UN Security Council Should Be Expanded

Last updated: March 9, 2017

Should the UN Security Council be expanded?

UN Security Council Should Be Expanded
Yes because...

The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and G...

The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and Great Britain have clearly lost their position among the most powerful nations and their role was long ago taken over by Germany and Japan. These two countries are the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget and deserve a permanent seat in the Council. Moreover, as permanent members pay an extra share for their seat, Japan and Germany’s contributions would bring considerable amounts to the UN budget.
No because...
Giving Germany a permanent seat would hardly be a step forward in an endeavour for a more equitable distribution of seats in the Council. The UK and France hold a veto power over any amendments and aren’t willing to give up their seats, so adding Germany would mean that the EU would have three permanent seats in the Council. That wouldn’t be a fair geographical distribution. \
Neither Germany or Japan is as deserving as has been suggested; although both are rich they have been struggling economically for a decade while other countries (including the UK and France) have continued to grow. Compared to other nations, both Germany and Japan are military insignificant. This is important as the Permanent 5's status currently reflects great power realities - they are the countries most able to project power abroad and so have the ability to implement (or block) UN security decisions.\

UN Security Council Should Be Expanded
Yes because...

There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Counci...

There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of humankind that live in developing countries have only one spokesman among the permanent five. Giving Africa, Asia and Latin America a permanent seat is a step forward in North-South balance.
No because...
There is a lack of consensus among developing countries themselves on who should get permanent seats. Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa all claim their right to an African one. The most logical candidate for an Asian seat – India – is opposed by Muslim countries, who want a permanent seat for themselves. Spanish speaking neighbours oppose Brazil’s candidacy because it speaks Portuguese.

UN Security Council Should Be Expanded
Yes because...

A rise in UN membership should be reflected also in an increase in Security Council members. In 194...

A rise in UN membership should be reflected also in an increase in Security Council members. In 1945 there were only 51 UN members, so eleven Council members were adequately representing all voices. Today the UN membership has risen to almost four times the number of the original one, yet there are only fifteen voices in the Council. Important views of countries that are not represented in the Council are therefore neglected.
No because...
Non-permanent members are selected to represent voices of entire regions already. Increasing the size of the Council would only make it more unwieldy as it would be extremely difficult to negotiate in such an expanded forum. The nature of the Council’s work requires swift action and expansion could negatively impact on its ability to provide quick solutions for world peace.

UN Security Council Should Be Expanded
Yes because...

There should be no differentiation between old and new permanent members and the new ones should get...

There should be no differentiation between old and new permanent members and the new ones should get the veto power in order to preserve the interests of the regions they represent. Veto power is not as problematic with potential permanent members as it is with the current ones, as all the candidates are known for their multilateral approach and cooperation, while the same cannot be said for the current ones.
No because...
By giving five more countries veto power, the Council could come to a stalemate and practically no decisions of major importance could be accepted. The negotiation process would also be significantly delayed. The peace and security of the world could be endangered by this step.

UN Security Council Should Be Expanded
Yes because...

Security Council expansion would also make the UN much more democratic as there would be more partic...

Security Council expansion would also make the UN much more democratic as there would be more participants present in closed meetings and informal consultations. Expansion would increase the transparency of the Council.
No because...
Expansion is not the right way to increase transparency, as the number of informal consultations of smaller groups (such as permanent members or only industrialised permanent members) would probably rise. Reforms to enhance transparency and improve working methods are already taking place.

UN Security Council Should Be Expanded
Yes because...

By including more developing countries in the Security Council, more issues of their concern would g...

By including more developing countries in the Security Council, more issues of their concern would get on the Security Council’s agenda.
No because...
As the bulk of operations approved by the Security Council is financed by industrialised nations, they should have the main role in deciding on action. Developing countries already have a voice in the Council but should not have a veto power over decisions that they do not finance.


1
Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of