UN Security Council Reform

There have beens lots of rumblings and grumblings in the news over the last few years over reform of the Security Council, apparently because it does not reflect the realities of the 21st century.

With that in mind, I thought i'd find out what you lot believe the composition of the Security Council should be...................

Bear in mind:
a) This reform is never going to happen immediately, at best it will happen by 2010 and it would be foolish to project beyond 2030, so what we are looking for is a UN SC suitable for the period running 2010 to 2030.
b) The primary purpose of the SC is to credibly issue threat of attack in order to elicit compliance, in much the same way that a nation-states primary purpose is to credibly demonstrate an ability to defend. Therefore I don't believe membership of the Permanent/Veto-wielding Security Council should even be considered for nations that do not have the economic and military clout to rise above their peers, and that they should have a force structure that allows them to project power. It is no good have a million strong peasant army if they cannot credibly threaten military intervention on a non-contiguous nation.
c) It is desired by many that a new-look Security Council better reflect the Geographic Distribution of countries, cultures and peoples, rather than the euro-centric composition currently in vogue. However, this desire should not conflict with the above two points otherwise the Security Council will cease to be a credible body.

To that end I give you what I consider to be a reasonable framework upon which to weigh the relative merits of potential Security Council candidates:

Security Council membership should be considered on four premises by order of importance leading to a cumulative total.

(1) military power - modified dependent on: the expeditionary emphasis of armed forces (0 to 10)
(2) diplomatic influence - modified dependent on: total number of speakers (1 to 5) (*)
(3) economic power - modified dependent on: how many rankings change when contrasted with PPP (**)
(4) geographic/demographic - modified dependant HDI: ranking (1 to 5) (***)
(5) total - modified dependant on: nukes (+5) new region representative (+5)

(1) - Military Expenditure + Manpower
1 = US - (20 + 9 + 10 = 39) = [39] ($532,800,000,000)
2 = UK - (18 + 1 + 8 = 27) = [27] ($66,500,000,000)
3 = France - (16 + 3 + 6 = 25) = [25] ($64,611,000,000)
4 = China - (10 + 10 + 2 = 22) = [22] ($45,500,000,000)
5 = Japan - (12 + 2 + 4 = 18) = [18] ($46,000,000,000)
6 = Germany - (14 + 4 + 0 = 18) = [18] ($57,500,000,000)
7 = Russia - (08 + 7 + 2 = 17) = [17] ($32,400,000,000)
8 = India - (06 + 8 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($21,330,000,000)
9 = Aust - (04 + 0 + 4 = 8) = [08] ($15,700,000,000)
10 = Brasil - (02 + 5 + 0 = 7) = [07] ($10,233,000,000)
11 = Indon - (00 + 6 + 0 = 6) = [06] ($01,300,000,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._active_troops (0 to 10)

(2) - Diplomatic Influence (subjective)
1 = US - (20 + 5 = 25) = [25]
2 = China - (18 + 5 = 23) = [23]
3 = UK - (16 + 5 = 21) = [21]
4 = France - (14 + 3 = 17) = [17]
5 = Japan - (12 + 1 = 13) = [13]
6 = Russia - (10 + 2 = 12) = [12]
7 = Germany - (08 + 1 = 9) = [09]
8 = Aust - (06 + 5 = 11) = [11]
9 = India - (04 + 5 = 9) = [09]
10 = Brasil - (02 + 2 = 4) = [04]
11 = Indon - (00 + 2 = 2) = [02]
Diplomatic Influence (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ative_speakers (0 to 5)

(3) - Economic Power GDP + PPP (millions)
1 = US - (20 + 10 + 3 = 33) = [33] ($13,244,550)
2 = Japan - (18 + 8 + 2 = 28) = [28] ($4,367,459)
3 = China - (14 + 9 + 5 = 28) = [28] ($2,630,113)
4 = Germany - (16 + 6 + 1 = 23) = [23] ($2,897,032)
5 = UK - (12 + 5 + 2 = 19) = [19] ($2,373,685)
6 = France - (10 + 4 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($2,231,631)
7 = India - (04 + 7 + 5 = 12) = [16] ($886,867)
8 = Brasil - (08 + 3 + 4 = 13) = [15] ($1,067,706)
9 = Russia - (06 + 2 + 4 = 10) = [12] ($979,048)
10 = Indon - (00 + 1 + 5 = 5) = [05] ($364,239)
11 = Aust - (02 + 0 + 2 = 4) = [04] ($754,816)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_(nominal) (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_GDP_(PPP) (0 to 10)

(4) - Demographic + Geographic
1 = US - (16 + 9 + 5 = 30) = [30] (301,950,000)
2 = China - (20 + 5 + 2 = 27) = [27] (1,321,000,000)
3 = Russia - (10 + 10 + 2 = 24) = [24] (141,400,000)
4 = India - (18 + 4 + 1 = 23) = [23] (1,129,000,000)
5 = Brasil - (12 + 7 + 2 = 21) = [21] (186,500,000)
6 = Japan - (08 + 3 + 5 = 16) = [16] (127,720,000)
7 = France - (04 + 6 + 5 = 15) = [15] (64,102,140)
8 = Indon - (14 + 0 + 1 = 15) = [15] (234,950,000)
9 = Aust - (00 + 8 + 5 = 13) = [13] (20,830,000)
10 = Germany - (06 + 1 + 5 = 14) =[12] (82,310,000)
11 = UK - (02 + 2 + 5 = 9) = [09] (60,609,153)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone (table inc onshore territory) (0 to 10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...elopment_Index (1 to 5)

(5) - Total -
1 = US - (127 + 5 + 0 = 132)..........=.........[132]
2 = China - (100 + 5 + 0 = 105)......=........ [105]
3 = UK - (76 + 5 + 0 = 81).............=........[081]
4 = France - (73 + 5 + 0 = 78)........=........[078]
5 = Japan - (75 + 0 + 0 = 75).........=.........[075]
6 = India - (64 + 5 + 5 = 74)..........=.........[074]
7 = Russia - (65 + 5 + 0 = 70)........=.........[070]
8 = Germany - (62 + 0 + 0 = 62).....=.........[062]
9 = Brasil - (50 + 0 + 5 = 55)..........=.........[055]
10 = Aust - (36 + 0 + 5 = 41).........=.........[041]
11 = Indon - (28 + 0 + 5 = 33)........=.........[033]
-------------------------------------------------------
Appendix -
(*)--------------|-(**)--------------|-(***)--------------
5 - 800m - plus -|- 5 - 2 ranks up----|- 5 - 0.90 plus
4 - 600m - 800m-|- 4 - 1 rank up-----|- 4 - 0.85 to 0.90
3 - 400m - 600m-|- 3 - 0 change-----|- 3 - 0.80 to 0.85
2 - 200m - 400m-|- 2 - 1 rank down--|- 2 - 0.75 to 0.80
1 - 000m - 200m-|- 1 - 2 ranks down-|- 1 - 0.00 to 0.75
--------------------------------------------------------

Just because i haven't listed a certain nation above that you favour for candidacy does not mean it should not be proposed, please do so. :beam:

Just because i have given a nation listed above a certain ranking in some attribute does not mean it is necessarily correct, please argue you case. :whip:

Let the games begin.

I am going to follow my figures and say:

US/UK/Fr/Ch/In/Jp/Ru

The US will remain a superpower (if not a hyper-power) till beyond 2030.
The UK will remain a top-ten economy & top-five interventionist military till beyond 2030.
France will remain a top-ten economy & top-five interventionist military till beyond 2030.
China is vast in population, economy, and future military.
India is vast in population, and will be vast in economy and military.
Japan will remain a top-five economy, and a top-five military with a new constitution to boot.
Russia will, despite a shrinking population, have lots of Gas until 2030, and boat-loads of nukes along with a bad attitude, they ain't leaving without a fight.

-------------------------------------------------------

as for:

SA/Indonesia/Brazil/Australia

SA is just too small, too poor, and too incapable
Indonesia is too poor and too incapable
Brazil is a near miss, it could be a credible addition, but India and Japan are stronger.
Australia has a growing interventionist capability, but is too small in economy and population

------------------------------------------------------

In short, i don't think the idea of geographic representation is a valid way to structure the Security Council within the next 25 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

I am going to follow my figures and say:

US/UK/Fr/Ch/In/Jp/Ru

---

Add Germany, and I'd agree.

India, Japan, Brazil + US, UK, Fr, Ch, Ru

Sadly there wasnt the option of "disband", this choice seemed to me to be a more global representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Add Germany, and I'd agree.

---

Germany sadly has no ability to project power, and in all reality there will be no more euro nations added, the best that might occur in that direction is an EU SC vote.

i personally don't believe it has a lot of diplomatic clout either. nor too is it exceptional in its geography or demographics.

:beam:

Abolish the Veto .

Have Obama state in a campaign speech that Quebec and Scotland should be added.

Where is the "abolish the UN entirely" option? Or atleast give us a "gah"...:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Abolish the Veto .

---

you would still need some kind of Security Council tho surely, veto or not?

I dislike not having the gah option....

I think that the NAFTA option was unusual to say the least. It may not last, but it does represent a significant block. I wish India was added to that option.

I also protest the exclusion of
Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Abolish the Veto .

---

What would that achieve except to make the UN more like the Leauge of Nations?

The UN is a big enough talking shop as it is.


The idea in the OP seems pretty unworkable, military expenditure for example, does not equate miitary effectivness or power projection capabilities.

And more philosophically speaking if trying to measure fairness/equity in a collective security agency such as the UN, it hardly seems appropriate to have military clout as a deciding factor.

would it be a good idea to restart with a better described poll?

The poll is fine. You could never include every possible option of everybody, so just leave it as is and let others have their say in the thread if they have any diverging ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MM

I also protest the exclusion of
Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland.

---

Well if you swap Liechtenstein for Luxembourg I will join you in your protest. And then we need to bring in Scotland and Québec too. And Belgium. Everybody likes Belgium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Abolish the Veto .

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The poll is fine. You could never include every possible option of everybody, so just leave it as is and let others have their say in the thread if they have any diverging ideas.

Well if you swap Liechtenstein for Luxembourg I will join you in your protest. And then we need to bring in Scotland and Québec too. And Belgium. Everybody likes Belgium.

---

fair enough.

and your thoughts on the matter?

I'm all for abolishing the veto, I don't mind the members that always remain there but the vetos are the things that prevent things from happening. If France, Russia, and China hadn't been able to threaten a veto in 2002/03 over the Iraq issue I feel that the US would have actually put the issue up to vote. Saddam would probably not have counted on a veto protecting him and not assumed that Bush was bluffing invasion and trying to call it as that.

Same bit with Israel, the US could still give Israel the support it wants but couldn't veto every motion against Israel.

I don't think this would make the UN as impotent as the League of Nations, not having veto powers does not mean that nations will just ignore the resolutions passed by the UN.

the veto does force the SC to be unanimous however, thus a decision by the SC carries real weight as it it the combined will of the most powerful nations on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

the veto does force the SC to be unanimous however, thus a decision by the SC carries real weight as it it the combined will of the most powerful nations on earth.

---

Fair point - however, coming to decisions is difficult enough currently. Add 2-3 more nations (nations that would add a lot more diversity of interests to the SC) and coming to any decisions will be next to impossible if the current veto system isn't changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And Belgium. Everybody likes Belgium.

---

*is offended by this statement*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Fair point - however, coming to decisions is difficult enough currently. Add 2-3 more nations (nations that would add a lot more diversity of interests to the SC) and coming to any decisions will be next to impossible if the current veto system isn't changed.

---

i accept that.

the Sc is going to get bigger, and thus the veto will get more unwieldy.

it would have to be more than just simple majority, or the SC would appear to lack authority. i.e. if there were seven members then a majority of 5 would be required at a minimum.

I'm not that much interested which nation(s) will be dominant as superpower(s) -- though it's important -- but more interested in who's pulling the strings behind the scenes at the highest level to influence the globe. Everything in this world is a tool, and a country can be used as such.

i think the bilderburg group is a bit beyond the scope of this debate. :beam:

BOT -

I am totally in favour of India joining the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

*is offended by this statement*

---

Shall we start an anti-Belgianism thread then? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu

and your thoughts on the matter?

---

That I agreed that Andorra, Monaco, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Québec and Belgium should join. Don't know why, I can't quite put my finger on it...

More seriously, I can imagine India and Japan joining. But this would be seen as enlarging the anti-China bloc.

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

---

That I would like... but I think the consequences would be dire. Sure the Democratic UN would get things done and possibly even for the greater good. But imagine it in the 1950's... instead of the UN being a place to diffuse the Bay of Pigs, the Democratic UN would have not been a favourable venue for the Ruskies and the chance of the cold war getting very hot would be increased.

=][=

What if the nations had power in the UN as per the power they give the people in their nations... the democratic nations should get a vote like their people... and the non-democratic ones the vetos as they veto their people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

More seriously, I can imagine India and Japan joining. But this would be seen as enlarging the anti-China bloc.

---

India must be included in a new SC. They are the 2nd largest nation in the world, and they sit next to China, the first largest. India will be very powerful once it gets it's organized. A country with the voice of a billion people deserves to be heard on the SC.

Japan is an isolationist which can't even use it's military on foriegn soil in a warzone. Lacking any bite to their bark they shouldnt be on the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

---

Any SC without China is doomed to fail the UN's original intent. The UN was created to keep peace among the giants of the world, regardless of their currently government type. Secluding all those who are not democracies means destroying most chances of having stable peace. We have gone an amazing 62 years without a major conflict between world powers, hopefully we'll have 62 more. But secluding China is not the way.


As for the Vote, I went with India+ US, China, UK, Fr, Rus. Though the UK and Russia are debatable. I dont see how the EU could be on the SC. They are an economic pac, a weak confederacy at best, not a Nation, yet. Maybe one day the EU will develop into a country but until then they shouldnt, couldnt, wont be on the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

India must be included in a new SC. They are the 2nd largest nation in the world, and they sit next to China, the first largest. India will be very powerful once it gets it's organized. A country with the voice of a billion people deserves to be heard on the SC.

Japan is an isolationist which can't even use it's military on foriegn soil in a warzone. Lacking any bark to their bite they shouldnt be on the SC.



Any SC without China is doomed to fail the UN's original intent. The UN was created to keep peace among the giants of the world, regardless of their currently government type. Secluding all those who are not democracies means destroying most chances of having stable peace. We have gone an amazing 62 years without a major conflict between world powers, hopefully we'll have 62 more. But secluding China is not the way.


As for the Vote, I went with India+ US, China, UK, Fr, Rus. Though the UK and Russia are debatable. I dont see how the EU could be on the SC. They are an economic pac, a weak confederacy at best, not a Nation, yet. Maybe one day the EU will develop into a country but until then they shouldnt, couldnt, wont be on the SC.

---

in what manner is France more qualified for SC membership than the UK?

I agree that the EU should never be given a SC seat and veto.

I also agree that there is no option but for less representaive nations such as russia, and particularly china, from keeping their SC seats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

---

but remember we are talking about 2010, not some far off aspiration for the 22nd century.

you turn around and tell russia and china that they are being stripped off their SC votes in two years time, and you will witness the nukes start flying two hours after you finished speaking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

---

Not sure where I stand on this...this view does come with the assumption that democracy is somehow better than other forms of government, which is subjective at best.

Besides, pragmatically speaking, democracy isnt going to be a major factor in high level inter-state interaction...the British gov ignoring the UN (and the british people to a certain extent) and invading Iraq anyway for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

i think the bilderburg group is a bit beyond the scope of this debate. :beam:

BOT -

I am totally in favour of India joining the SC.

---

:saint: