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/pub...=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/pub...=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.

[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.