Speaking during his first visit to Britain since his appointment, Bolton said the United States approached the issue of enlargement on the basis that any changes must "do no harm." The level of expansion proposed by Germany, Japan, Brazil and India would undermine the council's effectiveness, he told a conference at the London think tank Chatham House.

Bolton said it was "hard to dispute" that the current Security Council arrangements reflected the world of 1945 rather than 2005, since the five permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- represented the prevailing powers of World War Two.

The United States acknowledged that a change in the council's composition was needed to reflect the political realities of today's world, he said, and was engaged in "great discussion" as to what form that should take.

However, he said, from Washington's point of view, the most important rule was "do no harm," as making the body less effective was "absolutely contrary" to the interests of both the United States and the United Nations.

"So when we see plans to take the Security Council from 15 members currently with five permanent members, to 24, 25, 26 members with nine, 10 or 11 permanent members, this gives us great pause."

"In our view that violates the rule of do no harm," he added.

Bolton reiterated the United States' commitment to permanent Security Council membership for Japan. Washington was currently discussing how that would happen with the Japanese government, he said.

Japan was a clear candidate for a permanent place as it was a "major international economic player," he said. It had shown deep interest in U.N. affairs since it became a member, and contributed the second highest share of assessed financial contributions in the United Nations; 19 percent versus the U.S. contribution of 22 percent.

The maximum number of members Washington would support would be 19 or 20, he said, with "one or two of those" permanent places.

However Bolton effectively dismissed the enlargement bid as inconsequential, noting that since 1990 there had been several attempts which had come to nothing.

"Our prediction would be that this latest effort at changing the composition of the Security Council is not going to succeed," he said.

Security Council expansion was of secondary importance to the United States, he said; Washington believed several other aspects of reform needed to be addressed first.

The news will come as a blow to several member states bidding for permanent membership, particularly Germany, India and Brazil. They had joined forces with Japan to propose a 25-member council, including six permanent members.

Of the current permanent members, only Britain and France have expressed support for all four contenders. China remains openly opposed to Japanese membership, while Russia opposes such a significant enlargement and has signaled it will oppose any moves that dilute the power of the five current permanent members.

In June, the four lobbying nations revised their proposal, agreeing to drop the right of veto for the first 15 years for new permanent members. But despite the amendment, the group has yet to win the support of the two-thirds majority of the 191 member states needed to pass a reform resolution.

While there is widespread support for a shift in the council's composition to reflect the geopolitical landscape of the 21st century, member states are divided on the scale of expansion, who should get permanent seats, and the right of veto.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan had hoped to secure agreement on an enlargement plan before September's summit in New York, but members became so divided on the issue that the debate was shelved.

U.S. President George W. Bush's decision to nominate Bolton -- who famously declared in 1994 that "there is no such thing as the United Nations" -- sparked intense opposition among much of the international community. Many expressed concerns that he was far too combative a personality and would try to curb the power of the international body.

However his speech at Chatham House -- though disheartening for member states pushing for Security Council membership -- suggested he was trying to mollify such concerns.

Professor Victor Bulmer-Thomas, director of the international affairs think tank, told United Press International: "He adopted a very conciliatory approach; only occasionally did the steel underneath shine through."

Bolton was primarily concerned with the U.N.'s effectiveness, and was not interested in undermining it, he said.

He had made clear that the U.S. considered the U.N. "a tool in the armory," and therefore wanted it to be a "well-honed tool," Bulmer-Thomas continued.

However many member states would be dismayed by his relegation of Security Council enlargement to a "secondary concern," he concluded.

All rights reserved. � 2005 United Press International. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by United Press International. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of United Press International.

Related Links
SinoDaily
Search SinoDaily
Subscribe To SinoDaily Express