Reform of the UN Security Council

For discussions on politics and current events.
Post Reply
sea_eagle
Member
Posts: 175
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:57
United Kingdom

Reform of the UN Security Council

Post by sea_eagle »

The UN, as currently constructed, after WW2 was based upon the victors - USA, UK, Russia, China and France. To the victors go the spoils so we all agreed that each had a power of veto in the Security Council comprised of the 5 Permanent Members and 10 elected members who serve a 2 year term.
After 70 years the world has changed but there appears to be no appetite to reform the UN Security Council (or the UN generally). What do you suggest as a positive reform of the UNSC?
After Brexit, the EU will have 1 representative in France (effectively increasing France's standing in Europe and worldwide).
Indonesia has a population around 260million.
South America has no permanent member. Brazil has a population of 211million
Africa has no permanent member. Nigeria has a rapidly growing population about 191million.
India, the largest country in the world with 1,400million, yes it is larger than China and democratic to boot, is not a permanent member. Maybe they should have 5 votes??
Pakistan is sort of democratic with a population of nearly 200million and then there is Bangladesh with 165million.
All of these countries have a larger population than Russia, UK or France..

Should the WW2 Allied Powers retain a veto or should we move on? Maybe we like things just the way they are?
Perhaps the 15 member Council should have more permanent members and no veto?
Or is it more a matter of which countries have nuclear weapons so lets add Israel, India, Pakistan and Iran+North Korea but not Japan or Mexico?

User avatar
swoop
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 03 May 2015, 21:25
Pitcairn Island

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Post by swoop »

That rubbish of the five permanent members having a veto vote which can completely derail anything, has to go.
A simple majority vote of members should suffice and reduce the backroom political agendas we have witnessed over the decades.


As for the UN... :roll:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

swoop wrote:A simple majority vote of members should suffice
2/3 majorities are commonly required for fundamental changes and as the Security Council needs to deal with use of force/ serious sanctions that inevitably will hit also the affected country's population generally, I would see that there is a clear case for such a safeguard.
- as peace keeping is expensive and peace making even more so, the UN should start (again) lending its flag to coalitions of the willing (them bearing those costs), but only after such qualified majority agreeing to "the cause".
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Another accident waiting to happen... didn't happen:

"Ms Nauert, who is currently serving as state department spokeswoman, would have replaced Nikki Haley, who announced in October that she would leave the post of UN ambassador by the end of the year.

Some had questioned whether Ms Nauert, who has been in government for less than two years and has never specialised in international relations, had sufficient experience to deal with type of complex foreign policy issues tackled by UN ambassadors."
She has been an apprentice for a while, and exhibited a strong understanding of recent history, almost on par with the US president hopeful who did not know, which 'Korea' is on 'our' side:
"Ms Nauert made headlines in June when, speaking in her state department role, she cited the World War Two Normandy landings in relation to America's "strong history" with Germany. "
- on this scale, our Cameron citing "Wunderwaffe" from Boys' Own to Angela Merkel is almost statesmanship
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Post by Halidon »

I don't think it's quite accurate to say there's no appetite for reform, rather that reform is perceived as so difficult, divisive, and fraught with pitfalls that there's little hope for constructive progress. The Veto issue is among the most glaring examples: the founding superpowers wanted the UNSC to operate with unanimity as a key part of their vision for the UN, and they wanted to protect their sovereign interests from interference. While plenty has changed, the latter desire especially hasn't...and any attempt to end or change the permanent members' Veto will require getting them all to agree to it. It would take leadership, diplomacy, amd savvy of extraordinary rarity to bring about that sort of outcome.

Expanding the roll of permanent nations has been considered on and off for some time, but setting the paramters for choosing them is not simple. The old standard of nuclear powers is out the window with North Korea, a standard of large economic power and/or population would be complicated by trading blocs and regional representation, and so on.

In the near term, it would be better to focus UN reform on issues which aren't the UNSC. Renovate the Secretariat to function better with some more transparency, reform and empower the UN's ability to address Human Rights issues, Environmental Issues, and Peacekeeping issues.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Halidon wrote:empower the UN's ability to address Human Rights issues, Environmental Issues, and Peacekeeping issues.
I fully agree. Expecting the superpowers to police each other, by attending the Club Room every now and then is an unrealistic expectation.
- peacekeeping vs. peacemaking is a grey zone
- if there is no peace (negotiated) and you start to make one, it is more likely than not that some "proxy" issues surface and then (once again) the UN is bound to lose its credibility
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Reform of the UN Security Council

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Quess which one is going to hurt more:

"One diplomat told AFP that any Security Council declaration [on the Ryanair flight hijacking] would likely be opposed by Russia, an ally of Belarus."
- can be a juicy one; being held behind closed doors


" this outrageous behaviour needs a strong answer.

Von der Leyen [then] added that a 3 billion EU investment and economic package for Belarus will remain on hold until Belarus "turns democratic.''["]

Putin's displeasure at having to save a 'comrade' who did something that is clearly not deniable
... or the 3 bn being frozen
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply