UN Security Council Reform: Is it Time?

The permanent membership of the UN Security Council--comprising China, France, Russian Federation, the UK, and the United States--has remained unchanged since 1945, triggering debate over whether it should be reformed to better reflect the world today. Stewart M. Patrick, senior fellow and director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations, outlines the debate and offers analysis of the promises and obstacles on the path to UNSC reform and expansion. Patrick says U.S. officials are "really ambivalent" on the question of Security Council enlargement despite President Obama's endorsement for India's and Japan's bids for permanent seats. This is in part because the United States is concerned whether the new members will adopt policies broadly consistent with U.S. worldview, he adds.

[iminfinity]

The biggest Reason for India to be in Security Council Permanent Membership is :

It's the highest contribute contributer peace keeping force for UN... And that's what UN wants, how much u can contribute... And India is doing it very proudly...

2nd... India is the 4th most powerful nation in the world, 3rd Richest Country in the world in terms of GDP (purchase power).... 7th wealthiest in terms for GDP (nominal)....

[烏梨師斂]

How about NO permanent members? A pure democracy

[globalvariable]

UN has failed India. India should pull the plug on its contribution to UN peacekeeping forces (India is single largest contributor country) and should use those forces for its own interests in Pakistan, China or Indian Ocean.

[solosunbeam]

This is pretty old, but there has been zero progress on this. I think a break up of the UK would bring their seat into question, despite England's heft in that union.
Permanent members should be required to make a minimum financial contribution or lose their veto rights. I see merit in the permanent members being divided more fairly by Geography.

[user__]

INDIA deserves a permanent seat at the UNSC

[rahulnamaste]

India has fought 4 wars with pakistan and one with china, all of which were initiated by them. India wants to live in peace. UN is not about gaining power and strength, its about how much you can contribute to world security and peace. and of-course as any permanent member of the un enjoys certain privileges, it is not because of that reason that india bids for permanent membership.

[derektosuccess]

According from my history teacher, the term permanent members were created because most of the major powers at that time were not interested in this idea "security council", but without their contribution, the UN would simply fail just like the league of nations. So they decided to give these major powers a special power, so that's how the permanent members came from.

[famalam]

Security council should increase to Germany, India, Brazil and Japan. Maybe Brazil if they fix their current corruption scandals

[rohitkhairnar]

ALl G4 Support Mutually Each Other...correct your statement

[zavani]

If 'push came to shove' in peacekeeping scenarios, any UN peacekeeping effort would potentially fall-back and rely on the U.S.A  for its unsurpassed logistics, that is, transportation and communicatons in over-the-horizon scenarios like in East Timor in 1999. This might explain USA reticence to reform the UNSC members to avoid its hand being forced to intervene with additional permanent UNSC with whom it has no kinship, that is, UN member-states without genuine and verifiable democratic tenets and institutions . My 2 centîmes worth.

[Herb]

I don't understand why Aftica is so dismissed. Nigeria and South Africa are regional powers who are more than capable of being permanent members of the security council.

[CyrusInIndia]

It's almost 2020 and yet nothing has happened.

[insectilluminatigetshrekt]

It should be Nicaragua, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Kiribati, and Mongolia.

[shyamamanidash]

well I would like to suggest, rather having 5 permanent veto holding states, let's have 7 veto holding states with a general house of 21 states.

well I would also like to enquire if you accept research interns under your guidance?

[robertpolityka]

Several concerns I have about UN Security Council Reform:

1. If a nation decides to become a Permanent Member, then will they be willing to engage in actions, or just authorize the use of force?

2. If the Council gets expanded, let's say to 21 members, why couldn't the six new members be given semi-permanent status. Give them four year terms, then let them take four years off the Council?

3. Why don't non-permanent members be allowed to serve two consecutive two-year terms? If it's part of the UN Charter or a by-law of the Rules of Meetings of the Council, shouldn't the UN allow a waiver to let a non-permanent member a second consecutive term, say with a two-thirds supermajority of the UN? There might be a nation whose Ambassador, from a "Third World" nation whose personal prestige makes him/her worthy of a second term? Who's integrity is unquestioned? Who is seen as both a representative of the nation and of the UN?

4. Why can't the veto be reformed to reduce the power and allow just three out of five members of the P5 to pass a resolution? They P5 would still have a major voice on the Council.

5. Shouldn't some of the reforms of the Security Council be placed into another UN organ, such as the Economic and Social Council? Why shouldn't nations such as Germany and Japan be granted permanent status on the Economic Council?

[bfhwhataboutthecavesdude]

Good points . But the most obvious reform needed is the abolition of veto power for P5 ...regardless how much you enlarge the council. Funny u didn't mention this . Not saying it would pass but important things need to be repeated often.

[karenmurphy]

Why not create something like United Asia and be one with it.

[kazjja]

I bet after recent sitiation regarding Russia's agression and it's ability to criple UNSC in general,  this video has gained absolutely different perspective..

[Bastipro]

I think you have really stressed the most important issues regarding a change in the existing structure of the UN SC. Nevertheless this discussion in my opinion focuses too much on historical arguments, such as China opposing Japan because of WWII or other states opposing Germany due to the same reason. The world community is in urgent need of a powerful executive organ, that is able to adopt legally binding resolutions quickly and is able to react to violations of international law with a certain intensity. On the other hand it is essential to include uprising powers into this process as otherwise a considerable part of the world's population would not consider the SC as a legitimate organ. At the end of the day the international community must face the facts and must in its struggle for a more peaceful world make compromises. The P5 have to be extended to ensure the legitimacy and the credibility of the SC as an executive organ for every citizen on this planet.

[derektosuccess]

First of all, there is a difference between economic colony and colony. India was a colony because it was formally under the jurisdiction of the British empire, china wasn't.
Second of all, the term of economic was really controversial, i can even argue that most of the nations now are economic colonies of US, since the US has exported its currency, its cultural or commonly known as the western culture through out the world. A typical example will be Japan?