United Nations Security Council Must Be Expanded

When it was created in 1945, great hopes were placed in the United Nations Security Council, which was envisioned as the means through which the international community would prevent future wars and preserve peace throughout the world. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way very often. During the Cold War, the Security Council became an arena for shouting matches between the West and the Soviet Union, and since both sides were directly or indirectly involved in virtually every conflict in the world between 1950 and 1989, it was almost impossible to come to any consensus, which made collective action impossible. Good work was done in preventing the spread of conflicts in Cyprus, Kashmir, and other places, but many of the principal problems of the world continued to fester due to superpower rivalry.

Things have gotten somewhat better since the end of the Cold War. The Security Council acted with great effectiveness during the 1990-91 crisis caused by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, because the great powers were able to work together as partners in that particular instance. Great success was also achieved by the Security Council in Namibia, Mozambique, Cambodia, and other places. But when the permanent members again found themselves arrayed on opposing sides, as during the wars resulting from the collapse of Yugoslavia, the Security Council found itself unable to ensure peace and security. We have also recently seen the Security Council hindered in its attempts to deal properly with Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe because of the competing interests of Russia, China, and the Western powers.

The ineffectiveness of the United Nations Security Council stems from two primary causes. The first cause is its flawed composition of permanent members, which has remained unchanged since the creation of the United Nations itself. The second cause is the fact that any permanent member can veto any resolution, and will naturally put its own interests ahead of the need for international peace and security.

The role of the Security Council is to preserve peace and security throughout the world, and its composition is ostensibly supposed to be made up of those nations which can best achieve this. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France. This composition better reflects the geopolitical realities of the world of 1945 than the world of 2010. One doesn't have to be a genius to see that the geopolitical realities of the present are vastly different than those that existed at the end of the Second World War.

It is clear that an expansion of permanent membership is urgently necessary in order to better reflect current geopolitical realities. But how might this be achieved? What follows is one possible plan.

The identities of some of the nations that should be granted permanent seats on the Security Council are clear, with the most obvious of all probably being India. It is the world's second most populous nation, its most populous democracy, is nuclear capable, and has a rapidly developing and expanding economy. It is primed to play a key role in global affairs over the course of the 21st Century and beyond. For half a century, Indian troops have served bravely and with dedication in U.N. peacekeeping operations throughout the world. Keeping it out of the Security Council simply defies common sense. The fact that it is also home to a unique Hindu civilization only adds weight to the argument, as it only makes sense for all major elements of the human family to be represented on the Security Council.

A somewhat similar case can be made for Japan, whose role as one of the world's major economies and the fact that it is the second largest financial contributor to the United Nations must be taken into consideration. Although its constitution forbids it from maintaining a military capable of offensive action, it has recently begun demonstrating a greater willingness to participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations. Like India, it is also home to a unique branch of human civilization, which is religiously, culturally and linguistically quite distinct from its Asian neighbors.

Brazil, too, should be in line for its own permanent seat on the Security Council. It is a developing economic and military power, and will play an increasingly important role in global affairs. Giving Brazil a seat would also give representation to Latin America, which seems only fair. Indeed, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed giving Brazil a permanent seat on the Security Council when its format was being drawn up in 1945.

It is often argued that an African nation should sit on the Security Council, especially since so much U.N. activity takes place in Africa. The most plausible contenders are South Africa and Nigeria. Both are economically important and likely to become more so, though they will not be as critical to the global economy as other developing nations like India or Brazil for some time to come. Still, it would be seen by the whole of Africa as unfair if the continent was denied representation, and it would possibly hinder the long-term democratization of the United Nations as a whole.

Between South Africa and Nigeria, South Africa is probably the more appropriate choice, as it has a stronger democratic foundation and is economically and militarily more significant. Its highly successful hosting of the 2010 World Cup helped establish a sense that South Africa is ready to play a bigger role in world affairs.

Bringing in India, Japan, Brazil and South Africa as permanent members of the Security Council would be a considerable improvement to the status quo, but still leaves some problems unresolved

For one thing, objections have been raised as to the absence of a Muslim-majority nation on the Security Council, and it does seem unfair that the more than a billion adherents to Islam around the world are not given a representative on the world's most powerful body. European representation is also a problem, since the British and French cannot, by themselves, adequately represent the entire European population, yet it would be politically impossible to persuade them to give up their seats.

And there's another issue. One of the most complicated challenges to an effective Security Council is the fact that any permanent member can veto any resolution. Expansion of the Security Council makes this already bad veto problem even worse. Clearly, expanding the number of members corrects one problem only at the expense of making another problem that much more difficult. Thus, expansion of the Security Council can only happen if it is accompanied by a simultaneous reformation in the manner in which permanent members can wield their veto power.

To sum up, under the incomplete plan outlined here, the United States, Russia, and China would keep their seats, being joined as permanent members of the Security Council by India, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa. Altering the Security Council in such a way would be one of the most radical changes the United Nations has ever experienced, but it would do much to establish fairness and proper representation.

In upcoming articles, we shall explore the problems of obtaining representation for a Muslim-majority nation, resolving the paradox of European representation, and solving the complicated issue of Security Council veto reform.