A recent state visit by US Preisdent Barack Obama to India, where he endorsed India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN security council, has once again raised the issue of expansion in the world's foremost peace-keeping institution. The proposed expansion or reorganisation is serious business. Despite the lampooning it has received as a result of it's recent lack of progress on halting Iran's rouge nuclear ambitions, nothing has the power to cause a diplomatic stir at the highest levels quite like the prospect of losing or gaining a seat on the security council. There are several important points at issue here including the current state of the council, how it should look ideally and what states should fill it's seats.
First how it currently looks. The security council has 15 seats, 5 are permanent, 10 other members are elected by the General Assembly for 2 year terms. The members are chosen by regional blocs. The African bloc chooses 3 members; the Latin American and Caribbean, Asian, and Western European and Others blocs choose 2 members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses 1 member. Also, one of these members is always an "Arab country," alternately from the Asian or African bloc. The 5 permanent members are basically the winners of WWII, namely the US, Britain, France, Russia and China. Each of these permanent seat holders has a veto which they can use to block any substantial resolution from being passed.
Obviously this structure is outdated, but how should it change? The world has gotten more multi-polar in the last half a century, and certainly since the American dominated early 90s. To reflect this the number of permanent seats on the council should increase from 5 to 7. With more regional powers the body will have greater legitimacy. Overall however membership should stay capped at 15 so that the headaches caused by 2 extra vetoes are at least somewhat off-set by 2 less rotating members.
So how should the new seats be parcelled out? Firstly China, Russia and the US all deserve to keep their seats. These 3 countries represent 35% of global GDP and 26% of it's population. Doing business without them is simply not an option. France and Britain do not deserve a seat each, but the EU does deserve one. It is the world's largest economy by GDP and is increasingly learning to speak with one voice on the world stage. A shared security council seat will only further the cause of integration. That leaves 3 seats open in this scenario and one of those should go to India. The world's biggest democracy has it's failings, sprawling bureaucracy and a poor stewardship of Kashmir among them, but since it's liberation, and especially in recent years, it has taken strides in improving the lot of it's citizens, lifting millions out of poverty and into a new global middle class. Next up, Indonesia. This south-east Asian nation is significant enough to warrant a seat for several reasons. It's economy is thriving, it's politics are stable and it has the world's largest Muslim population so it's inclusion should draw approval from Middle-Eastern powers such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia while soothing Pakistani nerves, which are sure to be jangled at India's ascension to permanent member status.
So who deserves the last seat? Japan's name is often bandied about. A hardy global player for sure, Japan's economy has only just slipped into third place in the world after nearly 20 years in which it's growth never breached a 3% per year ceiling, and often performed far worse. Another factor that stands to it is that it is a western looking democracy in a region that could be of strategic importance in the coming years of regime change in North Korea. However, both these assets could be seen as liabilities. Resilience means nothing if Japan's economic decline is terminal, and the forecasts there do not bode well. It's western orientation also makes China more hostile to it's candidateship. Rather then fight China to give a waning power a seat on the council I would rather see the seat go to another rising star; Brazil. Without a doubt the poster child for South America, Brazil is a beacon of democracy and sensible market reform. New oil finds will augment it's importance on the world stage while big strides in pedology promise to turn the Cerrado into a regional bread basket.
This leaves the small but significant question of which blocs should lose regional voting powers. Since it is the only continent in this scenario without a super-power on the council, Africa deserves to keep all 3 of it's elected representatives. With it's diverse interests so poorly represented by Russia, Eastern Europe also deserves to keep it's rotating member. The Western European and Others bloc has suffered a set back in that it has one less permanent seat then before but a gain in that the one seat it still has is far more representative. That said it should retain both of it's two rotating seats as it represents countries as disparate as Canada, Israel and Australia. That leaves Asia and Latin America losing one seat each. I feel this is justified given the addition of Indonesia and Brazil to the permanent security council. As for the rule about one rotating member always being from an Arab state, I leave it to the talking shops of the UN and the Arab League to decide if such a rule is necessary once a Muslim country, and a Sunni Muslim country at that, has a permanent seat.
