Reforming the U.N. Security Council?

The United States has permanent membership in the Security Council along with the China, France, Russia, and United Kingdom. Each of these countries may veto any resolution they desire to.

There have been occasional calls to reform the Security Council. The most discussed option has been adding Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan as permanent members.

Let’s take a look at each of the current Security Council members:

China – China has the world’s second-largest economy and – probably – the world’s third most powerful military. Its relative influence, however, is still limited. China today is far more of a great power than it was in 1945 (indeed, in 1945 it probably didn’t deserve to be labeled a great power). Moreover, China is indisputably becoming stronger.

France – France has the world’s fifth largest economy and a very modern and powerful military, probably in the world’s top five. On the other hand, its influence is somewhat limited outside the former French Empire. Compared with 1945, France is substantially less of a great power, having lost its empire and fallen under the American umbrella. Indeed, like most of Europe it has been in relative decline ever since 1918 and looks set to continue to decline in relative terms. This is because the Third World is slowly catching up to the First World, rather than any fault of France itself.

Russia – Russia has the smallest economy of the five, barely (or not at all) breaking into the world’s top ten biggest economies. However, Russia’s military is unquestionably the world’s second strongest, and it dominates the region it is located in. Russia fell into steep decline after the fall of the Soviet Union, when it was on par with the United States, and has only recently begun to recover.

United Kingdom – The United Kingdom has much in common with France. Its economy is the world’s sixth largest, and its military is probably in the world’s top five. Nowadays, the United Kingdom’s influence is more cultural than anything else; it neither dominates Europe or the former British Empire. Out of all the powers, the United Kingdom has declined the most since 1945 – losing both its empire and economic preeminence.

United States – The United States has the world’s largest economy and most powerful military. It strongly influences the entire world. It is more powerful than in 1945, with the fall of its great rival the Soviet Union.

All in all the United States, Russia, and China (going in order of their great power strength) definitely ought to be in the Security Council. The case is more questionable for France and the United Kingdom. Europe is still a very powerful entity in the world and should have a permanent member in the Security Council. But having two members in the Security Council – as is currently the case – certainly overstates its status.

The trouble is that by themselves, France or the United Kingdom aren’t powerful enough to have one seat. Nor is the European Union influential or coherent enough to deserve a seat. Under an ideal situation, one-third of a seat each would go to France and the United Kingdom, with the other third going to Germany. This, of course, wouldn’t be feasible in the real world.

Finally, let’s take a look at the countries which some propose adding as permanent members:

Brazil – Brazil has the world’s seventh or eighth largest economy, which is why people propose adding it. However, Brazil has no substantial military presence to speak of. Its influence is limited to Latin America (where the United States is probably more influential). While Brazil has become relatively more powerful since 1945, it is still not in the category of great power status.

Germany – Germany probably has the strongest claim to being added to the permanent Security Council. Germany’s economy is the world’s 4th largest (bigger than the United Kingdom or France), but its military is still quite weak due to the restrictions imposed upon it after World War II. Germany is generally seen as Europe’s first-among-equals; it is Germany, not France or the United Kingdom, which is coordinating the response to the European Union debt crisis. Germany has thus definitely become more powerful after rising from the ashes of 1945.

India – India is similar to Brazil in many respects, except weaker. It has the world’s tenth or eleventh biggest economy. Like Brazil, its military is essentially nonexistent. It has very little influence even in its neighborhood. India has certainly strengthened since 1945, when it was under foreign rule. However, it definitely is not yet a great power. One could make a stronger case for adding Italy or Canada to the permanent Security Council than India (or Brazil, for that matter).

Japan – Japan is a unique case. Its economy is the world’s third largest, which seems to say that Japan ought to be included in the permanent Security Council. Japan’s military, however, is extraordinarily weak. Furthermore, Japan has no regional influence; it is regarded negatively by its neighbors for its crimes in World War II. Indeed, Japan has been bullied quite recently both by Russia and China over disputed islands, with Russia and China getting the better of it each time. While Japan has advanced economically since 1945, its regional influence is still lower. Before World War II, for instance, Japan occupied Korea and much of China as a colony; this would be impossible today.

Out of these four countries, probably only Germany truly ought to be in the permanent Security Council. Brazil and India are still middle powers. Japan, while economically strong, lacks the other qualifications that go along with Great Power status.

Indeed, none of these countries have been able to exert their strength in ways the Security Council Five have in the past decade. The United States invaded and occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, countries half around the world. Russia invaded Georgia. The United Kingdom and France are currently bombing Libya. Perhaps only Germany – and even this is fairly uncertain – can do something similar today.

The world has changed a lot since 1945, but it has also changed a lot less than many believe. The five great powers in 1945 still are, by and large, the five great powers in 2010.

This entry was posted in Foreign Affairs and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Reforming the U.N. Security Council?

  1. Ravi says:

    “The who he thinks future will lead future”
    The points to note here are =>
    1) India has 2 largest standing army in world.(and considered as 3 powerful country in world by US report).
    2) India was offered UNSC seat in 1940`s itself , though it was rejected by India herself.
    3) India is third largest economy measured in PPP terms.( and poised to become second by replacing US in 2030`s).
    4) more ever India represents 1.22 billion people.
    I dont think either Germany being fourth European country is fit for the job.

  2. Honkop says:

    Germany doesn’t stand a chance, there is already 4 Europeans nations on the UNSC.

    Asia, Africa, and Latin America, (basically all the third world developing countries) are represented by China, whereas the United States, and her buddies France/U.K. walk in lock-step with each other on literally every issue relevant to the developed Western world.

    Russia, though strong militarily, lacks influence outside her former Soviet Republics and Eastern Europe spheres of influence.

    The makeup of UNSC should include: U.S., China, One European nation, then pick one from Africa/Middle East, Asian country (probably India), and then a Latin American country.

    • inoljt says:

      I somewhat disagree. Imo the purpose of the Security Council is as a place for the world’s great powers, and I judge membership in it as whether or not a given country is a great power.

      By that measurement, no country in Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America is a great power – regardless of whether they ought to be “represented” or not.

      In the same vein, I think that the current status in which Western Europe gets two seats greatly overstates its current power in the world. It should only have one.

      The trouble is, of course, who in Western Europe ought to get that seat. By itself no Western European country is powerful enough. But, of course, diving a seat amongst Germany, France, and the United Kingdom is impractical. Germany is the strongest amongst them (as the first among equals), but by itself Germany is not great enough to get a seat to itself.

  3. Mary Florence says:

    Very good post. It’s a very difficult issue to consider which country is in better conditions for a permanent seat. From my point of view, Brazil doesn’t have chances. I mean, it’d be very important to have a voice from Latin America and also diminish american influence in the region… which I think, one way or another, this is utopian. Anyway, bearing in mind the outstanding role of Germany, I think it has much more points ahead. Of course it’d bring up the dispute of an unforgettable past, but it’d be a joke to endorse the american foreign policy.

    • inoljt says:

      Thanks for the comment; I pretty much agree with you. Although as an American, I am generally happy with the overall turn of American foreign policy over the decades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s