Punctually, like the comet of Halley, the problem of the Security Council reform has appeared again on the horizon. And yet it continues to be formula...

Punctually, like the comet of Halley, the problem of the Security Council reform has appeared again on the horizon. And yet it continues to be formulated in a way that does not fit the most recent tendencies of international politics.
The current structure of the Security Council was devised in an age of domination and inequality. At a distance of 60 years from the creation of the UN, the substance of the decision-making power in the UN is still concentrated in the hands of only five states out of 191. That structure has become wholly inadequate to present needs of the world and inconsistent with the goals of equality and justice in international politics. Hence the need to enlarge and transform it from the five big powers' directory into a more representative body.
The traditional way to address this problem is to open the Security Council doors to the strongest states that have risen to prominent positions in the world power hierarchy and to entrust them the representation of the smaller states belonging to the same region. The decline in US international influence, as shown by the failure of the strategy of preventive war, suggests to entrust regional gendarmes (such as Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and a still-unidentified African country) with the responsibility of sharing the burden of maintaining the world order.
This solution arouses the hostility of the states left out, particularly of those most qualified to a seat in that assembly. For instance, Pakistan is not willing to accept the candidacy of India, Argentina that of Brazil, Italy that of Germany and so forth. The bestowal of two new seats on the North and three on the South would indeed strengthen the representation of the South in the Security Council, but would also confirm the supremacy of the North and especially of Europe, which would get three seats, an entirely disproportionate weight, if we consider that the EU population amounts to 455 million inhabitants. In conclusion, this proposal reflects the principles of domination and inequality that have shaped the present Security Council structure, but are by now inadequate to meet the present needs of the world and incompatible with the objectives of equality and justice that are becoming paramount in international relations.
The best way to achieve an equitable reform of the Security Council is that involving the formation of regional groupings of states. The reorganization of the world order on the basis of groupings of states represents not only an alternative to the power hierarchies determined by the difference between states of varying sizes, but also to the world fragmentation into a cloud of small states and statelets, contrasted with very large states.
In fact, the huge disparity in size and power of member states represents the most serious shortcoming of the current structure of the UN. The constant increase in the number of member states (today they are approximately four times as many as in 1945) shows an alarming trend toward fragmentation and anarchy. It is necessary to let regional groupings form within the General Assembly, and increase their cohesion, so that they can later express themselves in the Security Council.
The growing cohesion of the EU as a player in the UN is closely correlated to the degree of advancement in the unification process.
It is not to be forgotten that, in spite of the dramatic split of the EU brought about by the US attack on Iraq, member states' decisions in the sphere of external relations show a high rate of convergence. This is true particularly in the field of economic, monetary and environmental policies, where Europe can speak with one single voice. In the WTO and the FAO the European Commission represents member states. But within the UN, the EU already acts in the great majority of cases as one single actor. For instance, in 1999 it took a common position in almost 95% of the General Assembly votes. Moreover, the forthcoming European Constitution, recognizing the international legal personality of the EU, creating the European Foreign Minister and promoting a single security and defense system through the "structured co-operations", is destined to strengthen the international role of Europe. The weakness of Europe lies in the fact that its political decisions on foreign and security policy are to be made unanimously. This is the vacuum that has to be filled to make possible the entrance of the EU into the Security Council.
EU membership in the Council would also be an alternative to the hegemony of the three most powerful countries in the EU and to Germany's demand for representation. It must be considered that the admission of Germany to the Security Council would encourage, in that country, the development of a foreign policy independent of that of the EU and thus provide a stimulus for the revival of German nationalism. If Germany's reasons are recognized, how to ignore those of Italy, Spain, Poland and so on? If the Europeans decide to return to giving priority to national interests, the whole design of the European unity will be irretrievably damaged. Paradoxically this occurs when the ratification of the European Constitution is on the agenda.
A strong independent EU represents the first pillar of a renewed UN building based on regional groupings of states. The principal teaching that can be deduced from the history of international law and international organizations is that a well-functioning system of rules depends on a balance of power between the members of the states system. If one state is preponderant, it may afford to disregard the rights of other states. This means that the overcoming of the asymmetry that, due to the American hegemony, currently characterizes international relations, is the necessary step forward which can pave the way to the UN reform.
The integration processes under way in Africa, the Arab World, Southern Asia, South-East Asia and Latin America appear to be creating the conditions to attain the economic size required for the development of modern production techniques and to acquire the political weight needed to obtain a real independence from the great powers. If the European Union (which, having nurtured a process of economic integration, is now moving towards political union) can be seen as a pilot project, it is foreseeable that the other great regions which are taking shape in other parts of the world may, in the future, become the protagonists of the new multipolar world order.
The extraordinary novelty of the regional representation in the Security Council lies in the recognition of the rights of all the states of the EU to be represented in the Security Council, with no distinction made between permanent and non-permanent members. The achievement of this principle in Europe will open the way to its extension to the other great regions of the world.
The transformation of the Security Council into the Council of the great regions of the world will allow all the states to be represented in this body through their respective regional organization. This is the way to overcome the unjust discrimination between permanent and non-permanent member states. This is the way leading to the replacement of the right of veto with the majority vote.