UN Security Council Reform

[JR-]

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.

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.

Let the games begin.

[JR-]

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.

[Ice]

I am going to follow my figures and say:

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

Add Germany, and I'd agree.

[Odin]

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.

[JR-]

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.

[Tribesman]

Abolish the Veto .

[ShadeHonestus]

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

[JR-]

Abolish the Veto .

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

[lancelot]

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.

[Ice]

Abolish the Veto .

Agreed.

[KrooK]

LOl al lthese suggestions are joke.
There should be;


USA 1 vote
Russia 1 vote
France 0 votes
UK 1 vote
China 1 vote
India 1 vote
Brazil 1 vote
All of them without veto right..
Poland = 5 votes with veto right. :)