World View : More Faces at U.N. Table? : Security Council needs to grow, most agree--and nations are lobbying fiercely.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt helped create the United Nations, he envisioned a Security Council with “five policemen” defending the world against aggression.

He certainly did not see Germany or Japan among the policemen. Far from candidates for police recruitment, they were the enemy states of World War II, and the Security Council was supposed to beat them down should they ever try to cause trouble again.

But now, as the United Nations approaches its 50th anniversary, there is a mood for reform, and many members, including the United States, agree that Germany and Japan should finally take a place alongside the Big Five--the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China--as permanent members of the Security Council, the international organization’s most powerful and significant arm.

Yet despite the general agreement, change may not come for several years.

The U.N. member nations so far cannot decide whether to enlarge the council by designating other permanent members.

Even if that decision is made, there remains the question of which nations to choose, and whether any would have the veto powers of the Big Five. Approval of Germany and Japan may be withheld until other nations are chosen in the bargaining for a package deal. An amendment to the U.N. Charter requires approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly but can be killed by any member of the Big Five, each of which has veto power. Lobbying is now rampant, and suitors are tugging diplomats one way and another.

India, Nigeria and Brazil--because of their large populations--strike some as logical choices for an enlarged council.

But rival contenders--Pakistan, Indonesia, South Africa, Egypt, Argentina and Mexico--do not like the idea of being pushed aside. Nor does Italy, the third member of the World War II Axis powers, like the idea of giving way for Japan and Germany.

Pakistan has warned the United Nations against “creating new centers of privilege” while trying to fix the problem of an inequitable Security Council.

“The longer the discussion goes on, the more the blood heats up,” a senior British official said. “But the question is not Germany and Japan. The rejected ones are the problem. Their intention is to avoid adding the extra permanent members because they won’t be part of it.

“But it will be likely settled in 1996 or 1997. It’s not easy to put it off.”

More pessimistic analysts, however, predict no realignments will be made until the next century.

Yet some kind of reform of the Security Council seems inevitable. Looking to the 50th anniversary, which will be celebrated next October, U.N. diplomats started the process a couple of years ago, setting up a special committee on revamping the Security Council and asking every government to submit proposals to it. The committee has sifted through mounds of paper but is far from ready to reveal its recommendations.

The Security Council, which has the authority to order military action against a government that is threatening international peace and security, is now made up of the Big Five plus 10 other countries that serve for two-year terms. The 10 now are Brazil, Spain, Pakistan, Djibouti and New Zealand (whose terms expire at the end of this year) and Nigeria, Oman, Rwanda, the Czech Republic and Argentina (whose terms expire at the end of 1995).

For the 179 members of the United Nations who are not one of the Big Five, winning a stint on the Security Council is a meaningful moment in their national histories.

Depression descends upon ambassadors of non-permanent members once their terms are up. They are forced once again to devote most of their time and energy to U.N. bodies such as the General Assembly that talk a lot but produce very little.

Yet even to have served means membership in a select group. Eighty countries have never served on the Security Council. And 44 have been elected to only one two-year term in the last 49 years.

Italy has provoked a good deal of discussion with a plan that would keep Japan and Germany from a permanent seat. Italy’s per-capita gross domestic product, a measure of national wealth, is greater than that of three permanent members--Britain, Russia and China--and the Italians see no reason for Japan and Germany to join the charmed circle if they cannot.

Italy, in fact, fears that Germany and Japan may scavenge enough votes for permanent seats on the council and then somehow kill the chances for anyone else.

An Italian diplomat, sure that the Germans and Japanese were wooing the Third World, said: “They need 108 votes to get a resolution accepted, and we fear that they will present it (the resolution) out of the blue as soon as they realize they have enough votes. We are therefore lobbying with those countries too to get votes against Germany and Japan and stop them.”

At the same time, the Italians have devised a complicated proposal that they hope will satisfy everyone. Under the Italian plan, the Security Council would have three categories of members:

* The Big Five that now have the veto: the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France.

* A pool of 20 rich or large or populous or militarily efficient or culturally significant countries that would rotate every two years into 10 semi-permanent seats. None would have a veto. Italy does not name the 20, but Italy, Japan, Germany, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Canada would surely be included.

* Five to 10 more non-permanent members elected from the remaining 159 other countries for two-year terms.

The Italian proposal, however, is cumbersome and so far has attracted little support.

“The Italian ambassador is very active,” a British diplomat said, “but it is not enough. To create a third category of members is just a silly way to walk around the problem, and it can jeopardize the effectiveness of the council.”

Japan and Germany intend to go on the Security Council with somewhat different commitments than those set down in 1945.

As originally conceived, the permanent members of the Security Council had a special obligation to use their armed forces to put down aggression.

But Japan, though willing to let troops serve as U.N. peacekeepers, does not allow the use of force by its soldiers in a U.N. military operation.

In theory, Germany could send its troops into combat for the United Nations, but it has never done so in the past.

Japanese Foreign Minister Yohei Kono insists that a lack of commitment to deploy armed forces should not disqualify his country in a modern United Nations.

“Today the international community expects the U.N. to play all sorts of roles--in peace and security, disarmament, diseases, non-proliferation, development, et cetera, et cetera,” Kono said in a recent interview.

In fact, noting that the Big Five are all nuclear powers, Kono said: “It is important to have the countries that are non-nuclear states on the Security Council.”

Although Kono did not bring it up, there are strong pressures, especially from the United States, for Japan and Germany to pay a larger share of the U.N. budget, and the two economic powers are unlikely to do so unless they see a seat on the Security Council in their future.

When the first proposals to enlarge the council emerged in 1992, the George Bush Administration was lukewarm, fearing a weakening of the U.N. body that had proved so vital to Western interests during the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

But the Clinton Administration has changed that policy. Deputy Ambassador Karl F. Inderfurth told the General Assembly in mid-October that “we enthusiastically endorse Japan and Germany for permanent membership.”

The Clinton Administration would also add three more non-permanent seats, bringing the total on the council to 20--a Big Seven (the current five plus Germany and Japan) with veto power, plus 13 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

Inderfurth also endorsed a popular proposal that would allow non-permanent members to run for reelection to the council. They now must step down after a two-year term.

This proposal is a sop to countries such as Nigeria, Brazil and Italy, which presumably have enough clout to whip up support for reelection, but the idea would surely not satisfy their desire for a permanent seat.

There are numerous other proposals. Many Third World countries believe that the Security Council should be expanded whether or not permanent members are added.

They believe that the current membership of the Security Council is weighted in favor of Europe and that the poorer countries of the world merit more representation. The world has changed, and the United Nations should recognize this. For example, Africa provides 52 members of the United Nations, nearly 30% of the total, but now has two seats on the Security Council, less than 15% of the seats there.

Since 1966, when the Security Council was expanded from 11 to 15 members, the 10 non-permanent seats have been allotted according to a set formula: five from Africa and Asia, two from Latin America, one from Eastern Europe and two from Western Europe and the industrialized British Commonwealth countries. Some Third World countries want to expand the non-permanent seats to 16 and allot them this way: five from Africa, four from Asia, three from Latin America, two from Western Europe and the industrialized Commonwealth, one from Eastern Europe, and one to alternate from different regions.

Britain and several other countries have warned the United Nations against doing anything that might diminish the effectiveness of the Security Council. Others have warned of opening a Pandora’s box by changing its makeup.

But Third World governments look on arguments like these as a smoke screen to hide privilege. Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council not because of its size or power or wealth but because of its history as a victor of World War II. Adding Japan and Germany and others would diminish British importance in the Security Council.

In fact, both Britain and France were hostile at first to any change. “The Americans,” British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd said earlier this year, “have a saying, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ And I think there is something to be said for that.”

But both Britain and France, perhaps facing the inevitable, have changed their policy and now support adding Japan, Germany and perhaps a few others.

American conservatives oppose enlarging the Security Council because, as the Heritage Foundation put it in a recent report, “adding more countries . . . will dilute American influence.”

The report added that, since some of the new Third World members could represent dictatorships, “an expanded Security Council will be more likely to oppose American values and interests.”

But this did not dissuade the Clinton Administration from pushing ahead. In his speech to the General Assembly, U.S. Deputy Ambassador Inderfurth noted that some governments are urging a delay in enlarging the Security Council because the world is so unsettled.

“For the United States,” Inderfurth said, “this is a false choice. The case to strengthen the council is compelling precisely because of the mounting tumult of the post-Cold War world and dangers it poses for all of us, not 10 years from now, but today.”

Times researcher Paolo Mastrolilli contributed to this article.

The Italian Plan

Italy has devised a complex plan for the U.N. Security Council that seems to satisfy many concerns--except perhaps efficiency. It would keep the council’s five permanent members plus five or 10 non-permanent members. But it would add 10 semi-permanent members, without veto power, drawn from a pool of 20 nations. Likely candidates would be Germany, Japan, Italy, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Australia, Czech Republic, Sweden, South Korea, Jamaica, Costa Rica and Bangladesh. The council would then total 20 or 25--representative but be cumbersome.

New Place Settings?

The U.N. Security Council--five permanent members plus 10 rotating members--reflects its World War II origins. The Big Five (top), which hold veto power, were Allies in that war. Under one proposal (bottom), the former Axis powers of Japan and Germany would also become permanent members, along with three populous Third World nations--most likely Brazil, India and Nigeria. There would be no change in the 10 non-permanent members, which serve two-year terms. The question of expanding veto powers is being debated.

* Current Permanent Members:

United States, Russia, China, France, Britain

* Possible Realignment

United States, India, Russia, Nigeria, China, Brazil, France, Germany, Britain, Japan