Rajesh Nambiar (June 2019)

My motivation to write on this topic is to tickle your minds on the nature of

Security Council Reforms for the UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL (UNSC).
ASSUMPTIONS
 The reader is conversant with the basic framework as exists in the UNSC today.
 The Era of a Bi-Polar world is no longer practical as even if two or more global powers emerge; nations of the world are
unlikely, in the foreseeable future, to be completely aligned with any such power.
 Security Council reforms though part of overall UN reforms, is being discussed in isolation.
 Reforms are considered essential due to the following:-
 Decline of Inter State Conflicts & complex nature of Intra State Conflicts.
 Greater inclusiveness required for all regions.
 New emerging world order (economically & otherwise).
 Increasing dominance of certain regional groupings like EU & AU.
 Shake off the legacy of the Post World War II ‘World Order’.
 Increased protectionism of the major powers (‘America First’ etc.).
 Dynamics of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) including instances of possible misuse to legitimise actions.
 Role of Regional Organisations, as mandated by the UN charter are handicapped by funding & appropriate
capacities, & while considered ‘Optimal’ by some has the tendency of bringing in ‘Regional Dimensions &
Interests’. This notwithstanding, the merits of regional intervention are well understood & appreciated.

The Debate on Nature of Members

 Why do we need Permanent Members?

o Utopian View. The powerful/ influential countries should remain at the helm
of decision making as it is they who form the fulcrum of the capacities
(economic, military etc.) &/or decisiveness required to maintain global peace.
o Realist View. The powerful nations will continue to retain a degree of control
(required to further their interests) &, the precedence having been established
in the aftermath of WWII, is now difficult to undo as those in permanency will
not cede it so easily.
o Pragmatic View. Since all nations are not equal in the capacities & influence
they exert every nation cannot (& practically not recommended) form part of
the Security Council. Therefore, more influential nations are required to
provide continuity, stability & capacity to decision making required for global
peace.
o Objective View. Permanent members will seek to use [abuse] the
responsibility thrust on them. Despite this, their presence & influence has, in
many cases, led to action/inaction (due to veto) alike & prevented conflict on
a global scale for about three quarters of a century.

 Have the Permanent Members Shouldered their Responsibility? In so far as

being instrumental in the decision making process, one would have to say yes. While
(other than where it served their interests directly), contributions by permanent
members in terms of tangible capacities on ground have been marginal, a look at the
top providers of assessed contributions1 to United Nations Peacekeeping operations for
1
https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/how-we-are-funded
 2

2018 as shown below makes it apparent that they have at least shouldered the financial
burden of such operations.

o United
States (28.47%).
o China (10.25%).
o Japan (9.68%).
o Germany (6.39%).
o France (6.28%).
o United
Kingdom (5.77%).
o Russian
Federation (3.99%).

 Are Permanent Members Essential? The obvious answer though being NO…
the UN system having been by & large a success, too much tinkering may be “trying to
fix what isn‟t essentially broken yet” & therefore, for the foreseeable future (till strong
multi-polarity emerges), the arrangement seems beneficial.

 Is there any Place for Union of States? Two strong Union of States exist today
& could be considered as being representative of their members as they have the
political & military capacity to be productive „collectively‟. These are the EU & AU. The
EU is a major bloc both economically & in terms of security capacity. However, the EU
has yet to demonstrate its willingness to act with authority without being part of the
larger NATO umbrella (where USA & UK (post BREXIT) are added). Therefore, at this
stage, I discount EU as an entity requiring separate consideration. Other organisations
barring ASEAN & AU are yet to prove effective within their regions. Therefore, as AFRICA
may not find adequate options for permanent representation in the UNSC at the moment
& since a large percentage of current conflicts involve Africa, AU may be considered to
be given an observer status.

 How Many Members? Any organisation to be truly effective should not be too
large. Further, the Security Council is just one of the organs of the United Nations.
Therefore, even with expansion, the Security Council should not exceed 25 members.
Based on an assessment of the
population, number of countries
represented, comprehensive
national power & geographical
size, I recommend each
2
Region be allocated
membership as given below:-
 Africa :6.
 Americas :5.
 Europe :5.
 Asia :7.
 Oceania :2.

2
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/
 3

NOMINAL GDP (IMF 2018)

Oceania North
2% America
28%

Asia
36%
South
America
5%

Africa
3%
Europe
26%

 Permanent & Non-Permanent Members. Permanent members make a real

difference in decision making. Therefore, while catering for expansion I would propose
the distribution of seats up to 2050 (next review) for permanent & non-permanent
members as tabulated as given below:-

Permanent
Recommended
Region Recommended Total
Existing Proposed Non-Permanent
Additions
Americas 1 2 Brazil 2 4
Africa 0 2 South Africa, Nigeria 4 6
Europe 3 4 Germany 2 6
Asia 1 4 India, Japan, Indonesia 3 7
Oceania 0 1 Australia 1 2
Total 5 13 12 25

Japan. A leading economy, Japan must currently be considered the forerunner from Asia. It has
demonstrated that the skeletons of World War II are far behind it.
Indonesia. Highest GDP & Population in South East Asia coupled with it being the most populous
Islamic country in the world make it an extremely good candidate.
India. Another obvious choice from Asia due to its projected economic growth, population, diplomatic
policies & non-aligned nature make it an excellent balancer.
Germany. An obvious choice from Europe & long overdue.
Brazil. Latin America’s biggest country & economy suit it to represent the region.
South Africa. A fore runner from Africa for the position; however, during research for this article I
must admit that I found some statistics not adding up. The influence of the country in continent can
however not be ignored & it is therefore recommended.
Nigeria. The traditional power house of Africa with good growth projections. In spite of internal
turmoil, the country remains an obvious choice.
Australia. The only serious candidate from Oceania.
 4

The Question of Veto

 Not addressing this question is ignoring the elephant in the room. The truth of the
matter is that Veto is no longer essential & if adequate representation to cover
major concerns is addressed, then it can be done away with. But will the P5 let go of
it? To think „Yes‟ would be to live in Utopia. Will all new permanent members be granted
individual „Veto‟ power? Highly unlikely (if granted… well then restructuring just became
simpler). Therefore, „Veto‟ in the current form is here to remain for now.

 Way Forward on the Veto Question. This is what I propose:-

o P5 retain their Veto till the next review (30 years i.e. 2050).
o 8 Additional permanent members proposed NOT to be inducted with
„Individual‟ Veto. However, collectively, should they obtain more than 2/3
consensus (6 of 8), a „Collective Veto’ be granted.
o Individual veto be done away with at next review & 2/3 majority vote be
adopted across the board.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

 New Organisation for the UNSC be introduced for 30 years (next review)… i.e. 2020-2050.
 Security Council membership to be increased from 15 to 25 Members.
 P 5 (USA, Russia, China, France & UK) retain Permanent Status & INDIVIDUAL VETO.
 Individual Veto be done away with in 2050 to give way to 2/3 majority vote.
 8 New Permanent Members be introduced.
 New Permanent Members have a ‘Collective Veto’ based on 2/3 majority vote (6/8).
 12 Temporary Members be increased from current 10.
 AU be given Observer Status till next review (2050).

Views expressed by the Author are his PERSONAL VIEWS