World View : The Security Council: Is Bigger Better? : There is a move to add Japan and Germany to the U.N.’s top body. But old realities may deny the two economic giants a larger role in the world organization.

When Yoshio Hatano, Japan’s ambassador to the United Nations, talks to groups of Americans, he likes to echo a slogan from the Revolutionary War.

“I always tell them,” the ambassador recalled recently, “that there’s an old American saying on democracy: No taxation without representation.”

Hatano applies the slogan deftly to his country. Japan pays more dues to the United Nations than any other member except the United States. But, unlike the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Britain and France, Japan does not have a permanent seat on the Security Council with its power of veto.

“We don’t want people to make policy on these (international) matters and send us the bill,” he said in an interview in his offices near U.N. headquarters. “Forty-six years after the end of the Second World War, the Security Council should reflect the present reality.”

Yet, though Japan may have justice on its side, there is little chance that the U.N. will change its Charter any time soon.

The old reality denies Japan--and Germany, another economic giant--any special place at the United Nations. That’s not surprising. The United Nations was forged by the victorious Allied powers at the end of World War II. They were in no mood to afford special status to defeated, devastated enemies.

The U.N. Charter, in fact, still bristles with an embarrassing legal term to describe Japan, Germany and their Axis partners. All are officially known as “enemy states.”

The clauses with this term have no practical use in the day-to-day operations of the United Nations., but they still seem humiliating to Japan. “Tokyo wants to have it changed very much,” said the ambassador. “This is more or less a psychological problem.”

The logic of the Japanese argument draws some support. Prime Minister Bob Hawke of Australia recently called for a redrafting of the U.N. Charter to eliminate the “enemy states” clauses and to grant permanent Security Council seats to both Japan and Germany. Several private foundations have issued papers agreeing with him.

But the reaction of most governments has been tepid. Not even Germany is very enthusiastic. Many governments fear that any attempt to redraft the U.N. Charter would open a Pandora’s box of confused and harmful changes on other matters. Also, any reshaping of the Security Council raises a host of knotty questions:

Would a Big Seven weight the Security Council even more in favor of the industrialized world? Would it really be fair for three Western European countries--France, Britain and Germany--to hold permanent seats? Should a new Charter expand the number of permanent members even more to include Brazil? India? Nigeria? What about Egypt? Would the addition of so many permanent members bloat the Security Council into a state of torpor?

Nevertheless, the changes may be inevitable some distant day. “The present configuration is an accident of history,” said Ronald Spiers, a former American diplomat who is now deputy secretary general of the world body. “Things have changed since World War II. Maybe it used to not make any difference. But the U.N. is at least potentially on the edge of a lot more relevance than it has been in the past. So now it does make a difference.”

Spiers predicted that U.N. members would feel forced to take up these needed changes in the Charter within five to 10 years.

The complexity of the problem is reflected by the German position on these issues.

U.N. Ambassador Detlev Graf Zu Rantzau explained in a recent interview that Germany believes that the combination of its economic strength and the end of the Cold War “would ask of us to play a prominent, that is, a constructive role at the U.N., but this does not mean that we are actively looking for a seat on the Security Council.

“We would like to make our influence felt in the U.N. through the European Community,” the ambassador went on. But he said Germany has no “concrete policy” about whether this should be done through European Community members Britain and France or whether it required the creation of a new seat for the European Community.

As for the “enemy states” clauses, the Germans maintain that it is not worth fiddling with the Charter just to delete them. Once West Germany was admitted to the United Nations in 1973, Graf Zu Rantzau went on, “we felt that by virtue of our being accepted, the enemy state clauses in regard to us were null and void. They had no practical political significance.”

The German view appears to prevail among the eight other “enemy states” whose governments--in some cases, puppet governments--declared war on the United States or its Allies during World War II: Austria, Bulgaria, Burma, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Siam (now Thailand).

“This is not really an issue,” said Ivan Budai, Hungary’s deputy representative to the United Nations. “I am not aware of it being raised by our government at any level. There are certain parts of the Charter that have been outdated, clauses that have no political significance at this moment.”

The configuration of the Security Council, of course, is a far more significant matter. At present, the council is made up of 15 members--the permanent Big Five and 10 other countries elected to two-year terms. (Both Germany and Japan have won elections as non-permanent members in the past, Japan six times.)

Decisions on all significant matters require the approval of nine members, including the Big Five. These permanent members, in short, have a power of veto.

Adding Japan and Germany would raise at least three significant issues:

* It would surely set off a demand for putting others on the council as permanent members to give the developing world more of a voice and power. Brazil, Nigeria, India, and Egypt are likely contenders.

* Many U.N. members would surely resent veto power in the hands of three West European countries--Germany in addition to Britain and France. The idea of combining their seats into one for the European Community may make sense, but it surely would not appeal to Britain and France, at least not until Western Europe becomes far more united than it is now.

* It is questionable that the Security Council could do its work effectively with too many vetoes and too many members.

As a result, a host of maze-like proposals have surfaced to try to deal with these issues. One of the most complex, for example, came from Harold Stassen a year ago. Stassen, a former governor of Minnesota and a perennial losing candidate for the Republican nomination for president, was a signer of the original Charter.

Stassen proposed a Security Council of 19 members divided into three tiers with only the United States and the Soviet Union possessing an absolute veto. The other permanent members--augmented by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan--would have only limited veto powers.

The path toward permanent membership on the Security Council may have been hampered by the limited role played by both Germany and Japan during the Gulf War. Although both supported the American-led coalition financially, neither committed troops to the war. Both governments were restricted by pacifist constitutions that--like the U.N. Charter--are legacies of World War II.

But their lack of commitment to action struck many Americans as a shirking of duty. And the support of American public opinion would probably be needed by any campaign to make Germany and Japan permanent members of the Security Council.

The German constitution limits the German armed forces to self-defense and participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Chancellor Helmut Kohl has proposed a change to allow Germany to take part in an operation like the Gulf War. But his opposition evidently has the votes to block any change except one that would allow German soldiers to take part in a U.N. Blue Helmet peacekeeping operation.

Although Japanese civilian observers and police have taken part in U.N. peacekeeping operations, the Japanese constitution seems to prohibit the use of Japanese troops outside the country. There is little support to change this. In a liberal interpretation of the constitution, however, Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu dispatched six minesweepers to the Persian Gulf in late April.

No matter how dim the prospects now for a seat on the Security Council, Ambassador Hatano said Japan intends to continue its campaign. “We are promoting the atmosphere,” he said. “We are promoting the consensus that it is logical and reasonable that Japan be granted a special place on the Security Council. We are not making any specific proposal. Ideally, I would hope that Japan would be invited. But it is not a matter of something happening this year.”

New Possibilities for Security Council

There have been various proposals--none formal and many of them fanciful--whispered around for changing the makeup of the Security Council to create a larger role for Japan and Germany. Here is the present arrangement and the possibilities.

PRESENT ARRANGEMENT

Five permanent members of the Security Council each with the power of veto: United States, Soviet Union, China, France and Britain.

Ten other members, traditionally representing different regions of the world, elected for terms of two years.

ONE PLAN

Seven permanent members with the power of veto: United States, Soviet Union, China, France, Britain, Japan and Germany.

Twelve to 13 other members.

- ANOTHER PLAN

Five permanent members each with the power of veto: United States, Soviet Union, China, European Community* and Japan.

Ten other members.

- YET ANOTHER POSSIBILITY

Nine permanent members each with the power of veto: United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Brazil and Nigeria.

Ten to 13 other members.

- JUST ONE MORE

Five permanent members each with the power of veto: United States, Soviet Union, China, Britain and France.

Five permanent members without power of veto: Japan, Germany, Brazil, India and Nigeria.

Five non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

*The 12 EC countries are: Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

Still the Enemy?

The U.N. Charter still refers to “enemy states”--those countries who were at war with the victorious United Nations forces at some point during World War II. Japan wants this changed. There are actually 10 enemy states at the United Nations.

The enemy states:

Austria

Bulgaria

Burma

Finland

Germany

Japan

Hungary

Italy

Romania

Siam (Thailand)