UN Security Council Reform in 2012 - looking ahead as far as 2050 (2010 edition)

[Furunculus]

It has been exactly two years since there was last a debate on the future of the UN Security Council, and that arrived at little consensus possibly because i saturated the possible voting options thus leaving the result too dilute for conclusions.

With that in mind, as well as a recent paper from the Carengie Endowment Fund exploring what the world will look like in 2050, I have decided to have another crack at the debate to see if positions have changed in the year gone or whether a more focused poll will produce more definite conclusions.

** Please be aware before you vote that this is predicated on the idea of SC reform/replacement/sidelining happening being discussed in 2012 and implemented before 2020. It is not going to happen tomorrow, so when you're voting in the poll be aware of the balance of power 10 years from now and consider how it will evolve over the next 40. **

Poll question: What do you think is the most likely outcome for a revised SC role in the 21st century?

Sub Q #1: Will the result you predict in the poll be the one you would like to see occur (please explain)?

Sub Q #2: What methodology do you think appropriate to determine who wields influence as per the SC?

Sub Q #3: If you don't like the idea of a SC, how will the world deal with future conflict between actors?

The one thing we can be sure of is that the status quo will not go on, so that will not be an option in the poll.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/?fa=view&id=40648

The World Order in 2050
Uri Dadush, Bennett Stancil Policy Outlook, April 2010

The rise of China, India, and other emerging markets has been anticipated for years by numerous economists, and the recent global recession has only accelerated this trend. New projections for economic growth through 2050 offer insight into the implications of this changing economic landscape.
Key Conclusions

* The world’s economic balance of power is shifting rapidly. China remains on a path to overtake the United States as the world’s largest economic power within a generation, and India will join both as a global leader by mid-century.

* Traditional Western powers will remain the wealthiest nations in terms of per capita income, but will be overtaken as the predominant world economies by much poorer countries. Given the sheer magnitude of the challenge of lower-wage competition, protectionist pressures in advanced economies may escalate.

* The global economic transformation will shift international relations in unpredictable ways. To retain their historic influence, European nations will be pressed to conduct foreign policy jointly—an objective implied by their recently ratified constitution—and will need to reach out to emerging powers. Japan and Russia will seek new frameworks of alliances. The largest emerging nations may come to see each other as rivals.

* Absolute poverty will be confined to small pockets in sub-Saharan Africa and India, though relative poverty will persist, and may even become more acute. Carbon emissions are also on a path toward climate catastrophe, and by mid-century may constitute a serious risk to the global growth forecast.

* International organizations such as the IMF will be compelled to reform their governance structures to become more representative of the new economic landscape. Those that fail to do so will become marginalized.


One metric that could be used: economic power - modified dependent on: how many rankings change when contrasted with PPP (*)

Economic Power GDP + PPP (millions) by 2050
1 = China - (24 + 12 + 3) = [39] ($45,643) ($72,784)
2 = US - (22 + 11 + 3) = [36] ($38,646) ($38646)
3 = India - (20 + 10 + 3) = [33] ($17,750) ($37,604)
4 = Brasil - (16 + 9 + 4) = [29] ($6,203) ($9,654)
5 = Mexico - (14 + 8 + 4) = [26] ($5,541) ($7,403)
6 = Japan - (18 + 5 + 1) = [24] ($6,216) ($5,903)
7 = Russia - (06 + 7 + 5) = [18] ($4,292) ($7,392)
8 = UK - (12 + 4 + 1) = [17] ($4,997) ($4,665)
9 = Indon - (02 + 6 + 5) = [13] ($3,348) ($6,468)
10 = Germany - (10 + 1 + 1) = [12] ($4,535) ($4,584)
11 = France - (08 + 1 + 1) = [10] ($4,528) ($4,476)
12 = Turkey - (04 + 2 + 3) = [09] ($3,436) ($4,478)
13 = Canada - (00 + 0 + 3) = [03] ($3,154) ($3,380)
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=24195 (0 to 24)

|-(*)-----------------|-
|- 5 - 2 ranks up----|-
|- 4 - 1 rank up-----|-
|- 3 - 0 change-----|-
|- 2 - 1 rank down--|-
|- 1 - 2 ranks down-|-
-------------------------------------------

[rory_20_uk]

In essence: do we kill it by flooding it with members, make it schizophrenic with switches or make it irrelevant by leaving out the big guns?

All the big players already use it when it suits them and ignore it otherwise. Rising stars will do the same, or buy vetoes when required (e.g. Israel / America).

"Reform" will be based on horse trading and leveraging in allies than based on anything as sensible as a measure of power.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

we we be better off without one?

at a time a rapidly changing power structures in a new multi-polar world......

[Beskar]

Would be interesting to see one based on population, but that would make China the largest power by far.

[spmetla]

I think what I picked #3 is the most likely to occur aside from Mexico being there and the EU instead of France and the UK separately.

I'd prefer that it be by GDP, ability to send expeditionary forces (the SC members would also be the enforcers ), as well as be a country that allows at least elections for the head of the government (in order to let the UK keep a seat) with free open, multi-party elections (I'd hope that by 2050 the PRC meets that requirement).

Once again I can't really see France or the UK giving up their seats to a EU power. The UK for reasons of past greatness and idea that they like being not entirely hemmed into the EU. As for France, I couldn't imagine it giving up it's seat to an EU that could very well be dominated by the Germans.

China is the only sitting permanent member that would want power by population so I doubt the others would give in to that.

[Furunculus]

I think what I picked #3 is the most likely to occur aside from Mexico being there and the EU instead of France and the UK separately.

I'd prefer that it be by GDP, ability to send expeditionary forces (the SC members would also be the enforcers ), as well as be a country that allows at least elections for the head of the government (in order to let the UK keep a seat) with free open, multi-party elections (I'd hope that by 2050 the PRC meets that requirement).

Once again I can't really see France or the UK giving up their seats to a EU power. The UK for reasons of past greatness and idea that they like being not entirely hemmed into the EU. As for France, I couldn't imagine it giving up it's seat to an EU that could very well be dominated by the Germans.

China is the only sitting permanent member that would want power by population so I doubt the others would give in to that.

oddly enough, looking at those Caregie projections I find it less and less likely that the UK will have to give up its seat for the following reasons:
1. the UNSC is going to expand from five, probably to nine at a minimum
2. the UK will still have the 7th largest economy in GDP terms
3. the UK will have the 9th largest economy in GDP (PPP) terms
4. the UK will have the largest economy in the EU by 2030
5. the UK will have the largest population in the UK in a similar timeframe (turkey withstanding)

my guess is biggest nine or the rotation idea of the fourth option.

I also agree that expeditionary forces are going to weigh very heavily in the deliberations, and the second most capable expeditionary force in the world is, and i likely to remain, the UK.

[Beskar]

5. the UK will have the largest population in the UK in a similar timeframe (turkey withstanding)


Looks like the UK solved its immigration problems then.

[Furunculus]

it is partly german decline that will cause this.

france will also become as large an economy as germany over a similar timeframe, and again for demographic reasons.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Furunculus, Beskar isn't being serious. You might want to review what you wrote there. <_<

[Furunculus]

Furunculus, Beskar isn't being serious. You might want to review what you wrote there. <_<

i know, but i chose to give a serious reply to the implied question.

[Beskar]

What would be interesting is a "what would you like the world map to look wise politically in 2050", which is slightly related into this.

[Furunculus]

that is one of the questions above, feel free to comment......... :)

[Jolt]

The rotation option isn't really feasable at all, especially given the circumstances that countries which already have a permanent seat will not cede that right (Arguably the most important International leverage any one country can have) in a lifetime.

EU with an independent seat too is also sadly unfeasable until we have a closer integration.

That leaves options 1 and 5. And I don't see 4 European countries in the Security Council, plus Indonesia. So, of all available, I'll go with Option 1.

[Furunculus]

there is a certain symmetry to #1; three from the america, three from europe, and three from asia.

[Jolt]

I would also phreaps give permanent observer status to the EU. They can intervene in SC discussions, but otherwise cannot vote, veto, or have any assorted powers, derived from a SC seat; Being there just to directly give the official EU view on matters and negotiate on behalf of the EU.

[Furunculus]

hmmm, interesting idea, i could see it being extended to the African Union too.

[Beskar]

Smartest idea Jolt has ever came up with, I like it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don´t think anybody is really missing from the SC for the next two decades, with the exception of India.

The problem with expanded permanent SC seats is more vetoes. What the SC will gain in legitimacy, it loses in functionality. A possible change could be for France and the UK to give up their seats for a single EU one, and leave the fifth to India. This will create a problem for Russia, which will then be the lowest in rank, and other regional powers like Turkey, Brazil, Japan, will claim equal position to Russia.


In fifty years time, Uganda will be more populous than Russia or Japan. East and West Pakistan more populous than North America. Ethiopia alone larger than the UK, France, Italy and Germany combined. Tiny Haiti more populous than the whole of Scandinavia. These stunning demographic developments notwithstanding, power will likely have shifted to East Asia. How all this translates into the structure of multinational organisations, I´m not sure.


I think the way forward lies in more multilateralism, as happened with the change from G8 to G20. The SC is a cumbersome relic from the Cold War anyway.

[Jolt]

Smartest idea Jolt has ever came up with.

Hm? Why are you even insulting me?

[Beskar]

Hm? Why are you even insulting me?

It wasn't an insult. I was saying I liked your point.

We should think about moving the UN headquarters anyway, perhaps Guevara again, or even the UN has its own island/landmass some where.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I didn't care for any of the choices. I would like to see EU, US, China, Russia, Brazil. And I want the SC to work as the Supreme Court. If 3 like a decision and 2 don't, it still gets passed.

EDIT: Shoot, I forgot to add India and Indonesia as well. Keep the number odd.

[Furunculus]

I don´t think anybody is really missing from the SC for the next two decades, with the exception of India.

The problem with expanded permanent SC seats is more vetoes. What the SC will gain in legitimacy, it loses in functionality. A possible change could be for France and the UK to give up their seats for a single EU one, and leave the fifth to India. This will create a problem for Russia, which will then be the lowest in rank, and other regional powers like Turkey, Brazil, Japan, will claim equal position to Russia.


In fifty years time, Uganda will be more populous than Russia or Japan. East and West Pakistan more populous than North America. Ethiopia alone larger than the UK, France, Italy and Germany combined. Tiny Haiti more populous than the whole of Scandinavia. These stunning demographic developments notwithstanding, power will likely have shifted to East Asia. How all this translates into the structure of multinational organisations, I´m not sure.


I think the way forward lies in more multilateralism, as happened with the change from G8 to G20. The SC is a cumbersome relic from the Cold War anyway.
Interestingly by 2050 Nigeria will have a bigger economy than some G20 nations according to the full pdf paper of the Carnegie report.

[Jolt]

It wasn't an insult. I was saying I liked your point.

Stating that that idea was the smartest thing I ever came up with implies that I don't come up with anything smart at any time, which gives the idea that you are in fact, calling me dumb, and I resent that. There is a world of difference between your post and the post of Furunculus. In the future, if you are to like my smartest things I come up with (Which are a great many, fortunately), sticking to liking and/or debating my idea is good enough.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Beskar:

You should have phrased it better. Remember, the actual impact of your utterances are beyond your control as they occur in the mind of your listener. Any possible source of misinterpretation may lead to a poor result.

[Beskar]

My apologies on my wording, the offense was unintended. :bow:

[rory_20_uk]

Stating that that idea was the smartest thing I ever came up with implies that I don't come up with anything smart at any time, which gives the idea that you are in fact, calling me dumb, and I resent that. There is a world of difference between your post and the post of Furunculus. In the future, if you are to like my smartest things I come up with (Which are a great many, fortunately), sticking to liking and/or debating my idea is good enough.

I disagree. "Smartest thing ever" implies that you generally come up with smart things, thus the need for a superlative. If he said "!the first smart thing" that would indeed indicate that it was the only smart thing and ergo everything else was dumb.

Ironically the misunderstanding appears to undermine your argument of being smart... ~;)

~:smoking:

[Jolt]

My apologies on my wording, the offense was unintended. :bow:

Apologies accepted. :bow:

[Megas Methuselah]

Damnit Jolt, thanks for shifting the discussion.

[Jolt]

Damnit Jolt, thanks for shifting the discussion.

So, do you think Canada will gain significant economical, political and/or military power and leverage to make it to the SC?

[rory_20_uk]

Nope. I think they're happy enough not bothering with the political grandstanding other countries get up to - and the related costs with doing so.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

So, do you think Canada will gain significant economical, political and/or military power and leverage to make it to the SC?

by 2050 canada will be the 13th biggest G20 economy in nominal terms.............

[gaelic cowboy]

Depends on how much Canadians want it I suppose, SC also means responsibility as well as goodies


One other thing will the SC be even around or relevant by 2050 especially when we have people advancing G20/G8/G3/G2 etc etc. G2 or G20 is the biggest threat to SC in my view as the SC grows it may become deadlocked more and more.

[Furunculus]

they are too far out of the running IMO.

[gaelic cowboy]

they are too far out of the running IMO.

Who canada?? yes I would agree there

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The veto makes the whole thing rather pointless.

[gaelic cowboy]

The veto makes the whole thing rather pointless.

Well it does and it doesn't USA acted without to much bother for IRAQ etc but it would get annoying every time you wanted to do summit.

The G (insert favoured number) meeting's have a bonus in that most of it is behind closed doors I expect more and more it will be the favoured forum between the Great Powers

[Vladimir]

I suppose once the group reaches a sufficient number (and wields greater military and economic power) it will become a majority vote over a single veto. It not, then the single veto will be the cause of it's failure. The reason why we acted alone is because we could. Might still makes right no matter how we like to make it sound otherwise.

[Furunculus]

I quite like the idea of a two-thirds majority (6 of 9) votes in favour equalling a mandate, unless all three of the remainder vote no (rather than abstain).

[spmetla]

I quite like the idea of a two-thirds majority (6 of 9) votes in favour equalling a mandate, unless all three of the remainder vote no (rather than abstain).

I'd like this as well, the magic veto is a bit stupid, would make the rotating positions actually relavant.

[rory_20_uk]

Realistically, if this had been the case when the USA and allies wanted to get a blessing on attacking Iraq and had failed to get it, I doubt that the result would have been any different.

If the UN had then passed a motion to help Iraq - what then? Any volunteers to get wiped out by the Americans? It's bad enough being their allies!

The UN is only there to give moral superiority to whichever country is being attacked by the major power. Those being attacked will get the same limp "support", a few speeches to decry the action, and that's about it unless countries want to help unilaterally.

~:smoking: