latin America. All these countries have traditionally grouped themselves in the so-called Coffee Club; officially Uniting for Consensus.

Most of the leading candidates for permanent membership are regularly elected onto the Security Council by their respective groups: Japan and Brazil were elected for nine two-year terms each, and Germany for three terms. India has been elected to the council seven times in total, with the most recent successful bid being in 2010 after a gap of almost twenty years since 1991–92.

Brazil[link]

 Brazil is the largest country in Latin America in terms of population, GDP and land area. It has the fifth largest population, sixth largest GDP, and eleventh largest defence budget in the world. Furthermore, with Africa and Oceania, South America is one of three inhabited continents without permanent representation on the Security Council.

Brazil has been elected ten times to the Security Council. It has contributed troops to UN peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East, the former Belgian Congo, Cyprus, Mozambique, Angola, and more recently East Timor and Haiti.^[20] Brazil is one of the main contributors to the UN regular budget.^[21]

The United States sent strong indications to Brazil that it was willing to support its membership; albeit, without a veto.^[22] In June 2011, the Council on Foreign Relations recommended that the US government fully endorse the inclusion of Brazil as a permanent member of the Security Council.^[23] Brazil has received backing from other permanent members: Russia,^[24] the United Kingdom^[25] and France,^[26] and from the Community of Portuguese Language Countries (CPLP),^[27] Chile,^[28] Indonesia,^[29] Finland,^[30] Slovenia,^[31] Australia,^[32] South Africa,^[33] Guatemala,^[34] Vietnam^[35] and the Philippines,^[36] as well as from the other G4 nations, who mutually support each other.^[37]

The greatest impediments to its candidacy are the regional oppositions of both Mexico and Argentina, two important countries in Latin America.^[38]

Germany[link]

 Germany is the third largest contributor to the U.N. regular budgets next to Japan, and as such, claims for a Security Council seat.

France has explicitly called for a permanent seat in the UN for its close EU partner: "Germany's engagement, its ranking as a great power, its international influence—France would like to see them recognised with a permanent seat on the Security Council", French president Jacques Chirac said in a speech in Berlin in 2000.^[39] The former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, also identified Russia, among other countries, as a country that backed Germany's bid.^[18] Italy and Netherlands on the contrary, suggest a common European Union (EU) seat in the Council instead of Germany becoming the third European member next to France and the UK. The former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said that Germany would also accept a common European seat, but as long as there is little sign that France and the UK will give up their own seats, Germany should also have a seat.^[18] Thus, the German campaign for a permanent seat was intensified in 2004. Schröder made himself perfectly clear in August 2004: "Germany has the right to a seat."^[40] Its bid is supported by Japan, India, Brazil, France, the United Kingdom and Russia, among other countries. Current German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had initially been quiet on the issue, re-stated Germany's bid in her address to the UN General Assembly in September 2007. In July 2011, Merkel's trip to Kenya, Angola, and Nigeria was thought to be motivated, in part, by the goal of seeking support from African countries for Germany's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council.^[41]

India[link]

 India which joined the UN in 1945 is the third largest and a regular constant contributor of troops to United Nations Peacekeeping missions.^[42] The Foreign Policy Magazine states that, "India's international identity has long been shaped by its role in U.N. peacekeeping, with more than 100,000 Indian troops having served in U.N. missions during the past 50 years. Today, India has over 8,500 peacekeepers in the field, more than twice as many as the U.N.'s five big powers combined. In supporting India's bid for a permanent seat on an enlarged Security Council last November, President Barack Obama cited "India's long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping mission." ^[43] India has been elected seven times to the UN Security Council. Most recently India has been elected to serve in UNSC from 2011 to 2012 as it had received 187 of the 190 total votes.^[44][45]

The country currently has the world's second largest population and is the world's largest liberal democracy. It is also the world's tenth largest economy and third largest in terms of purchasing power parity. Currently, India maintains the world's third largest active armed force and is a nuclear weapon state. The International Herald Tribune has stated: "Clearly, a seat for India would make the body more representative and democratic. With India as a member, the Council would be a more legitimate and thus a more effective body..." Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, said: "Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council could be chosen ... with a vote by the fans ... Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That’s more like it. India is the world’s biggest democracy, the world’s largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation."^[46]

India's bid for permanent member of UNSC is backed by permanent members namely France,^[47] Russia,^[48] United Kingdom^[49] and United States,^[50] although the United States initially opposed India's candidacy on grounds of nuclear proliferation, as India has acquired nuclear weapons and not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.^[51] On April 15, 2011, China officially expressed its support for an increased Indian role at the United Nations, without explicitly endorsing India's Security Council ambitions.^[52][53] However, recently China has expressed its support for Indian candidacy as a permanent member of the Security Council ^[54], thus making India the only candidate that has received support from all permanent members and most other nations as well. Countries that explicitly and openly support India for UNSC permanent seat are - Singapore,^[55] Israel,^[56] Hungary,^[57] Poland,^[58] Croatia,^[59] Belarus,^[60] Cyprus,^[61] Czech Republic,^[62] Romania, Norway,^[63] Finland,^[64] Slovakia,^[65] Portugal,^[66] Kazakhstan,^[67] Bangladesh,^[68] Chile,^[69] Australia,^[70] Tanzania,^[71] Belgium,^[72] Armenia,^[73] Bulgaria, Greece,^[74] Denmark,^[75] Iceland,^[76] Oman, Kazakhstan,^[77] Tajikistan,^[78] Laos,^[79] Cambodia,^[80] Malaysia,^[81] Mongolia,^[82] Uzbekistan,^[83] Kyrgyzstan,^[84] Vietnam,^[85] Syria,^{[86][broken citation]} Myanmar,^[87] Maldives,^[88] Qatar,^[89] Brunei,^[90] Palau,^[91] Micronesia,^[91] Tuvalu,^[92] Chile,^[93] Suriname,^[94] Bolivia,^[95] Guyana,^[96] Peru,^[97] Cuba,^[98] Belize,^[99] Bahamas,^[100], United Arab Emirates^[101] and Jamaica^[102]

The African Union also supports India's candidacy for permanent member of UNSC.^[103]

Pakistan opposes India's candidacy.^[104]

Japan[link]

Wikinews has related news: China and South Korea question seat for Japan on Security Council.

 Japan, which joined the UN in 1956, is the second largest contributor to the UN's regular budget.^[105] Its payments had surpassed the sum of those of the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia combined for nearly two decades before 2010. Japan has been one of the largest Official Development Assistance donor countries. Thus, Japan, along with India, are considered the most likely candidate for two of the new permanent seats. China has stated that it was ready to support India's move for a permanent seat on the UNSC if India did not associate its bid with Japan.^[106] This may be contrary to the Indian stand since Japan and India are both members of the G4 and support each other's candidature.

While U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, speaking at Sophia University in Tokyo, said, "Japan has earned its honorable place among the nations of the world by its own effort and its own character. That's why the United States unambiguously supports a permanent seat for Japan on the United Nations Security Council."^[107] Her predecessor, Colin Powell, had objected to Japanese permanent membership because Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan forbids the country from going to war unless in self-defense.^[108]

Some other Asian nations have expressed support for Japan's application, including Mongolia, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Vietnam^[18]—all major recipients of loan and/or foreign investment from Japan. The other G4 countries, Germany, Brazil, and India, who are also bidding for Security Council seats, along with France and the United Kingdom, also back Japan's bid.^[18] Australia, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu support Japan since Japan agreed to increase financial aid to the region, even though some of these countries are very concerned with Japanese whaling in the region.^[109]

For instance, Katsuyuki Kawai, then secretary for foreign affairs, member of the Japanese parliament, and special envoy to Nepal, was sent to Kathmandu to lobby for the Nepalese government's support for Japanese membership in the UNSC. Kawai met with King Gyanendra and told the press, "If Japan loses its bid this time, Japanese people will think the support Japan has been providing to the world for the last 60 years has been futile." Japan donates significantly to Nepal.^[110]

Membership of a Muslim-majority nation[link]

Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the partitions of the Middle East by the victors of the First World War, the predominantly Muslim Middle East has been an area of persistent international conflict, and the periodic flare-ups in the region have been the subject of many UN Security Council debates and resolutions. Therefore, the prospect of introducing a permanent Islamic member to the security council is highly sensitive, especially if such a member were to be granted the power of veto.

Outside the Muslim world, commentators have raised concerns that a veto-wielding Islamic member could use it to restrict the UN's ability to act forcefully in the Middle East or on the boundaries of the Islamic world, rendering the UN impotent in those regions. The impression of the lack of democracy in Middle Eastern states that are predominantly Muslim is another reason cited by some Western commentators who argue against the idea of including these countries among the list of permanent, veto-wielding states.

At the same time, the draft G4 reform proposals may leave over 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide (which is not limited only in the Middle East, and includes areas from West Africa to Southeast Asia) without any permanent representation on the UN security council. This is a highly controversial issue within the Islamic world and might adversely impact the UN's credibility in portions of the Middle East and in the Islamic world. In June 2005, the foreign ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) called for a permanent Muslim seat on the UN Security Council.^[111]

Recent resistance to the reform draft proposals emanating from the G4 states can be attributed in part to this highly sensitive issue. The US and several Western states^[which?] have objected to any proposal that gives new members any veto powers,^[18] and, within the African Union, Egypt has led resistance to a proposal by Nigeria to adopt a version of the G4 proposals that removes the right of veto for new members,^[18] and may enable the creation of a reformed council that does not have any permanent members with a predominantly Muslim identity.

Another reason given in opposition to the inclusion of an Islamic nation is the religious aspect to which it is linked.^[18] Other religious nations might also request to be provided with permanent membership in the name of religion, nations with large populations of Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc.^[18]

Africa[link]

It has also been suggested that an African nation be given a seat on the Security Council, with Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa being the most likely contenders.

Currently, no country in Africa has a permanent seat on the Security Council. Although no one nation from Africa has formally been put forward as a candidate for membership on the Security Council, Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia,^[112] South Africa, and Nigeria are seen as the strongest choices. Algeria has gained a great deal of respect for its neutrality over the years and its great commitment to African development; Ethiopia was one of the founding members of the United Nations; South Africa has the largest economy on the continent; and Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa and consistently contributes large numbers of troops to UN peacekeeping operations.

Arguing against such proposals—aside from the difficulty inherent in selecting only one of the proposed nations to represent Africa as a whole—is the lack of democracy and human rights in all of the candidates except South Africa.

Veto reform[link]

The UNSC "power of veto" is frequently cited as a major problem with the UN. By wielding their veto power (established by Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter), any of the UNSC's five permanent members can prevent the adoption of any (non-"procedural") UNSC draft resolution not to their liking. Even the mere threat of a veto may lead to changes in the text of a resolution, or it being withheld altogether (the so-called "pocket veto"). As a consequence, the power of veto often prevents the Council from acting to address pressing international issues, and affords the "P5" great influence within the UN institution as a whole.

For example, the Security Council passed no resolutions on most major Cold War conflicts, including the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Resolutions addressing more current problems, such as the conflict between Israel and Palestine and Iran's suspected development of nuclear weapons, are also heavily influenced by the veto, actual or threatened. Additionally, the veto applies to the selection of the UN's Secretary-General, as well as any amendments to the UN Charter, giving the P5 great influence over these processes.

Discussions on improving the UN's effectiveness and responsiveness to international security threats often include reform of the UNSC veto. Proposals include: limiting the use of the veto to vital national security issues; requiring agreement from multiple states before exercising the veto; and abolishing the veto entirely. However, any reform of the veto will be very difficult. Articles 108 and 109 of the United Nations Charter grant the P5 veto over any amendments to the Charter, requiring them to approve of any modifications to the UNSC veto power that they themselves hold.

Nonetheless, it has been argued that with the adoption of the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution by the General Assembly, and given the interpretations of the Assembly's powers that became customary international law as a result, that the Security Council 'power of veto' was rendered, fundamentally, irrelevant.^[113] By adopting A/RES/377 A, on 3 November 1950, over two-thirds of UN Member states declared that, according to the UN Charter, the permanent members of the UNSC cannot and should not prevent the UNGA from taking any and all action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise its 'primary responsibility' for maintaining peace. Such an interpretation sees the UNGA as being awarded 'final responsibility'—rather than 'secondary responsibility'—for matters of international peace and security, by the UN Charter. Various official and semi-official UN reports make explicit reference to the Uniting for Peace resolution as providing a mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any UNSC vetoes;^{[114][115][116][117]} thus rendering them little more than delays in UN action, should two-thirds of the Assembly subsequently agree that action is necessary.

Overall positions on reforming the Security Council[link]

The United States' position[link]

According to a formal statement by the U.S. Department of State:

The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform. We advocate a criteria-based approach under which potential members must be supremely well qualified, based on factors such as: economic size, population, military capacity, commitment to democracy and human rights, financial contributions to the UN, contributions to UN peacekeeping, and record on counterterrorism and nonproliferation. We have to look, of course, at the overall geographic balance of the Council, but effectiveness remains the benchmark for any reform.

— Bureau of Public Affairs, June 20, 2005^[51]

According to a formal statement by President of the United States Barack Obama in an address to a Joint Session of the Parliament of India:

We salute India’s long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions. And we welcome India as it prepares to take its seat on the United Nations Security Council. As two global leaders, the United States and India can partner for global security—especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years. Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. That is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member. The United Nations exists to fulfill its founding ideals of preserving peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. These are the responsibilities of all nations, but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century. And so we look forward to working with India—and other nations that aspire to Security Council membership—to ensure that the Security Council is effective; that resolutions are implemented, that sanctions are enforced; that we strengthen the international norms which recognize the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all individuals.

— Barack Obama, 9 November 2010^[118]

The United Kingdom and France's position[link]

The United Kingdom and France hold similar views on reform to the United Nations Security Council. According to a formal statement made by 10 Downing Street:

Reform of the UNSC, both its enlargement and the improvement of its working methods, must therefore succeed. We reaffirm the support of our two countries for the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan for permanent membership, as well as for permanent representation for Africa on the Council. We regret that negotiations towards this goal remain in deadlock and are therefore ready to consider an intermediate solution. This could include a new category of seats, with a longer term than those of the current elected members and those terms would be renewable; at the end of an initial phase, it could be decided to turn these new types of seats into permanent ones. We will work with all our partners to define the parameters of such a reform. UNSC reform requires a political commitment from the member states at the highest level. We will work in this direction in the coming months with a view to achieving effective reform.

— Part of a joint UK-France Summit Declaration—27 March 2008^[119]

India's position[link]

As per the official website of India's Permanent Mission to UN:^[120]

Activities of the Security Council have greatly expanded in the past few years. The success of Security Council's actions depends upon political support of the international community. Any package for restructuring of the Security Council should, therefore, be broad-based. In particular, adequate presence of developing countries is needed in the Security Council. Nations of the world must feel that their stakes in global peace and prosperity are factored into the UN's decision making. Any expansion of permanent members' category must be based on an agreed criteria, rather than be a pre-determined selection. There must be an inclusive approach based on transparent consultations. India supports expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members' category. The latter is the only avenue for the vast majority of Member States to serve on the Security Council. Reform and expansion must be an integral part of a common package.

— India's Permanent Mission to UN

According to a formal statement by Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh at the General Debate of the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly:^[121]

It is common knowledge that the United Nations is often unable to exert an effective influence on global economic and political issues of critical importance. This is due to its what may be called as "democracy deficit", which prevents effective multilateralism, a multilateralism that is based on a democratically-evolved global consensus. Therefore, reform and restructuring of the United Nations system can alone provide a crucial link in an expanding chain of efforts to refashion international structures, imbuing them with a greater degree of participatory decision-making, so as to make them more representative of contemporary realities. The expansion of the Security Council, in the category of both permanent and non-permanent members, and the inclusion of countries like India as permanent members, would be a first step in the process of making the United Nations a truly representative body.

— Dr. Manmohan Singh, September 23, 2004

Russia's position[link]

As stated by President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev at the General Debate of the 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly:^[122]

The UN must rationally adapt itself to new world realities. It should also strengthen its influence and preserve its multinational nature and integrity of the UN Charter provisions. The reform of the UN Security Council is an essential component of its revitalization. The time has come to speed up the search for a compromise formula of its expansion and increased efficiency of its work.

— Dmitry Medvedev, September 23, 2009

Brazil's position[link]

As stated by President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at the General Debate of the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly:^[123]

The United Nations has spent 15 years discussing the reform of its Security Council. Today’s structure has been frozen for six decades and does not relate to the challenges of today’s world. Its distorted form of representation stands between us and the multilateral world to which we aspire. Therefore I am much encouraged by the General Assembly’s decision to launch negotiations in the near future on the reform of the Security Council.

— Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, September 23, 2008

South Africa's position[link]

According to a formal statement by South Africa's International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane speaking in the South African parliament in Cape Town:^[124]

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) urgently requires reform to rectify inequitable power relations. We reiterate that the reform of the UNSC is urgent and would go a long way in rectifying inequitable power relations within the Security Council.

— Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, June 01, 2011

Portugal's position[link]

As stated by Prime Minister of Portugal José Sócrates :^[125]

The 15-member Security Council must be enlarged so that it is more representative, transparent and efficient. In our view it is illogical that countries like Brazil or India that have today an irreplaceable economic and political role are still not permanent members of the Security Council. Africa also deserves consideration to take due account of the remarkable political and economic progresses that we have witnessed in that vast continent.

— José Sócrates, September 2010

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Hans Köchler, The Voting Procedure in the United Nations Security Council, 1991, ISBN 3-900704-10-4
• Hans Köchler, The United Nations and International Democracy. The Quest for UN Reform, 1997, ISBN 3-900704-16-3
• Malone, D & Mahbubani, K: "The UN Security Council – from the Cold War to the 21st Century", UN World Chronicle, 30 March 2004.

External links[link]

• The different projects of reform (G4, Africa Union, United for consensus; 2006) (French)
• Center for UN Reform—Independent policy research organization offering documentation and in-depth analysis on ongoing reform processes.

Kofi Annan
United Nations and Arab League envoy to Syria
Incumbent
Assumed office 23 February 2012
Secretary General	Ban Ki-moon (UN) Nabil el-Araby (AL)
Preceded by	office created
Secretary-General of the United Nations
In office 1 January 1997 – 31 December 2006
Deputy	Louise Fréchette (1997–2006) Mark Malloch Brown (2006)
Preceded by	Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Succeeded by	Ban Ki-moon
Personal details
Born	Kofi Atta Annan (1938-04-08) 8 April 1938 (age 74) Kumasi, Colony of the Gold Coast, British Empire
Nationality	Ghanaian
Spouse(s)	Nane Maria Lagergren (m. 1984–present)
Relations	Anthony Gildas Kofi Annan (b. 1986)
Alma mater	Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Macalester College Graduate Institute of International Studies MIT
Religion	Christian (Protestant)[1]
Signature

Kofi Atta Annan ( /ˈkoʊfi ˈænən/; born 8 April 1938) is a Ghanaian diplomat who served as the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2006. Annan and the United Nations were the co-recipients of the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize for his founding of the Global AIDS and Health Fund to support developing countries in their struggle to care for their people.

Since February 2012, Annan has been the UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, to help find a resolution to ongoing conflict there.^[2]

Early years and education[link]

Kofi Annan was born in Kumasi, Ghana. His twin sister Efua Atta, who died in 1991, shares the middle name Atta, which in Fante and Akan means 'twin'. Annan and his sister were born into one of the country's aristocratic families; both their grandfathers and their uncle were tribal chiefs.^[3]

In the Akan names tradition, some children are named according to the day of the week on which they were born, and/or in relation to how many children precede them. Kofi in Akan is the name that corresponds with Friday.^[4]

Pronunciation: Annan has said his surname rhymes with "cannon" in English.^[5]

From 1954 to 1957, Annan attended the elite Mfantsipim school, a Methodist boarding school in Cape Coast founded in the 1870s. Annan has said that the school taught him "that suffering anywhere concerns people everywhere".^[6] In 1957, the year Annan graduated from Mfantsipim, Ghana gained independence from Britain.

In 1958, Annan began studying economics at the Kumasi College of Science and Technology, now the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology of Ghana. He received a Ford Foundation grant, enabling him to complete his undergraduate studies at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, United States, in 1961. Annan then did a DEA degree in International Relations at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, from 1961–62. After some years of work experience, he studied at the MIT Sloan School of Management^[7] (1971–72) in the Sloan Fellows program and earned a Master of Science (M.S.) degree.

Annan is fluent in English, French, Akan, some Kru languages and other African languages.^[8]

Early career[link]

In 1962, Kofi Annan started working as a Budget Officer for the World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations (UN). From 1974 to 1976, he worked as the Director of Tourism in Ghana. In the late 1980s, Annan returned to work for the UN, where he was appointed as an Assistant Secretary-General in three consecutive positions: Human Resources, Management and Security Coordinator (1987–1990); Program Planning, Budget and Finance, and Controller (1990–1992); and Peacekeeping Operations (March 1993 – December 1996).

The Rwandan Genocide took place in 1994 while Annan directed UN Peacekeeping Operations. In 2003 Canadian ex-General Roméo Dallaire, who was force commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, claimed that Annan was overly passive in his response to the imminent genocide. In his book Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda (2003), General Dallaire asserted that Annan held back UN troops from intervening to settle the conflict, and from providing more logistical and material support. Dallaire claimed that Annan failed to provide responses to his repeated faxes asking for access to a weapons depository; such weapons could have helped Dallaire defend the endangered Tutsis. In 2004, ten years after the genocide in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed, Annan said, "I could and should have done more to sound the alarm and rally support."^[9]

Annan served as Under-Secretary-General from March 1994 to October 1995. He was appointed a Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the former Yugoslavia, serving for five months before returning to his duties as Under-Secretary-General in April 1996.

Secretary-General of the United Nations[link]

Appointment[link]

On 13 December 1996, the United Nations Security Council recommended Annan to replace the previous Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt, whose second term faced the veto of the United States.^[10][11] Confirmed four days later by the vote of the General Assembly,^[12] he started his first term as Secretary-General on 1 January 1997.

Activities[link]

Annan with the President of Russia Vladimir Putin at United Nations Headquarters in New York City on 16 November 2001.

In April 2001, Annan issued a five-point "Call to Action" to address the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Stating it was a "personal priority", Annan proposed a Global AIDS and Health Fund to stimulate the increased international spending needed to help developing countries confront the HIV/AIDS crisis. On 10 December 2001, Annan and the United Nations were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, "for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world".^[13]

During the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Annan called on the United States and the United Kingdom not to invade without the support of the United Nations. In a September 2004 interview on the BBC, when questioned about the legal authority for the invasion, Annan said he believed it was not in conformity with the UN charter and was illegal.^[14][15]

Annan and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disagreed sharply on Iran's nuclear program, on an Iranian exhibition of cartoons mocking the Holocaust, and on the then upcoming International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, an Iranian Holocaust denial conference in 2006.^[16] During a visit to Iran instigated by continued Iranian uranium enrichment, Annan said "I think the tragedy of the Holocaust is an undeniable historical fact and we should really accept that fact and teach people what happened in World War II and ensure it is never repeated."^[16]

Annan supported sending a UN peacekeeping mission to Darfur, Sudan. He worked with the government of Sudan to accept a transfer of power from the African Union peacekeeping mission to a UN one. Annan also worked with several Arab and Muslim countries on women's rights and other topics.

Beginning in 1998, Annan convened an annual UN "Security Council Retreat" with the 15 States' representatives of the Council. It was held at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) Conference Center at the Rockefeller family estate at Pocantico, and was sponsored by both the RBF and the UN.^[17]

Lubbers sexual-harassment investigation[link]

In June 2004, Annan was given a copy of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report on the complaint brought by four women workers against Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees for sexual harassment, abuse of authority, and retaliation. The report also reviewed a long-serving staff member's allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct against Werner Blatter, Director of UNHCR Personnel. The investigation found Lubbers guilty of sexual harassment; no mention was made publicly of the other charge against a senior official, or two subsequent complaints filed later that year. In the course of the official investigation, Lubbers wrote a letter which some considered was a threat to the female worker who had brought the charges.^[18] On 15 July 2004, Annan cleared Lubbers of the accusations, saying they were not substantial enough legally.^[19] His decision held until November 2004. When the OIOS issued its annual report to the UN General Assembly, it stated that it had found Lubbers guilty of sexual harassment. These events were widely reported and weakened Annan's influence.

On 17 November 2004, Annan accepted an OIOS report clearing Dileep Nair, UN Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, of political corruption and sexual harassment charges. Some UN staff in New York disagreed with this conclusion, leading to extended debate on 19 November.

The internal UNn-OIOS report on Lubbers was leaked, and sections accompanied by an article by Kate Holt were published in a British newspaper. In February 2005, he resigned as head of the UN refugee agency. Lubbers said he wanted to relieve political pressure on Annan.^[20]

Oil-for-Food scandal[link]

In December 2004, reports surfaced that the Secretary-General's son Kojo Annan received payments from the Swiss company Cotecna Inspection SA, which had won a lucrative contract under the UN Oil-for-Food Program. Kofi Annan called for an investigation to look into the allegations.

Annan appointed the Independent Inquiry Committee,^[21] which was led by former US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker,^[22] then the director of the United Nations Association of the US. In his first interview with the Inquiry Committee, Annan denied having had a meeting with Cotecna. Later in the inquiry, he recalled that he had met with Cotecna's chief executive Elie-Georges Massey twice. In a final report issued on 27 October, the committee found insufficient evidence to indict Kofi Annan on any illegal actions, but did find fault with Benan Sevan, a Cypriot national who had worked for the UN for about 40 years. Appointed by Annan to the Oil-For-Food role, Sevan repeatedly asked Iraqis for allocations of oil to the African Middle East Petroleum Company. Sevan's behavior was "ethically improper", Volcker said to reporters. Sevan repeatedly denied the charges and argued that he was being made a "scapegoat".^{[citation needed]} The Volcker report was highly critical of the UN management structure and the Security Council oversight. It strongly recommended a new position be established of Chief Operating Officer (COO), to handle the fiscal and administrative responsibilities than under the Secretary General's office. The report listed the companies, both Western and Middle Eastern, that benefited illegally from the program.^{[22][citation needed]}

Relations between the United States and the United Nations[link]

Kofi Annan supported^[23] his deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown, who openly criticized the United States in a speech on 6 June 2006: "[T]he prevailing practice of seeking to use the UN almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable. You will lose the UN one way or another. [...] [That] the US is constructively engaged with the UN [...] is not well known or understood, in part because much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News."^[24] Malloch later said his talk was a "sincere and constructive critique of U.S. policy toward the U.N. by a friend and admirer."^[25]

The talk was unusual because it violated unofficial policy of not having top officials publicly criticize member nations.^[25] The interim U.S. ambassador John R. Bolton, appointed by President George W. Bush, was reported to have told Annan on the phone: "I've known you since 1989 and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior UN official that I have seen in that entire time."^[25] Observers from other nations confirmed Malloch's view that conservative politicians in the US prevented many citizens from understanding the benefits of US involvement in the UN.^[26]

UN Resolution 61/225: World Diabetes Day[link]

Kofi Annan witnessed the United Nations General Assembly's passage of UN Resolution 61/225, to establish World Diabetes Day. The Resolution was the second UN General Assembly Resolution on a health-related issue (the other being HIV/AIDS). Resolution 61/225 is the only Health-related UN Resolution to pass by consensus. Sponsored by the Republic of South Africa and Bangladesh, the Resolution was passed on 20 December 2006.

Farewell addresses[link]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Secretary-General Kofi Annan's address at the Truman Presidential Museum & Library on 11 December 2006

On 19 September 2006, Annan gave a farewell address to world leaders gathered at the UN headquarters in New York, in anticipation of his retirement on 31 December. In the speech he outlined three major problems of "an unjust world economy, world disorder, and widespread contempt for human rights and the rule of law", which he believes "have not resolved, but sharpened" during his time as Secretary-General. He also pointed to violence in Africa, and the Arab-Israeli conflict as two major issues warranting attention.^[27]

On 11 December 2006, in his final speech as Secretary-General, delivered at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri, Annan recalled Truman's leadership in the founding of the United Nations. He called for the United States to return to President Truman's multilateralist foreign policies, and to follow Truman's credo that "the responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world". He also said that the United States must maintain its commitment to human rights, "including in the struggle against terrorism."^[28][29]

Recommendations for UN reform[link]

Soon after taking office in 1997, Annan released two reports on management reform. On 17 March 1997, the report ‘Management and Organisational Measures’ (A/51/829) introduced new management mechanisms through the establishment of a cabinet-style body to assist him and be grouping the UN’s activities in accordance with four core missions. A comprehensive reform agenda was issued on 14 July 1997 entitled ‘Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform’ (A/51/950). Key proposals included the introduction of strategic management to strengthen unity of purpose, the establishment of the position of Deputy Secretary-General, a 10-percent reduction in posts, a reduction in administrative costs, the consolidation of the UN at the country level, and reaching out to civil society and the private sector as partners. Annan also proposed to hold a Millennium Summit in 2000.^{[citation needed]}

After years of research, Annan presented a progress report, In Larger Freedom, to the UN General Assembly, on 21 March 2005. Annan recommended Security Council expansion and a host of other UN reforms.^[30]

On 31 January 2006, Kofi Annan outlined his vision for a comprehensive and extensive reform of the UN in a policy speech to the United Nations Association UK. The speech, delivered at Central Hall, Westminster, also marked the 60th Anniversary of the first meetings of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council.^[31]

On 7 March 2006, he presented to the General Assembly his proposals for a fundamental overhaul of the United Nations Secretariat. The reform report is entitled: "Investing in the United Nations, For a Stronger Organization Worldwide".^[32]

On 30 March 2006, he presented to the General Assembly his analysis and recommendations for updating the entire work programme of the United Nations Secretariat over the last 60 years. The report is entitled: "Mandating and Delivering: Analysis and Recommendations to Facilitate the Review of Mandates".^[33]

Post-UN career[link]

Upon his return to Ghana, Annan was immediately suggested as a candidate to become the country's next President.^[34]

He has become involved with several organizations with both global and African focuses. In 2007, Annan was named chairman of the prize committee for the Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership, was chosen to lead the new formation of Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), became a member of the Global Elders, was appointed president of the Global Humanitarian Forum in Geneva, and was selected for the MacArthur Foundation Award for International Justice.

In the beginning of 2008, as head of the Panel of Eminent African Personalities, Annan participated in the negotiations to end the civil unrest in Kenya. He threatened to leave the negotiations as mediator if a quick decision was not made.^[35] On 26 February 2008 he suspended talks to end Kenya's violent post-election crisis.^[36] On 28 February, Annan managed to have President Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga sign a coalition government agreement and was widely lauded by many Kenyans for this landmark achievement. That was the best deal achieved then under the mediation efforts.

Annan is a member of the Club of Madrid.^[37] Annan currently serves on the board of directors of the United Nations Foundation, a public charity created in 1998 with entrepreneur and philanthropist Ted Turner's historic $1 billion USD gift to support UN causes. The UN Foundation builds and implements public-private partnerships to address the world's most pressing problems, and broadens support for the UN.^[38]

Annan is a member of the Africa Progress Panel (APP), an independent authority on Africa launched in April 2007 to focus world leaders' attention on delivering their commitments to the continent. The Panel launched a major report in London on Monday 16 June 2008 entitled Africa's Development: Promises and Prospects.^[39]

Kofi Annan was appointed the Chancellor of the University of Ghana in 2008.^[40]

Annan has signed up to be one of the Counsellors at One Young World a non-profit organisation which hopes to bring together 1500 young global leaders of tomorrow from every country in the world.

In May 2009 Columbia University announced that Annan will join a new program being launched by Dean John Coatsworth at the School of International and Public Affairs as one of the first group of Global Fellows. The Global Fellows program will bring students together with global practitioners to share firsthand knowledge of experiences in the life of an international or public figure. He is also a fellow of The Committee on Global Thought appointed by the University.

On 2 September 2009, Annan was unveiled as the first Li Ka Shing Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy of the National University of Singapore (NUS). The announcement was made during the school's 5th anniversary celebrations.^[41]

On 7 October 2010, Annan was appointed to the Board of Directors of the Global Center for Pluralism, Canada’s new international research and education center dedicated to the study and practice of pluralism worldwide. The Global Center for Pluralism is an initiative of His Highness the Aga Khan in partnership with the Government of Canada. The Center is located at 330 Sussex Drive in Ottawa, Canada. Dedicated to the creation of successful societies, the Center is founded on the premise that tolerance, openness and understanding towards the cultures, social structures, values and faiths of other peoples are essential to the very survival of an interdependent world. Pluralism is no longer simply an asset or a prerequisite for progress and development.

A member of the Foundation Chirac's honour committee when former French president Jacques Chirac launched it in 2008, Kofi Annan participates as jury member for the Prize for Conflict Prevention^[42] awarded every year by this foundation. He also created the Kofi Annan Foundation^[43] dedicated to sustainable development and peace.

Work in Syria[link]

On 23 February 2012, Annan was appointed as the UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, in an attempt to curb the growing violence there.^[44] He has developed a six-point plan for peace.^[45]

1. commit to work with the Envoy in an inclusive Syrian-led political process to address the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people, and, to this end, commit to appoint an empowered interlocutor when invited to do so by the Envoy;
2. commit to stop the fighting and achieve urgently an effective United Nations supervised cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilise the country.

   To this end, the Syrian government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.

   As these actions are being taken on the ground, the Syrian government should work with the Envoy to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism.

   Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting and work with him to bring about a sustained cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties with an effective United Nations supervision mechanism;

3. ensure timely provision of humanitarian assistance to all areas affected by the fighting, and to this end, as immediate steps, to accept and implement a daily two hour humanitarian pause and to coordinate exact time and modalities of the daily pause through an efficient mechanism, including at local level;
4. intensify the pace and scale of release of arbitrarily detained persons, including especially vulnerable categories of persons, and persons involved in peaceful political activities, provide without delay through appropriate channels a list of all places in which such persons are being detained, immediately begin organizing access to such locations and through appropriate channels respond promptly to all written requests for information, access or release regarding such persons;
5. ensure freedom of movement throughout the country for journalists and a non-discriminatory visa policy for them;
6. respect freedom of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully as legally guaranteed.

Honours and awards[link]

Honours[link]

2000: Companion of the Order of the Star of Ghana^[46]

2001: Grand Cross with Collar of the Order of the Star of Romania

2005: Grand Collar of the Order of Liberty (Portugal)

2006: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Netherlands Lion

2007: Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold with Sash for Services to the Republic of Austria

2007: Honorary Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG) from Queen Elizabeth II (UK)^[47]

2008: Grand Cross 1st class of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany^[48]

Awards[link]

Kofi Annan at the award ceremony – organized by the ISC – receiving the Freedom Prize of the Max Schmidheiny Foundation at the University of St. Gallen

2000: Kora All Africa Music Awards in the category of Lifetime Achievement

2001: Nobel Foundation, The Nobel Peace Prize, jointly presented to Kofi Annan and the United Nations

2002: winner of the "Profiles in Courage Award", given by the JFK Memorial Museum

2002: The American Whig-Cliosophic Society James Madison Award for Distinguished Public Service.^[49]

2003: Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences^[50]

2003: Freedom Prize of the Max Schmidheiny Foundation at the University of St. Gallen

2006: International World Order of Culture, Science and Education, Award of the European Academy of Informatization, Belgium

2006: Inter Press Service, International Achievement Award for Annan's lasting contributions to peace, security, and development

2006: Olof Palme Prize

2007: Wooden Crossbow, special award from the Swiss World Economic Forum

2007: People in Europe Award of Verlagsgruppe Passau

2007: MacArthur Foundation, MacArthur Award for International Justice

2007: North-South Prize of the Council of Europe

2008: Peace of Westphalia Prize

2008: Harvard University Honors Prize

2008: Gottlieb Duttweiler Prize

2008: Peace of Westphalia Prize – Münster (Westfalen)

2008: Open Society Award – CEU Business School Budapest

Honorary degrees[link]

• Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, (Kumasi), Honorary Doctor of Science, 24 August 1998
• United Nations Mandated University for Peace, Honorary President, 1999
• Lund University, Honorary Doctor of Law, 1999
• National University of Ireland, Doctor of Law, 22 January 1999
• Technische Universität Dresden, doctor honoris causa, 27 April 1999
• Howard University, honorary doctorate of humane letters, 8 May 1999
• Comenius University in Bratislava, doctor honoris causa, 15 Jun 1999
• University of Notre Dame, Doctor of Letters, honoris causa, 21 May 2000
• Seton Hall University, John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Honorary Doctorate, February 2001
• Brown University, Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, 28 May 2001
• Liberty Medal International Selection Commission, Liberty Medal, 4 July 2001
• Free University of Berlin, doctor honoris causa, 13 July 2001
• Tilburg University, Honorary Doctorate, 2002
• University of Alcalá, Doctor Honoris Causa, 9 April 2002
• Northwestern University, Doctor of Laws, 21 June 2002
• University of Pittsburgh, honorary Doctor of Public and International Affairs degree 21 October 2003
• Ghent University (Belgium), doctor honoris causa 21 March 2003
• Carleton University, Legum Doctor, honoris causa, 9 March 2004
• University of Ottawa, Doctor of the University Degree, 9 March 2004
• University of Pennsylvania, Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, 16 May 2005
• Universidade Nova de Lisboa, doctor honoris causa, 12 October 2005
• The George Washington University, Doctor of Public Service, 5 May 2006
• University of Tokyo, Honorary Doctorate, 18 May 2006
• Georgetown University, Doctor of Humane Letters, honoris causa, 30 October 2006
• University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, Max Schmidheiny Foundation Freedom Prize (originally awarded 2003, but postponed due to Annan's illness), 18 November 2006
• Princeton University, Crystal Tiger Award, 28 November 2006
• King's College London, Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, 28 May 2008
• Glasgow Caledonian University, Doctor of Laws, 18 November 2011

See also[link]

	Biography portal
	Ghana portal
	Politics portal
	United Nations portal
	Syria portal

• Rwandan Genocide
• In Larger Freedom
• Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre in Ghana
• Black Nobel Prize laureates
• Seoul Peace Prize

References[link]