Proposals for UNSC expansion

[TDAS04]

If you could change the United Nations Security Council to more accurately reflect the World today, how would you do it? 

My proposal is to increase the number of seats from 15 to 22; the permanent seats from 5 to 9 and the rotating seats 10 to 13.  The new permanent seats should go to India, Japan, Brazil, and Germany.  However, I would not give them veto power.  Two out of the three new rotating seats should go to Africa and the other one to Asia.

To be honest, reforming the council to fairly represent the planet is not that realistic.  Nevertheless, what are some of your proposals?

[Supersonic]

I'd leave it as it is.

[Donerail]

Expand to 24 seats, give Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan permanent seats, limit the veto to require 2-3 permanent members to agree to veto something, grant 1 permanent seat to the Islamic world (cycling every 4 years between Turkey, Indonesia, etc.) and 2 permanent seats to Africa (cycling among Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, Algeria, Ethiopia, etc.).

[danny]

Get rid of it.

[Platypus]

Remove veto power, expand to 21 members, and require 15 votes to pass a resolution. Also fundamentally change the election process, but not yet sure what to.

[TDAS04]

I'd leave it as it is.

Can't blame you.  The UK has does not have anything to complain about with the status quo.  Neither does France.  Never mind that Germany is Europe's largest economy.

Expand to 24 seats, give Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan permanent seats, limit the veto to require 2-3 permanent members to agree to veto something, grant 1 permanent seat to the Islamic world (cycling every 4 years between Turkey, Indonesia, etc.) and 2 permanent seats to Africa (cycling among Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, Algeria, Ethiopia, etc.).

Would you count Egypt and Algeria as African countries or Islamic ones?

[Hatman 🍁]

Have world-wide elections; no one has veto power; the security council will be like a cabinet chosen from elected representatives.

[Middle-aged Europe]

What about abolishing the current permanent/non-permanent member system altogether?

Let's say all UNSC members are elected for a five-year period by the General Assembly. "Re-election" is allowed, no term limits.

What would the result if the US, Russia, China, UK, and France had to stand for re-election every five vears?

[ag]

What about abolishing the current permanent/non-permanent member system altogether?

Let's say all UNSC members are elected for a five-year period by the General Assembly. "Re-election" is allowed, no term limits.

What would the result if the US, Russia, China, UK, and France had to stand for re-election every five vears?

What would be the result? Well, that one is easy: nobody would be paying the slightest attention to the Council decisions, of course

[ag]

Everybody asking for the reform, please remember:

1. The purpose of the current architecture is to make the Council relevant. Taking the veto from the US is tantamount to abolishing it: nobody would care about it, since the GA is more representative, anyway, and the bindingness of SC resolutions would become a joke, they'd be simple declarations (this would be so even in the unlikely event US, China and the rest do not withdraw from the UN altogether in response).

2. No new country is an uncontroversial candidate for permanent membership. I am certain, Mexican diplomats would be willing to do anything, to avoid Brazil getting it (which would be viewed as a national humiliation here). I am certain, others would have objections as well.

[Bacon King]

First off, remove or seriously restrict veto powers of permanent members. If they must exist, limit the circumstances where they can be used and/or introduce a mechanism to overturn vetoes. Here's how I'd change the composition of the Security Council itself:

(30 members total: 9 permanent members, 1 member selected annually, and 20 members selected once every four years, divided among 4 classes of 5)

permanent seats: 9
United States
Great Britain
People's Republic of China
Russia
France
Germany
Brazil
India

Regional seats: 11

A member from Eastern Europe (Class A)
A member from Europe (Class C)
A member from Africa (Class A)
A member from Africa (Class C)
A member from Asia (Class A)
A member from Asia (Class B)
A member from Oceania (Class C)
A member from the Eastern Hemisphere (Class B)
A member from the Western Hemisphere (Class A)
A member from the Western Hemisphere (Class C)
A member from the Arab World (Class B)

Automatic Seats: 5 (all Class D)
(Automatically filled in descending order, selected among all member states who have not served on the UNSC in 4+ years. Selected countries can turn down the seats if desired).

Member with the largest population
Member with the greatest total financial contribution to the UN over the past decade
Member with the greatest per-capita financial contribution to the UN over the past decade
Member currently contributing the greatest number of UN peacekeeping troops
Member allocating the greatest percentage of national budget for nonmilitary foreign aid

Various Seats: 5

Member elected by all living Nobel Peace Prize Laureates (Class B)
Member elected by General Assembly with no region requirement (Class A)
Member elected by General Assembly with no region requirement (Class C)
Member chosen by Secretary General picking a random name out of a hat (Class B)
Member elected by the other 29 members of the Security Council (selected annually)


(this was a fun, if meaningless, exercise )

[ingemann]

The problem  is that you run into problem with why some countries should become permanent members and others not. Why should Germany or Japan get a seat, when Indonesia or Nigeria have much bigger population, why should India join when its GDP are lower than Italys, we run into hard question no matter how we allow new countries to join. People often suggest South Africa getting a seat, the problem here is that South African influence is only influence because all its neighbours are dysfunctional. Other suggest that we remove UK and France, the problem is that both countries are still very active and in many ways powerful international actors (just look at Mali, China would have had problems with projecting power in similar way as France).

If we reform UN we risk it to either make it even more unfair than the existing onbe, or we risk making it irrelevant. So let wait until one of these countries are strong enough to force the doors open at it own.

[TDAS04]

The problem  is that you run into problem with why some countries should become permanent members and others not. Why should Germany or Japan get a seat, when Indonesia or Nigeria have much bigger population, why should India join when its GDP are lower than Italys, we run into hard question no matter how we allow new countries to join. People often suggest South Africa getting a seat, the problem here is that South African influence is only influence because all its neighbours are dysfunctional. Other suggest that we remove UK and France, the problem is that both countries are still very active and in many ways powerful international actors (just look at Mali, China would have had problems with projecting power in similar way as France).

If we reform UN we risk it to either make it even more unfair than the existing onbe, or we risk making it irrelevant. So let wait until one of these countries are strong enough to force the doors open at it own.

I didn't say that reform was particularly realistic.  I'm just asking what the UNSC would like if it truly represented the globe today.  My proposal takes into account both population sizes and economic sizes, and to a lesser extent, geographic balance.  The four countries I mentioned are the most qualified for new permanent seats.  India's massive population alone gives it the moral right to permanent representation.  Although Japan is declining, it's still the third largest economy.  Brazil would add much to the geographic diversity.  (I also do not buy into the argument that Brazil would be unrepresentative of Latin America just because it speaks Portuguese.  It has one-thire of Latin America's population, and Spanish-speaking America is still represented by two seats).  Germany actually has the weakest case of these four countries.  It's just that the permanent seats of the UK and France cannot be justified without Germany's inclusion.

Yes, many countries would be jealous.  However, there should be less envy since none of the new members would have veto power anyway.  Also, there would be a reduction of unfair competition for rotating seats between large countries and much smaller ones.  Japan's inclusion would help provide Papua New Guinea a better chance at a rotating seat.

It is no longer 1945.  Unfortunately, the UNSC may always make it look like it is 1945.

[Хahar 🤔]

Bacon King's plan is interesting insofar as it effectively gives Bangladesh a seat on the Security Council half the time.

[Sbane]

Remove veto power, expand to 21 members, and require 15 votes to pass a resolution. Also fundamentally change the election process, but not yet sure what to.

I like the removing veto power part. I would keep the permanent states and add a few like India, Brazil, South Africa and maybe Germany.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lets go back to the original 11-member Security Council in keeping with the original intent of the founders!

[politicus]

2. No new country is an uncontroversial candidate for permanent membership. I am certain, Mexican diplomats would be willing to do anything, to avoid Brazil getting it (which would be viewed as a national humiliation here). I am certain, others would have objections as well.

Thats really strange. Brazil has roughly twice the population of Mexico and they are in South America, so its not even a country from the same continent. How would Brazilian membership humiliate Mexico anymore than US membership?

[ag]

How would Brazilian membership humiliate Mexico anymore than US membership?

We all know what is US and what is Brazil One is the big and powerful state - and the other is an equally impotent blimp on the horizon No shame losing to the US - but to Brazil?! Unless it is football, it is a humiliation.

Anyway, there is a reason US is there and Brazil isn't. Remove the US veto power - and nobody would ever again bother about what UNSC thinks on any issue. The General Assambley is, by far, more representative, as far as establishing the opinion of the international community goes. UNSC would be just another talking shop, like the ECOSOC.  Not give Brazil the veto - and nobody (outside of Brazil) would ever notice. When Brazil has a few nukes and sends its airforce to bomb, say, Johannesburg or Nairobi, we will talk.