How would the expansion of the Security Council affect the Kosovo issue at the UN?

The possible expansion of the permanent composition of the Security Council, which has been advocated by some leaders of major powers in New York in recent days, could be significant concerning the Kosovo issue because, for both Pristina and Belgrade, it is not irrelevant whether and how the balance of power in this key international organization changes.

Interlocutors of Kosovo Online believe that it is unlikely that Security Council reform will occur, at least not in the short term. They argue that battles will be fought over this among the "great powers" who are unwilling to give up their veto rights, and Serbia should exercise patience.

The question of UN reform at the 78th General Assembly in New York was raised by US President Joseph Biden. He stated that the United States was holding serious consultations with many UN member states about expanding the Security Council. Biden added that more voices and more proposals needed to be on the table because the UN had to continue to preserve peace, prevent conflicts, and alleviate human suffering.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also advocated for Security Council reform at the East River, suggesting that the veto power should be denied to prevent the reform. He believes that the composition of the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members, the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom, is outdated. He believes that Africa, Asia, and Latin America deserve more significance.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov also stated that the Security Council needed a "remodel" to maximize its efficiency but did not specify what Moscow meant by "transformation."

Earlier this year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also expressed his views on this issue, stating that the order that limited the fate of humanity to five countries was unsustainable. He also called for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council.

Currently, the UN Security Council has five permanent members: Russia, Great Britain, China, the United States, and France, all of which have veto power. Ten non-permanent members of the Security Council are elected regionally for two-year terms.

Potential new members of the Security Council that have been mentioned include Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany.

Former US Ambassador to Belgrade William Montgomery stated for Kosovo Online that numerous international organizations had been formed after World War II, such as the UN and the World Bank, which no longer fit into today's world. 

„The idea of five countries, the United States, Great Britain, France, China, and Russia, being permanent members of the Security Council with veto power makes the UN irrelevant today. When you look at any important international issue, the UN is irrelevant, because each member of the Security Council has veto power. If we want the UN to function, all of us who have the veto power should give it up," Montgomery said. 

He has no doubt that all these countries are "guilty of using the right of veto for their own goals and interests, and not for the UN to be more effective."

"We need to change the system, to get rid of the veto power and we need to make the UN reflect today's world and not the world of 1945. This means introducing large countries, such as Brazil, India, Japan, and others into the whole process. The problem is that neither that guarantees that things will work because all these countries have their own interests. That's why nobody should have the power of veto. Until we get rid of the veto, the UN will continue to be insignificant and that's the reality," Montgomery concludes.

Journalist Ljiljana Smajlovic assesses for Kosovo Online that there are greater chances of the UN collapsing than expanding the permanent composition of the Security Council. 

"Of course, most of the world agrees that this needs to change. The permanent composition of the Security Council is a result of war, and the victors mostly gained veto rights. It consists mainly of white nations, while the rest of the world, which includes South America, the Middle East, Africa, and major powers like India and Brazil, are not predominantly represented, which have developed their political and economic power mainly after World War II," Smajlovic says.

Smajlovic reminds that the EU is not a permanent member of the Security Council, and neither France nor the UK has considered giving up their seats, even before Brexit. 

"In my opinion, Americans are pushing for this again, not because they think it's realistic, but because it's good for isolating Russia. When US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, on the first day at the Security Council, speaking about the Ukrainian war, says it's a war with an aggressor and a victim, most of the world thinks that's true, but in every war, there's an aggressor and a victim, and you have been aggressors countless times without facing any consequences. Even I think of that, so imagine what they think in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran," Smajlovic says.

She believes that there is no way to expand the permanent composition of the Security Council.

"The expansion of the permanent composition cannot even be put on the agenda; the veto power can block it," she says. 

Smajlovic adds that Serbia would "like to see India and Brazil" enter the expanded permanent composition of the Security Council, as they do not recognize Kosovo.

"But it's even unrealistic to talk about it now. Secondly, you don't know what happens to a country that also becomes a superpower in terms of veto power. Suppose Brazil and India gain veto power; they will immediately look at who has more veto power and say, 'Well, Serbia is important to us, but not as important as Kashmir or something else.' I think it shouldn't be automatic. At first glance, it would be perfect for us, but we don't know how these countries with veto power would regroup, and that's why I think it won't happen," Smajlovic says.

She reminded that the exercise of veto power has changed over time.

"Until the end of the Cold War, I think Americans used the veto the most. When the Cold War ended, there was no veto for a while; you remember there was no veto on sanctions against Yugoslavia. Then those who came out with the short end of the stick in the Cold War started using the veto to protect their interests. We know that China used to veto only in rare cases when it felt its national security was threatened, but now it has started to join the Russian veto even when its security is not at stake. So, we don't know how these countries would regroup if a new bloc would be created, and that's the reason I think it won't happen," Smajlovic said.

She added that major powers seemed to be resolving all crises worldwide at first glance.

"But in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, you see that no one can do anything to either Russia or Ukraine. Ukraine has US protection, and Russia has the right of veto in the Security Council, but this is not the first conflict that cannot be resolved at the UN, and it is clear that all conflicts we call proxy conflicts, wars through intermediaries, will remain unresolved. The UN has no power there because these are conflicts of great powers, and until they agree, there is no solution. That's why I expect someone to give in and still reach some ceasefire, although it seems impossible at the moment. On the other hand, there are indications that there could be some ceasefire that could become a part of a UN resolution and decision, but that's when Americans and Russians decide that they can agree on something," Smajlovic says. 

She added that Serbia already had a similar story regarding Kosovo, reminding to the significance of UN Security Council Resolution 1244.

"We already have a similar story regarding Kosovo. Our UN Security Council Resolution 1244 is the only one that doesn't need to be renewed. The Russians, who we are angry with for not using the veto so many times, have given us some chance here because it's clear that nothing can change without their explicit support. And the requirement that every change in Kosovo's status at the UN must have the consent of all five Security Council members is our only card, and without it, we wouldn't have a trump card. That's our trump card and our only protection," she says.

Former head of diplomacy Vladislav Jovanovic assessed for Kosovo Online that if there was an expansion of the permanent composition of the Security Council with new members, it would be a long and uncertain process, and in such a situation, Serbia needed patience.

"Serbia needs to endure until then because it is not a near-term date; it is an idea that has been set forth and will require extensive processing, development, and negotiation. This idea is decades old and nothing happened. Now, it is taking a step further, aiming to weaken Russia's position as a permanent member of the Security Council if possible. This idea should first stir things up, then clarify them and extract something that would suit someone. All major powers will strive to preserve their interests," Jovanovic says.

He adds that, above all, the victors of World War II will not want to lose their privileged positions, as they have a greater voting right than others - the right of veto.

Regarding India, Brazil, and African countries, which are all becoming more significant, Jovanovic notes that many of them will knock on the Security Council doors.

"For example, Nigeria, the largest country, Ethiopia, and Egypt will have to be represented. On the other hand, Brazil, as by far the most potent country in Latin America, must certainly not be bypassed, and Indonesia, which is important demographically and economically, may also enter. There will be other countries like Turkey and Iran, knocking on those doors. It will be a big struggle that can slow down or perhaps even halt all of this,“ Jovanovic believes.

He states that it is still better to have more decisive votes of permanent members of the Security Council.

"Until now, the US has dominated and there are only two countries that can occasionally appear as opposites, which are Russia and China. If these other countries enter, that would change. That is why there will be a struggle and the US will insist that countries enter which are more favorable to it. On the other hand, the pressure of the new centers of power will be so great that it will become unstoppable.

You cannot deprive Africa of being represented by one or two countries, it is a powerful continent. From Asia, in addition to India and Indonesia, as candidates Turkey and Iran may appear, maybe some Arab country will want to be a competitor because of its financial power," Jovanovic says.
He adds that all of this suggests that this issue will be uncertain and protracted.

"In the meantime, we need to live and survive when we talk about Serbia. We are under attack by the unprincipled policies of Western powers, which first produced aggression against our country, then separated Kosovo from us and made it a state, recognized it, and exerted pressure on everyone, especially on us, to accept it. This is cynicism to the extreme because through the succession they committed many unlawful acts that are astounding, but apparently, they don't care much about it. For them, everything that is useful is also legal, even if it involves violating rights. They will continue with it until the world is organized on more principled foundations and until all large and small countries are forced to respect principles equally. So, we have to survive until then," Jovanovic says.

He assesses that Serbia has a policy that allows it this possibility, not only because it is independent and neutral and because it is more assertive with a booming economy and widespread relations worldwide, but also because of the dynamic balance of power in the world that does not allow any large country to act unilaterally without considering broader consequences.

He says that Serbia is facing challenges, but it is essential to be brave and principled.

"We need to keep our nerves, and insist on our rights, and without us, the so-called independent Kosovo can never be accepted at the United Nations because the mother country did not give consent for the separation of a part of the territory to be given to a minority. On the other hand, there is something our side does not emphasize enough, and that is we were admitted to the UN with Montenegro within our republican borders, as there was no other way after the dissolution of the last joint state," he says.

As he explains, republican borders then became state borders, and Serbia was admitted to the UN with Kosovo as an integral part.

"Now, as relations in the world change, we need to be brave and principled, not afraid and waiting for the results of these changes," Jovanovic concludes.

Stefan Surlic, an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, says that the procedure for reforming the Security Council, particularly the reform of veto power, is highly complex due to the lack of consensus among the current five permanent members.

"So, out of 15 members, that Security Council could probably have more than 10 permanent members in the future, but that is all at the level of theory because it is a very complicated procedure. It is necessary that two-thirds of the members of the United Nations plus all five permanent members of the Security Council vote for those changes, ratify it in their countries, and then we can change the United Nations charter and accept new members, but in these international constellations it seems like an impossible mission and perhaps the United Nations, unfortunately, will have the fate of the League of Nations," Surlic says.