UNSC expansion

Fairness dictates more representation for Asia, Africa, and South America


January 28, 2021

As the debate over the expansion of the UN Security Council (UNSC) continues, Pakistan has again reminded the world of the risk of pushing through such a move without consensus. In its 75 years, the UNSC has never been truly representative, with no African or South American representation. The existing five permanent members — the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China — got their positions primarily because of the events of World War II. These were the five ‘main’ victors of the war. But the world has changed significantly since then. On the face of it, fairness dictates more representation for Asia, Africa, and South America. But any expansion would also have to consider the risk of further bogging down the good work the UN does. We already see many proposals shot down by the big five because they go against their interests.

Now imagine what would happen if the leading advocates — and candidates — for expansion were to get what they want. Brazil is a regional powerhouse and seems the likeliest candidate, but the South American country has a pending border dispute with Uruguay which is unlikely to be resolved if it gets outsized power from a permanent seat. And while Germany is one of the wealthiest and most influential countries in the world, it is also European. When including Russia, three of the five permanent members are already European. Then come Japan and India. We have already seen what happens when rivalries occur among UNSC members, notably from the US and Russia undercutting each other, to frequent efforts from the Western trio to gang up against the Chinese. Japan also has several direct disputes with China, and it is unlikely that the two would be on the same page on many issues. Then there is India, which is actively trying to force wars with Pakistan and China over border disputes.

A better approach — as long suggested by Italy, Pakistan, and several other countries — would be to increase the number of non-permanent members and increase their terms. This would help smaller nations make their voices heard while avoiding letting a fascistic government further hamstring the body.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 29th, 2021.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ