This House would expand the United Nations Security Council

The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and Great Britain have clearly lost their position among the most powerful nations and their role was long ago taken over by Germany and Japan. They are the 3^rd and 4^thworld economies. Furthermore these two countries are the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget and deserve a permanent seat in the Council. Moreover, as permanent members pay an extra share for their seat, Japan and Germany’s contributions would bring considerable amounts to the UN budget – “The three largest contributors to the United Nations, the US (22.000% of the UN budget), Japan (12.530%) and Germany (8.018%) thus together finance some 43% of the entire UN budget.” [1] Meanwhile Brazil and India have emerged as major economies and stable democracies over the past decade, and deserve recognition for their global importance.

[1] Contributions to the United Nations budget http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Friedenspolitik/VereinteNationen/StrukturVN/Finanzen/Uebersicht.html

improve this

Giving Germany a permanent seat would hardly be a step forward in an endeavour for a more equitable distribution of seats in the Council. The UK and France hold a veto power over any amendments and aren’t willing to give up their seats, so adding Germany would mean that the EU would have three permanent seats in the Council. That wouldn’t be a fair geographical distribution and wouldn’t, for that matter, be a equitable distribution either.

Japan in particular is not as deserving as has been suggested; although it is rich Japan has been struggling economically for a decade while other countries (including the UK and France) have continued to grow. The Japanese economy has been recently hit by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster “Before Japan's 2011 earthquake, its economy was just starting to emerge from its deepest recession since the 1970s(…)Japan's economy is still challenged by rising commodity prices -- the country imports most of its food and oil -- and a shrinking labor pool, as its population ages. Japan's worst challenge is a national debt that is twice as big as its annual economic output.” [1]

Compared to other nations, both Germany and Japan are military insignificant. Germany spends only 1.27% of its GDP on military defence, in comparison to 2.32% for UK and France. [2] This is important as the Permanent 5's status currently reflects great power realities - they are the countries most able to project power abroad and so have the ability to implement (or block) UN security decisions.

[1] Amadeo, Kimberly. 'Japan's Economy', 26/08/2011 http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/Japan_Recession.htm

[2] 'Military of the European Union' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

improve this

At the moment many countries are not heard in the council and some states may never gain a chance of being elected to the Security Council. This leaves billions of the world's population without representation in the world's highest body. How can India with over a sixth of the world's population be left out? Security Council expansion would make the UN much more democratic as there would be more participants representing more of the people of the world present in closed meetings and informal consultations. Expansion would increase the transparency and therefore the accountability of the Council – something that even countries sometimes considered to be against democracy believe is necessary “he (Seyed Mohammad Ali Mottaghi Nejad) said Iran believed that the links between the issues comprised the “basic objective” of a comprehensive reform towards a Council that was more democratic, inclusive, equitably representative, transparent, effective and accountable. “ [1]

[1] 'Concluding Annual Debate on Security Council Reform, General Assembly', 12/11/2010,  http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga11023.doc.htm

improve this

Expansion is not the right way to increase transparency, as the number of informal consultations of smaller groups (such as permanent members or only industrialised permanent members) in order to try and push though resolutions would probably rise. Reforms to enhance transparency and improve working methods are already taking place – At a 19 July 2007 informal meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on an Increase in Membership of the Security Council, some suggested a more analytical report that would, among other things, provide rationales for the Council's major decisions. [1]

[1] 'Efforts to Reform Council Working Methods 1993-2007', 18/10/2007, http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.3506555/k.DA5E/Special_Research_ReportbrSecurity_Council_Transparency_Legitimacy_and_Effectivenessbr18_October_2007_No_3.htm

improve this

In 1945 there were only 51 UN members, so eleven Council members were adequately representing all voices. Today the UN membership has risen to almost four times the number of the original one, yet there are only fifteen voices in the Council. This means that there are many countries who do not have anyone on the security council that has similar priorities to them, their views may well be unrepresented.

improve this

Non-permanent members are selected to represent voices of entire regions already. Increasing the size of the Council would only make it more unwieldy as it would be extremely difficult to negotiate in such an expanded forum. The nature of the Council's work requires swift action and expansion could negatively impact on its ability to provide quick solutions for world peace.

improve this

There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of humankind that live in developing countries have only one spokesman among the permanent five. Giving Africa, Asia and Latin America a permanent seat is a step forward in North-South balance – “Currently, four out of five veto-bearing members are industrialized countries and the fifth, China, is rapidly approaching industrialized status. Many in the rest of the world seethe at their exclusion from this elite group. Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world, for example, have no permanent voice on the council. Without a voice, it is understandable why many countries are unwilling to send troops or aid whenever the Security Council demands it. This imbalance, highlighted by the Iraq war, has made Security Council reform a hot topic of debate.” [1]

[1] ) Teng, Michael. 'United Nations Security Council Reform Autumn 2003' http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/United%20Nations%20Security%20Council%20Reform.doc

improve this

There is a lack of consensus among developing countries themselves on who should get permanent seats. Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa all claim their right to an African one. The most logical candidate for an Asian seat – India – is opposed by Muslim countries, who want a permanent seat for themselves – “Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman has politely opposed the endorsement (India’s candidacy in the UNSC), saying it will complicate the process of expanding the UN Security Council and increasing the number of its permanent members. He has referred, as has been done on several past occasions, to India’s bad record on human rights, unsatisfactory relations with its neighbours etc.” [1] Spanish speaking neighbours oppose Brazil’s candidacy because it speaks Portuguese.

[1] 'A permanent UN SC seat for India?', 9/11/2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/74621/a-permanent-un-sc-seat-for-india/

improve this

The EU is one of the world’s largest trade blocs, has the world’s largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. A permanent seat for the EU would reflect those new power dimensions. The permanent seats for France and the UK are based on the fact that they were among the great powers and victors of World War II. However, the global balance of powers has shifted significantly since then: France and the UK have declined and at the same time, the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena.

improve this

In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world's foremost military powers, with the world's largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, and the world's highest military expenditure after the USA and China. By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. Given the mission of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security, eligibility for a permanent seat should be based on military power, not just economic or demographic power.

improve this

The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and Great Britain have clearly lost their position among the most powerful nations and their role was long ago taken over by Germany and Japan. They are the 3^rd and 4^thworld economies. Furthermore these two countries are the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget and deserve a permanent seat in the Council. Moreover, as permanent members pay an extra share for their seat, Japan and Germany’s contributions would bring considerable amounts to the UN budget – “The three largest contributors to the United Nations, the US (22.000% of the UN budget), Japan (12.530%) and Germany (8.018%) thus together finance some 43% of the entire UN budget.” [1] Meanwhile Brazil and India have emerged as major economies and stable democracies over the past decade, and deserve recognition for their global importance.

[1] Contributions to the United Nations budget http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/Friedenspolitik/VereinteNationen/StrukturVN/Finanzen/Uebersicht.html

improve this

Giving Germany a permanent seat would hardly be a step forward in an endeavour for a more equitable distribution of seats in the Council. The UK and France hold a veto power over any amendments and aren’t willing to give up their seats, so adding Germany would mean that the EU would have three permanent seats in the Council. That wouldn’t be a fair geographical distribution and wouldn’t, for that matter, be a equitable distribution either.

Japan in particular is not as deserving as has been suggested; although it is rich Japan has been struggling economically for a decade while other countries (including the UK and France) have continued to grow. The Japanese economy has been recently hit by the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster “Before Japan's 2011 earthquake, its economy was just starting to emerge from its deepest recession since the 1970s(…)Japan's economy is still challenged by rising commodity prices -- the country imports most of its food and oil -- and a shrinking labor pool, as its population ages. Japan's worst challenge is a national debt that is twice as big as its annual economic output.” [1]

Compared to other nations, both Germany and Japan are military insignificant. Germany spends only 1.27% of its GDP on military defence, in comparison to 2.32% for UK and France. [2] This is important as the Permanent 5's status currently reflects great power realities - they are the countries most able to project power abroad and so have the ability to implement (or block) UN security decisions.

[1] Amadeo, Kimberly. 'Japan's Economy', 26/08/2011 http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/Japan_Recession.htm

[2] 'Military of the European Union' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_European_Union

improve this

At the moment many countries are not heard in the council and some states may never gain a chance of being elected to the Security Council. This leaves billions of the world's population without representation in the world's highest body. How can India with over a sixth of the world's population be left out? Security Council expansion would make the UN much more democratic as there would be more participants representing more of the people of the world present in closed meetings and informal consultations. Expansion would increase the transparency and therefore the accountability of the Council – something that even countries sometimes considered to be against democracy believe is necessary “he (Seyed Mohammad Ali Mottaghi Nejad) said Iran believed that the links between the issues comprised the “basic objective” of a comprehensive reform towards a Council that was more democratic, inclusive, equitably representative, transparent, effective and accountable. “ [1]

[1] 'Concluding Annual Debate on Security Council Reform, General Assembly', 12/11/2010,  http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/ga11023.doc.htm

improve this

Expansion is not the right way to increase transparency, as the number of informal consultations of smaller groups (such as permanent members or only industrialised permanent members) in order to try and push though resolutions would probably rise. Reforms to enhance transparency and improve working methods are already taking place – At a 19 July 2007 informal meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on an Increase in Membership of the Security Council, some suggested a more analytical report that would, among other things, provide rationales for the Council's major decisions. [1]

[1] 'Efforts to Reform Council Working Methods 1993-2007', 18/10/2007, http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/site/c.glKWLeMTIsG/b.3506555/k.DA5E/Special_Research_ReportbrSecurity_Council_Transparency_Legitimacy_and_Effectivenessbr18_October_2007_No_3.htm

improve this

In 1945 there were only 51 UN members, so eleven Council members were adequately representing all voices. Today the UN membership has risen to almost four times the number of the original one, yet there are only fifteen voices in the Council. This means that there are many countries who do not have anyone on the security council that has similar priorities to them, their views may well be unrepresented.

improve this

Non-permanent members are selected to represent voices of entire regions already. Increasing the size of the Council would only make it more unwieldy as it would be extremely difficult to negotiate in such an expanded forum. The nature of the Council's work requires swift action and expansion could negatively impact on its ability to provide quick solutions for world peace.

improve this

There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of humankind that live in developing countries have only one spokesman among the permanent five. Giving Africa, Asia and Latin America a permanent seat is a step forward in North-South balance – “Currently, four out of five veto-bearing members are industrialized countries and the fifth, China, is rapidly approaching industrialized status. Many in the rest of the world seethe at their exclusion from this elite group. Africa, Latin America, and the Islamic world, for example, have no permanent voice on the council. Without a voice, it is understandable why many countries are unwilling to send troops or aid whenever the Security Council demands it. This imbalance, highlighted by the Iraq war, has made Security Council reform a hot topic of debate.” [1]

[1] ) Teng, Michael. 'United Nations Security Council Reform Autumn 2003' http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/United%20Nations%20Security%20Council%20Reform.doc

improve this

There is a lack of consensus among developing countries themselves on who should get permanent seats. Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa all claim their right to an African one. The most logical candidate for an Asian seat – India – is opposed by Muslim countries, who want a permanent seat for themselves – “Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman has politely opposed the endorsement (India’s candidacy in the UNSC), saying it will complicate the process of expanding the UN Security Council and increasing the number of its permanent members. He has referred, as has been done on several past occasions, to India’s bad record on human rights, unsatisfactory relations with its neighbours etc.” [1] Spanish speaking neighbours oppose Brazil’s candidacy because it speaks Portuguese.

[1] 'A permanent UN SC seat for India?', 9/11/2010 http://tribune.com.pk/story/74621/a-permanent-un-sc-seat-for-india/

improve this

The EU is one of the world’s largest trade blocs, has the world’s largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. A permanent seat for the EU would reflect those new power dimensions. The permanent seats for France and the UK are based on the fact that they were among the great powers and victors of World War II. However, the global balance of powers has shifted significantly since then: France and the UK have declined and at the same time, the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena.

improve this

In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world's foremost military powers, with the world's largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, and the world's highest military expenditure after the USA and China. By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. Given the mission of the UNSC to maintain international peace and security, eligibility for a permanent seat should be based on military power, not just economic or demographic power.

improve this

This could mean that the council ends up deadlocked more often than not as was the case during the Cold war when the two blocs almost always opposed each other. Up until 1991 (from the UN founding in 1946) there were only 700 security council resolutions due to the deadlocked nature of the council. In the 20 years since there have been over 1300 resolutions.¹ The negotiation process would also be significantly longer. As a result the peace and security of the world could be endangered by this step.

¹ Wikipedia, United Nations Security Council resolution,

There should be no differentiation between old and new permanent members and the new ones should get the veto power in order to preserve the interests of the regions they represent. Veto power is not as problematic with potential permanent members as it is with the current ones, as all the candidates are known for their multilateral approach and cooperation, while the same cannot be said for the current ones.

Reforming the UN Security Council is very difficult as no one can agree which new powers deserve representation, whether they should have a veto, and even whether permanent membership should continue to exist in any form. Japan and India seem obvious candidates for permanent status, but their candidacies are fiercely opposed by a variety of other Asian countries, while Nigeria and Egypt both feel they have a good claim to an "African" seat. The EU also considers it deserves a separate place. Furthermore Brazil as a very fast developing country and turning into a world power claims it also has a right in the UNSC as a permanent member. All these different demands opinions make an eventual reform or expansion of the UNSC very hard to achieve.

It is widely recognised that the current Security Council set-up lacks legitimacy and requires reform. Major states such as Japan, and rising powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India deserve recognition and giving them permanent status would provide representation for a much broader cross-section of humanity. It maybe hard to achieve consensus on what exactly to be the change in the UNSC, but the new international environment requests that. This is supported by a lot of leading politicians and leaders in a global aspect. "The United States is open to UN Security Council reform and expansion, as one element of an overall agenda for UN reform" ¹"The UN must rationally adapt itself to new world realities. It should also strengthen its influence and preserve its multinational nature and integrity of the UN Charter provisions. The reform of the UN Security Council is an essential component of its revitalization." ¹ (Dmitry Medvedev)

¹ "The reform of the United Nations Security Council: What role for the European Union?" Bureau of Public Affairs (USA) , June 20, 2005, 

² Address to the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly 23/09/2009,

improve this

As the bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations, both because they are the main contributors to the budget¹ and because the Security Council members pay more towards peacekeeping² they should have the main role in deciding on action. Developing countries already have a voice in the Council but should not have a veto power over decisions that they do not finance. Developed countries would not agree to pay for something they are not happy with. In the contemporary world economy and business are fundamental and they are the ones who drive the world.

¹ Contributions to the United Nations budget

² United Nations, 'Financing Peacekeeping',

improve this

By including more developing countries in the Security Council, more issues of their concern would get on the Security Council's agenda. As we all know the major issues in the status quo nowadays occur mainly in developing countries. For example the consequences from global warming are worse in the developing regions. There are also the rebels in the Arab countries. There are a lot of concerns and the developed countries should give the developing ones the opportunity to participate in the process of their discussion and solution.

improve this

In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the European Union – the EU might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union, not a political union. Most of its founding treaties and the daily workings of its institutions focus on creating and maintaining a single market, not on creating a shared foreign and military policy. Giving the EU representation at what is an institution for foreign and military policy is misreading what the EU was intended to be. 

improve this

The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the EU can contribute a lot of knowledge and experience on how to use ‘soft power’ in a foreign policy context, and given its goal of (and success in) creating everlasting peace on the continent, it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution. Furthermore the EU is ever closer to a political union – “German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble has said his country is willing to discuss greater harmonisation of eurozone tax policy, adding that the next decade is likely to see Europe take significant steps towards closer political union.” [1] Therefore it is simply a normal step for the EU to have a say in the international affairs.

[1] Willis, Andrew. 'Germany predicts EU 'political union' in 10 years', 13/12/2010, http://euobserver.com/19/31485

improve this