This house would grant the EU a permanent seat on the UN Security Council

The United Nations is a global body that must represent the whole world. Just as democratic governments need to remain representative to be legitimate so the same is true of intergovernmental organisations. If the UK and France hang on to their permanent seats forever, the UNSC will lose its legitimacy, as the United Nations will no longer be seen to be representative. The result will be an increased risk of war and conflict because the world’s major powers have no legitimate shared arena for discussing their interests. This is exactly what happened to the League of Nations after World War I. As many of the most powerful nations, USA, USSR and Germany were unwilling to join or barred from joining the League never had much legitimacy. As a result the League was unable to prevent conflicts in Manchuria and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) eventually leading to World War II.[1] Since their interest in a stable world through the legitimacy of the UNSC outweighs their interest in a formal veto-power, France and the UK should be willing to give up their veto power.

[1] Kissinger, Diplomacy

There is a good reason why previous attempts at reforming the United Nations Security Council have not succeeded. Reform has been attempted several times since 1992 when Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali called for a renewal of the United Nations by 1995.[1] The ‘G4’ made up of Germany, Japan, Brazil and India has been lobbying to become permanent members but are opposed by others who want more non-permanent seats.[2] Kofi Annan in 2005 suggested two options either 6 new permanent members with no veto or eight four year renewable terms,[3] but this too has gotten nowhere. No matter who is on the council some countries will feel aggrieved. If Brazil becomes a member Argentina and Mexico will object, China might object to India becoming a permanent member and Pakistan certainly would.[4] In Africa it is not even certain who should represent the continent as there is no single leader, whoever is chosen some countries would not like the result. It is therefore better to leave things how they are. The current UNSC has been recognised as legitimate for more than sixty years this is not about to change.

[1] Boutros-Ghali, ‘An Agenda for Peace’, 1992, http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html

[2] Ariyoruk, ‘Players and Proposals in the Security Council Debate’, 2005, http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/200/41204.html

[3] United Nations Secretary General, ‘In larger freedom’, 2005, V, http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/contents.htm

[4] Muns, 2006, http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/Article/tabid/191/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/20451/ReformoftheUNSecurityCouncilASpanishperspective.aspx

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; Britain’s manufacturing exports dropped from 25% of world manufacturing exports in 1945 to 5% in 2000.[1]  And the UK was 6.52% of the world economy in 1950[2] but down to 3.56 in 2010.[3] Moreover both had large empires which were lost in the decades after 1945. At the same time the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena. 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.

[1] Schenk, 472, http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631220402/ACB26.pdf

[2] Maddison, http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

[3] World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/1W?display=default

improve this

France and the UK might have declined in relative power since 1945, but even today only Japan and Germany among non-P5 states rank ahead of them economically. 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,[1] and the world’s highest military expenditure after the USA and China with France spending $61 billion and the UK $57 billion in 2010.[2] By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. The EU launched a Rapid Reaction Force meant to be 60,000 troops in 2001, but it is still a paper tiger without even this many men and with many capability shortfalls.[3] 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.

[1] Federation of American Scientists, 2011, http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

[2] SIPRI, 2011, http://milexdata.sipri.org/

[3] Defence Dateline, 2011, http://www.defenceiq.com/air-land-and-sea-defence-services/articles/eu-debates-of-attrition-the-slow-death-of-europe-s/

The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. The political resolution of the Congress of Europe in 1948 said “it is the urgent duty of the nations of Europe to create an economic and political union in order to assure security and social progress… the creation of a United Europe is an essential element in the creation of a united world.”[1]The 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.  Europe has been successful in creating peace on a previously warlike continent. It has also had successes in encouraging reform in the countries of Eastern Europe and is continuing to do so in the Balkans through enlargement.[2] Croatia was at war with its neighbors fifteen years ago and part of Yugoslavia twenty years ago but will become the 28^thmember of the EU in 2013.[3]

Being a member of the UNSC would deepen Europe’s commitment to international peace-keeping and peace-making missions, something which currently varies very widely between member states, and push them to spend sufficient on equipping their militaries for such missions. The UNSC could turn the EU’s soft power outwards to help the world. As a result it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution.

[1] Congress of Europe at the Hague, 1948, http://www.europeanmovement.eu/index.php?id=6788

[2] Bildt, 2005, http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/bildt_ft_1june05.html

[3] BBC News, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13725558

The European Union 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

In the past the European Union has not had the necessary foreign policy bureaucracy and decision making capabilities to be able to control a UNSC seat. Since the Lisbon treaty this has changed. The Treaty created a President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy.[1] And a European External Action Service (EEAS) which will eventually have a staff of 5,400. The EEAS is a functionally autonomous EU body with a large number of embassies around the world.[2]This will give the EU representation in most countries, 54 with ambassadors out of a total of 136,[3] and the ability to coordinate a foreign policy. A seat at the United Nations Security Council would be a natural extension of this.

[1] European Council, http://www.european-council.europa.eu/the-president.aspx

[2] BBC News, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11941411

[3] Waterfield, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7045354/More-than-50-EU-embassies-open-across-the-world.html

Europe may now have a president but as he has few independent powers the Lisbon Treaty has not answered Kissinger’s apocryphal question ‘who do I call if I want to dial Europe’.[1] The US president or Secretary of state would still need to call round the major capitals of Europe as Van Rompuy would need to get the agreement of the Prime Ministers and Presidents of the continent before he could do anything.

[1] Rachman, 2009, http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2009/07/kissinger-never-wanted-to-dial-europe/#axzz1VZguP05z

The most practical way to reform the United Nations is for France and Britain to give way to a European Union seat. Although there would inevitably be some loss of influence for both nations the pain would be minimised by retaining one seat between them. The European Union often decides what countries get what jobs based upon internal politics, so for example Catherine Ashton became High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy because Tony Blair did not get the presidency.[1] It would therefore be possible through an internal agreement in the European Union to make sure that France and the United Kingdom retain control of the UNSC seat through having control of the foreign minister post and the post of Ambassador to the United Nations.

[1] Meade, 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/baroness-ashtons-eu-role-gives-britain-a-powerful-voice-1823742.html

Even if UNSC reform is perfectly logical in theory, in practice they would never work. The UK and France have a veto in the UNSC, which means they can halt any kind of reform of the UNSC which is not in their interest. Losing a permanent seat without getting a clear benefit in return is definitely against their interest. Even if they were to retain control over foreign policy no nation would want to move from having sole control of a seat to having to negotiate with its partners which way it will vote. As such the UK and France would veto any such proposal.

The United Nations is a global body that must represent the whole world. Just as democratic governments need to remain representative to be legitimate so the same is true of intergovernmental organisations. If the UK and France hang on to their permanent seats forever, the UNSC will lose its legitimacy, as the United Nations will no longer be seen to be representative. The result will be an increased risk of war and conflict because the world’s major powers have no legitimate shared arena for discussing their interests. This is exactly what happened to the League of Nations after World War I. As many of the most powerful nations, USA, USSR and Germany were unwilling to join or barred from joining the League never had much legitimacy. As a result the League was unable to prevent conflicts in Manchuria and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) eventually leading to World War II.[1] Since their interest in a stable world through the legitimacy of the UNSC outweighs their interest in a formal veto-power, France and the UK should be willing to give up their veto power.

[1] Kissinger, Diplomacy

There is a good reason why previous attempts at reforming the United Nations Security Council have not succeeded. Reform has been attempted several times since 1992 when Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali called for a renewal of the United Nations by 1995.[1] The ‘G4’ made up of Germany, Japan, Brazil and India has been lobbying to become permanent members but are opposed by others who want more non-permanent seats.[2] Kofi Annan in 2005 suggested two options either 6 new permanent members with no veto or eight four year renewable terms,[3] but this too has gotten nowhere. No matter who is on the council some countries will feel aggrieved. If Brazil becomes a member Argentina and Mexico will object, China might object to India becoming a permanent member and Pakistan certainly would.[4] In Africa it is not even certain who should represent the continent as there is no single leader, whoever is chosen some countries would not like the result. It is therefore better to leave things how they are. The current UNSC has been recognised as legitimate for more than sixty years this is not about to change.

[1] Boutros-Ghali, ‘An Agenda for Peace’, 1992, http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html

[2] Ariyoruk, ‘Players and Proposals in the Security Council Debate’, 2005, http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/200/41204.html

[3] United Nations Secretary General, ‘In larger freedom’, 2005, V, http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/contents.htm

[4] Muns, 2006, http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/Article/tabid/191/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/20451/ReformoftheUNSecurityCouncilASpanishperspective.aspx

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; Britain’s manufacturing exports dropped from 25% of world manufacturing exports in 1945 to 5% in 2000.[1]  And the UK was 6.52% of the world economy in 1950[2] but down to 3.56 in 2010.[3] Moreover both had large empires which were lost in the decades after 1945. At the same time the EU has emerged as a major player in the international arena. 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.

[1] Schenk, 472, http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631220402/ACB26.pdf

[2] Maddison, http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

[3] World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries/1W?display=default

improve this

France and the UK might have declined in relative power since 1945, but even today only Japan and Germany among non-P5 states rank ahead of them economically. 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,[1] and the world’s highest military expenditure after the USA and China with France spending $61 billion and the UK $57 billion in 2010.[2] By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project power across the globe. The EU launched a Rapid Reaction Force meant to be 60,000 troops in 2001, but it is still a paper tiger without even this many men and with many capability shortfalls.[3] 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.

[1] Federation of American Scientists, 2011, http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html

[2] SIPRI, 2011, http://milexdata.sipri.org/

[3] Defence Dateline, 2011, http://www.defenceiq.com/air-land-and-sea-defence-services/articles/eu-debates-of-attrition-the-slow-death-of-europe-s/

The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. The political resolution of the Congress of Europe in 1948 said “it is the urgent duty of the nations of Europe to create an economic and political union in order to assure security and social progress… the creation of a United Europe is an essential element in the creation of a united world.”[1]The 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.  Europe has been successful in creating peace on a previously warlike continent. It has also had successes in encouraging reform in the countries of Eastern Europe and is continuing to do so in the Balkans through enlargement.[2] Croatia was at war with its neighbors fifteen years ago and part of Yugoslavia twenty years ago but will become the 28^thmember of the EU in 2013.[3]

Being a member of the UNSC would deepen Europe’s commitment to international peace-keeping and peace-making missions, something which currently varies very widely between member states, and push them to spend sufficient on equipping their militaries for such missions. The UNSC could turn the EU’s soft power outwards to help the world. As a result it should have a seat at the world’s foremost foreign policy institution.

[1] Congress of Europe at the Hague, 1948, http://www.europeanmovement.eu/index.php?id=6788

[2] Bildt, 2005, http://www.cer.org.uk/articles/bildt_ft_1june05.html

[3] BBC News, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13725558

The European Union 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

In the past the European Union has not had the necessary foreign policy bureaucracy and decision making capabilities to be able to control a UNSC seat. Since the Lisbon treaty this has changed. The Treaty created a President of the European Council, currently Herman Van Rompuy.[1] And a European External Action Service (EEAS) which will eventually have a staff of 5,400. The EEAS is a functionally autonomous EU body with a large number of embassies around the world.[2]This will give the EU representation in most countries, 54 with ambassadors out of a total of 136,[3] and the ability to coordinate a foreign policy. A seat at the United Nations Security Council would be a natural extension of this.

[1] European Council, http://www.european-council.europa.eu/the-president.aspx

[2] BBC News, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11941411

[3] Waterfield, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7045354/More-than-50-EU-embassies-open-across-the-world.html

Europe may now have a president but as he has few independent powers the Lisbon Treaty has not answered Kissinger’s apocryphal question ‘who do I call if I want to dial Europe’.[1] The US president or Secretary of state would still need to call round the major capitals of Europe as Van Rompuy would need to get the agreement of the Prime Ministers and Presidents of the continent before he could do anything.

[1] Rachman, 2009, http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2009/07/kissinger-never-wanted-to-dial-europe/#axzz1VZguP05z

The most practical way to reform the United Nations is for France and Britain to give way to a European Union seat. Although there would inevitably be some loss of influence for both nations the pain would be minimised by retaining one seat between them. The European Union often decides what countries get what jobs based upon internal politics, so for example Catherine Ashton became High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy because Tony Blair did not get the presidency.[1] It would therefore be possible through an internal agreement in the European Union to make sure that France and the United Kingdom retain control of the UNSC seat through having control of the foreign minister post and the post of Ambassador to the United Nations.

[1] Meade, 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/baroness-ashtons-eu-role-gives-britain-a-powerful-voice-1823742.html

Even if UNSC reform is perfectly logical in theory, in practice they would never work. The UK and France have a veto in the UNSC, which means they can halt any kind of reform of the UNSC which is not in their interest. Losing a permanent seat without getting a clear benefit in return is definitely against their interest. Even if they were to retain control over foreign policy no nation would want to move from having sole control of a seat to having to negotiate with its partners which way it will vote. As such the UK and France would veto any such proposal.

The United Nations is an international organisation whose members are nation states, not other supranational organisations such as the European Union. “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states”[1] The European Union is however not a state and is unlikely to become one in the near future.

Recognising the European Union as a member would pose other problems as it would clash with article 9 of the UN charter “Each Member shall have not more than five representatives in the General Assembly.” And Article 18 “Each member of the General Assembly shall have one vote.”[2] As the European Union member would have 27 votes, and potentially well over 100 representatives in the General Assembly. The European Union is at present an observer[3] and that is how it should remain.

[1] United Nations, 1945, Article 4, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml

[2] United Nations, 1945, Article 9, 18, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml

[3] The Telegraph, 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8490946/EU-wins-super-observer-status-at-UN.htm

improve this

The European Union has already been gaining power at the United Nations. The European Union gained what could be considered super-observer status in May 2011. Van Rompuy will be able to address the United Nations as the heads of other states can and the EU also has the right to speak, the right to make proposals and submit amendments, the right of reply, the right to raise points of order and the right to circulate documents. Europe will be represented by the High Representative and the EEAS.[1]

[1] Phillips, 2011, http://euobserver.com/24/32262

improve this

Current UN Security Council members will never give up their seats. As well as Britain and France Russia could equally be considered to be no longer worthy of being a member of the UNSC. Russia’s economy is significantly smaller than either of the other European members. However no one seriously thinks Russia will give up its seat. Instead the United Nations Security Council will have to be expanded to make it more representative. This will mean bringing in Brazil, India and an African representative. There is precedence for expanding the council as Article 23 of the charter was amended in 1963 to enlarge the security council membership from eleven to fifteen.[1]

[1] United Nations, 1945, Introductory Note, http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml

Even if other countries such as Russia are unwilling to give up their own seats Britain and France have an alternative in the form of joint European Union membership. Both countries are therefore much more likely to agree to lose their seats than Russia would be.

improve this

The member states of the European Union haven’t harmonized their foreign policies so far simply because they have vastly divergent interests in the arena of global power politics. The interests of Germany vis-a-vis Russia are a world apart from France and the UK’s interests, let alone Poland’s. For example in the brief war between Georgia and Russia in 2008 France, Germany and Italy tried to avoid confrontation with Russia while Eastern Europe and Britain demanded a much tougher stance with sanctions.[1] And France and the UK famously took very different positions over the Iraq War, while their different experiences of empire and decolonisation give them a wider international perspective than most other EU states. Handing the EU a single seat does nothing to change those interests, and thus would actually harm every member state’s individual foreign policy interest, instead of furthering it.

[1] Waterfield, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2661144/Gordon-Brown-heads-for-clash-over-Russia-at-EU-summit.html

Until now, the member states of the European Union have never been able to coordinate their foreign policies effectively. This has led to divided positions amongst member states, for example towards Russia, China and other global players, allowing them to play a ‘divide-and-rule’-strategy against European interests. Giving the EU a single seat would give the Member States a clear incentive to harmonize their policies: a coordinated policy can then be expected to actually take effect, instead of it being a supplement to domestic foreign policy. Interests are guided by who decides what the interests are. With a unified voice from a unified external action service and President Europe will be able to define what the interests of the Union as a whole are.

improve this

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. Africa with no obvious leader could be the most difficult to resolve, already there are six countries which say they would want to be Africa’s permanent member; Senegal, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt and Libya.[1] These disputes may in the end lead to a much enlarged permanent membership, so if the EU did taken over the UK and France’s seats, there would be a much greater likelihood that European interests will be outvoted on the Security Council.

[1] Okumu, 2005, http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_10251.html

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. In such a reformed UN it is much harder to justify permanent places for the UK and France alone, two essentially similar western European countries. They should instead agree to be represented through an EU seat as part of an overhaul of the whole international system.

improve this

While the in number of EU members in the Security Council is obviously beneficial to the EU and its members the influence of the European Union is also beneficial to the UN system as a whole. European powers that are enthusiastic internationalists and proponents of international organisations act as a counterweight to other powers that still act like great nationalist powers from the 19^thCentury such as Russia and China.[1] They are therefore enthusiastic about working through the UN rather than acting unilaterally. The European Union’s international goals also dovetail well with the United Nations on a whole range of issues; development, peacekeeping, human rights, the environment, humanitarian aid and culture are all areas where there is a lot of cooperation; this means that the European Union is often acting in the interest of the United Nations.[2] This interest can obviously be best served by the European Union having more seats rather than only one.

[1] Ojanen, 2006, p5, http://www.fiia.fi/fi/publication/68/the_eu_and_the_un/

[2] Ibid, p.10, 36

The European States are obviously going to benefit from having large numbers of their members on the UN Security Council, and the United Nations itself is not harmed by it this overrepresentation comes at the expense of other regions. No other regions are so closely integrated – so countries in them don’t have allies who they can rely on in the Council, and some of which don’t have any members who have veto power. When compared to Europe that is not only integrated enough that the European States will most of the time take a common line and protect each other but who also have two states that can wield a veto the situation is grossly unfair.

improve this