Permanent Security Council Seats?

What about India......?Permanent Security Council Seats? 

....................................

Should India, Japan, Brazil and Germany be Awarded Permanent Security Council Seats? 

thepacificperspectiveNovember 13, 2016Uncategorized

coucil

Established in the aftermath of the Second World War the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has stood as the primary international institution regarding solving and addressing international crisis. However, the outdated structure of the institution and it’s failure to represent the modern political environment has led many to speculate that the political legitimacy of the Security Council is in decline.  In particular, the Security Council’s  frequent paralyzation as a result of the conflicting partisan interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ member states (Russia, China, the US, the United Kingdom and France) – which each have the ability to veto any Security Council resolutions, has eroded international trust in the ability of the #SecurityCouncil to effectively and appropriately address international crisis.

p5

The permanent five members of the #UnitedNations Security Council and their respective territories.

While these conflicting interests were primarily predominant throughout the Cold War, the rise of China, and the resurgent nationalist tendencies of the Russian Federation have again exposed the vulnerability of the Security Council to internal diplomatic confrontations and dysfunction. Whilst the recent ascension of Donald Trump to the Presidency could well further aggravate the internal disunity within the Security Council. Additionally as previously elaborated upon, the failure of the UNSC to adapt in the face of an altering geopolitical environment has the potential to compromise the legitimacy of the Security Council as relative power gains within the international system erode both the status and prestige of the ‘Permanent Five’ within the international hierarchy of nations. This erosion of legitimacy is particularly concerning given the economic rise of India and Brazil, along with Germany’s increasingly prominent role as Europe’s hegemonic power and Japan’s monolithic economic power and strategic potential in terms of developing and expanding it’s defense capabilities.

 

arms

The Flags and Coats of Arms of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

 

In order to explore various means through which the United Nations Security Council might be reformed three potential policies are discussed throughout the remainder of this article. With these three reformation policies being assessed on the basis of the ability to fulfill the following criteria: 

The proposed reformation must be balanced to favor the interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ if there is to be realistic likelihood of a reformation being consented to. Thus the key policy objective of any UNSC reformation policy is to create a realistic framework or mechanism acceptable to the current ‘Permanent Five’ members of the Security Council

The reformation must be implemented with the explicit intention of improving the efficiency of the Security Council. With regards to the ability of the Security Council to address and resolve international crisis. The success of this particular criteria will ultimately be measured by the ability of the proposed reformation to reduce the frequency with which the ‘Permanent Five’ utilize their ‘veto’ rights.

The proposal must contain an element which addresses the decline in the legitimacy of the Security Council.  This criteria is primarily directed at the under representation of developing nations on the Security Council, and the comparative decline of Anglo-French power and prestige in the 21st century. The success of a proposed policy reformation regarding this specific criteria will be measured by the degree to which the reformation enhances the representation of emerging and neglected great powers on the Security Council.

Retaining the present UNSC structure 

The first proposed policy is to retain the present state of the United Nations Security Council making no alterations to it’s existing structure. While the Security Council in its current form arguably does not fulfill the international communities expectations as an institution, it has nevertheless produced a never before seen period of global peace and prosperity. Particularly with regards to great power politics. While not perfect, the Security Council has proven itself to be an immensely effective body when the interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ are aligned, and their response universal. For example, in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UNSC swiftly passed Resolution 678, authorizing ‘all necessary measures’ to repulse Iraq from Kuwait. This, in turn allowed the United States and thirty-two other countries to form a military collation and forcibly expel all Iraqi forces from Kuwait. A clear illustration of the Security Council’s present capabilities, with regards to its effectiveness and efficiency, when the interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ are aligned.

first-gulf-war

Collation fighter jets achieving air superiority over Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm, The First Gulf War, 1990.

However, the recent resurgence of diplomatic hostilities between NATO and the Russian Federation, along with the militaristic and economic resurgence of China, has again exposed the vulnerability of the UNSC to internal partisan interests and divisions. For example, China’s refusal to conform to and subsequent violation of the ‘United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’ regarding its territorial claims in the South and East China Seas has created an exceptionally volatile international crisis in Asia. One which the which the Security Council is powerless to resolve due to the competing national interests of the United States and China in the dispute, both of whom can exercise their veto rights to prevent any Security Council resolution regarding the issue being adopted. Additionally, Russia’s covert deployment of troops and arms to Ukrainian territory in violation of the ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances’ and the ‘United Nations Charter’ has further exposed the Security Council’s enduring lack of checks and balances; constraining it’s ability to govern and address international crisis involving one of it’s veto wielding members.

ukraine convoy.jpg

A Ukrainian Armoured Division stationed in Kramatorsk, Eastern Ukraine, 16 April 2014, to deter local unrest. The columns progress further east was blocked by Pro-Russian protesters.

In more immediate terms, the failure of the Security Council to address both the humanitarian and military crisis currently unfolding in Syria has presented a significant challenge to the legitimacy of the Security Council. With the resulting refugee crisis and the massive loss of life prompting an international outcry regarding the Security Council’s perceived inaction of the crisis. This lack of a unified and direct response to the crisis has again been attributed to the structure of the UNSC, and the lack of internal norms and mechanisms governing its approach to humanitarian and security crisis. Thus, the primary cost of retaining the present structure of the UNSC, is the inevitability of proxy conflicts and partisan interests paralyzing the UNSC in matters of international security. While the legitimacy of the Security Council in the absence of the addition of permanent representation for the developing world will inevitably erode.

ap_293434580963

Alan Kurdi, a three year old Syrian child who drowned in 2015 whilst his family attempted to cross the Mediterranean and enter Greece in search of refuge from war ravaged Syria. His death caused immense political controversy in the West, fueling a public outcry demanding increased refugee quotas.  Whilst simultaneously fueling international anger regarding the continued inaction of the Security Council with regards to both the Syrian Civil War and the refugee crisis.

 

Reform the Membership of the Security Council

The second proposed policy is to reform the established structure of the Security Council. Such a reformation would likely involve the promotion of either India, Germany, Brazil or Germany to permanent Security Council member status. This would however require the amendment of ‘Chapter 5 Article 27 of the UN Charter’ and thus, the approval of the ‘Permanent Five’. Creating particularly complex dilemma as the ‘Permanent Five’ are unlikely to approve the promotion of any states deemed as ‘rivals’ or ‘in conflict with their national interest’ to permanent member status. Any attempt by Japan to join the Security Council for example, would likely be vetoed by China, owing to their bitter strategic and historical rivalry. However, this concern could possibly be alleviated if the promoted members were to be promoted to permanent member status without being awarded the ‘veto privileges’ currently afforded to the ‘Permanent Five’.

Interestingly, a mechanism for such a structural alteration to the Security Council already exists in the form of the G4. A coalition consisting of Japan, Brazil, Germany and India – all of whom mutually support the others attempts to win a permanent seat on the UNSC. To date, the G4 has received endorsements from the UK and France while Japan has received endorsements from both the UK and US. India has notably received gestures of support from all members of the ‘Permanent Five’, on the condition its bid is not associated with that of Japan’s – China’s primary regional rival.  However, all members of the G4 are opposed by regional rivals through the ‘Uniting for Consensus Movement’ – a coalition of nations opposed to the ascension of the G4 to the UNSC.

g4

A map showing the G4 nations, each of whom support one another’s bid for promotion to permanent Security Council member status.

consensus

The various members of the ‘Uniting for Consensus Movement’ whom collectively oppose the promotion of the G4 to permanent Security Council Membership status. 

Ultimately however, given both the widespread opposition to the promotion of any of the members of the G4 to ‘permanent status’ and the tendency of the ‘Permanent Five’ to refrain from adding new ‘permanent members’ it is extremely unlikely any member of the G4, with the possible exception of India, will be promoted to ‘permanent member’ status with ‘veto privileges’. With this being due to the fact that the promotion of any state to ‘permanent status’ with ‘veto privileges’ would ultimately relatively dis-empower the ‘Permanent Five’ whilst likely increasing the potential for the veto mechanism to internally paralyze the Security Council given the introduction of additional interest groups to the Security Council. As mentioned, India is the only likely member of the G4 to be an exception to this and be promoted with full veto rights to ‘permanent member’ status. With this being due to the fact that India’s enormous latent power, remarkable economic growth (which rivals that of China) and rapidly expanding defense capabilities (along with it’s status as a nuclear power) demand it’s eventual accession to permanent member status – else the legitimacy of the Security Council would in the not- so distant future be severely compromised.

projected-size-of-economies

A graph illustrating the relative estimates of economic power for China, India and the United States over the first half of the 21st Century. With India expected to overtake the United States in terms of overall economic power in 2046.

However in the case of both Germany and Brazil full promotion to ‘permanent status’ with veto privileges is extremely unlikely. This is because both states face fierce regional opposition in the form of their regional rivals to their accession to ‘permanent status’. Germany for example, is opposed by France, the UK, Italy, Spain and various other European countries which dear both relative dis-empowerment and the prospect of German regional hegemony. Whilst it’s history with regards to Fascism and the Second World War further impedes it’s efforts to obtain ‘permanent member status. With this being said however, Germany has in the 71 years since the conclusion of the Second World War largely reconciled with it’s neighbors regarding it’s past ‘aggressive expansion’ whilst steadily framing itself in the eyes of both it’s neighbors and the international community as a conscientious state and a responsible global partner. As evidenced by it’s acceptance of over 1,000,000 refugees of the Syrian Civil War in 2015.

 

Ang merk.jpg

German Prime Minister Angela Merkel has led European efforts allow entry of Syrian Refugees into Europe, with her trademark policy allowing approximately 1,000,000 to enter Germany. She has also been described as the ‘last leader of the free world’ following the election of Donald J Trump in the United States.

By contrast, Brazil’s ascension is opposed by Argentina, Columbia and Mexico – all of which fear that Brazil’s ascension would relatively dis-empower them, whilst destabilizing the regional balance of power in Latin America. Additionally, Brazil’s current internal dysfunction following the ousting of President Dilma Rousseff and the ongoing constitutional crisis in the country – in combination with it’s stifled economic growth further impede the likelihood and appeal of promoting Brazil to ‘permanent member’ status.

pro-brazil

Massive populist protests in 2015 and the Constitutional Crisis which followed have crippled both Brazil’s economy and political system. Greatly degrading both Brazil’s international prestige and political ‘clout’ 

With this all being said however, Brazil is the dominant South American state, member of ‘BRICS’ and as an economic powerhouse, has a near undeniable claim to eventual ‘permanent status’, while having the added benefit of providing the developing world with significant and permanent representation within the Security Council. While Germany is a proven influential and effective moderator in international disputes, and is a state renowned for its moderate and well considered responses to international crisis. For example, it held a significant role in the formation of the Iran nuclear deal, while it boasts an exceptionally pragmatic relationship with Russia providing a potential diplomatic bridge between Russia and western members of the Security Council. However – owing to intense regional opposition it is unlikely that either Germany of Brazil would be promoted to the Security Council with full ‘veto rights’, thus their permanent inclusion in the Security Council would likely require the two states to compromise and accept a permanent position among the “Permanent Five” whilst conceding and forgoing their ‘veto privileges’.

p5-1

The envoys of the ‘Permanent Five’ plus One (Germany) and Iran at the conclusion of the Iranian Nuclear Deal – 2015. 

Thus as illustrated by the discussion above, bestowing permanent status upon Germany and Brazil, absent veto rights would achieve the majority of the stated policy objectives. While catering to the interests of the ‘Permanent Five’ and mitigating the concerns of the ‘Uniting for Consensus movement’ by denying the additional of additional veto wielding members and empowering regional representation on the Security Council. All without overtly altering the balance of power internationally and within either Europe or Latin America. India, by contrast as a diplomatic, economic and militaristic powerhouse rivaling and exceeding that of several UNSC members, demands entry to the council based on pure merit and a need for the council to be proportioned to the balance of geopolitical power. Pakistan’s opposition to the appointment of India however, will be substantial and a potential diplomatic obstacle. Yet the supremacy of the Security Council as an international decision making body would mean that it’s decision would inevitably and significantly outweigh Pakistan’s objections.

modi kat.jpg

Prime Minister of India Narenda Modi visiting Kathmandu in 2015. Under his administration, India’s economic development continues to enhance it’s status and prestige on the international stage. With India’s economic growth now beginning to rival that of China. 

The appointment of Germany (without veto), Brazil (without veto), and India (with veto) to the Security Council, would legitimize and solidify their influence on the council without threatening the supremacy of the ‘Permanent Five’, enhancing the developing world’s representation, and increasing pressure on the ‘Permanent Five’ to act when international crisis occur. The promotion of these three states to the Security Council does however have the potential to introduce overt bureaucracy to the council as a result of enlarged membership. This would likely need to be compensated for through the removal of various rotating democratically elected council seats, which would require an alteration ‘Chapter Five Article 27 of the UN Charter’ and the consent at least 4 non-‘P5’ states to the alteration, along with that of the ‘Permanent Five’.

The case of Japan’s possible promotion to the Security Council however would constitute an immensely ambiguous endevour as a consequence of both it’s past ‘aggressive expansionism’ and it’s complicated relationship with it’s regional neighbors in a contemporary sense. With both Koreas, China and many South-East Asian states opposing Japan’s ascension to the Security Council on the grounds that unlike Germany, Japan has as of yet, failed to adequately take account for, and recompense it’s neighbors for the war crimes committed under the era of ‘Imperial Japan’. As a result, Japan is particularly unlikely to gain a permanent seat on the Security Council, especially given the currently hostile state of relations between Japan and China, and China’s likely exertion of it’s ‘veto’ to block Japan’s accession to the Council. However – if Sino-Japanese relations and the relations of Japan with it’s other regional neighbors were to improve in the future, it is entirely plausible that Japan may be able to follow in the potential example of Brazil and obtain permanent status on the Security Council, without veto rights being awarded to Japan. However owing to it’s minimal likelihood under current circumstances  Japan’s potential promotion to the Security Council has been excluded from this recommended reformation, on the basis that China will never consent to its ascension. The promotion of Japan would be an ambiguous endevour.

 

war shrine.jpg

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits a controversial War Shrine which commemorates many Japanese soldiers from the era of Imperial Japan, many of whom were later convicted of war crimes. These visits have generated significant controversy and animosity between Japan and China. 

Implement norms to govern veto use 

The third proposed means of reforming the Security Council is the implementation of a Security Council protocol, or a ‘code of conduct’ so to speak. With this code of conduct addressing the situations in which it would be viewed as acceptable for a veto wielding member to utilize their respective veto. This proposal is based primarily on France’s ‘veto restraint proposal’ which through the institutionalization of various international norms aims to restrain the use of the veto in the event of a humanitarian crisis. France has proposed essentially that the ‘Permanent Five’ voluntarily commit to refrain from the use of a veto in the event of a ‘mass atrocity’, while envisaging the General Secretariat as having a significant role in the governance of such a structural alteration.

France's Foreign Minister Fabius speaks at the U.N. Security Council meeting on counter-terrorism in Manhattan, New York

France, one of the ‘Permanent Five’ has led the campaign to introduce a code of conduct to govern the use of the Security Council veto. Dozens of nations have endorsed the French campaign to have such a reformation of the Security Council implemented. 

However, France’s proposal is unfortunately overtly open to the interpretation of the ‘Permanent Five’ in regards to what exactly constitutes a mass atrocity. Thus leaving the proposal open to political manipulation. Whilst the ‘Permanent Five’ have in recent years moved to sideline the General Secretariat’s role in Security Council affairs, significantly decreasing the likelihood that a code of conduct would be by any means enforceable. If a code of conduct were to be adopted however it could well prove to be an effective means of reducing the frequency of the veto being utilized depending on the ever changing geopolitical environment on the Security. Thus, this reform would likely be a temperamental fix, to a perpetual problem, which stands as a firm testament to it’s likely inadequacy.

However the suggestion of adopting a ‘code of conduct’ does indeed have many merits. A code of conduct, unlike a structural reformation, would ensure that the ‘Permanent Five’ maintain their supremacy, as opposed to surrendering a portion of their autonomy to the General Secretariat. Whilst the policy, as it would likely be crafted to suit the interests of the Permanent Five, would be virtually guarantee to be adopted. This does however, come with the substantial consequence of minimizing the positive impact of the policy. In short – a code of conduct is likely be be accepted by the ‘Permanent Five’, however it’s ability to efficiently govern and reduce the frequency in which vetos are utilized would likely be both temperamental and minimal.

The Pacific Perspective’s Recommendation 

To conclude this article’s analysis of the United Nation’s Security Council, The Pacific Perspective has concluded that no policy reformation on it’s own has proven itself to be viable of addressing the criteria specified at the beginning of this article. Thus, an ideal reformation of the Security Council would likely need to involve the adoption of a hybrid policy, which incorporates aspects both from the proposal to introduce norms and the proposal to reform the structure and membership of the Security Council. This would likely need to involve the ascension of India to ‘permanent member’ status with full veto rights and the ascension of Germany and Brazil permanent membership without veto rights. Though admittedly this process would likely be complex, with the possibly of Brazil and India refusing ascension in the circumstance that they were to be denied a veto of their own.

If these three states were to ascend to permanent status however, this structural reform would provide an enormous opportunity for the Security Council to review and adopt a code of conduct as specified in the third policy. Particularly because the he subsequent increase in influence of these states would place substantial pressure on the veto wielding members to act in a manner more acceptable to the international community. This diplomatic pressure if applied correctly and consistently would likely result in the introduction of customary norms surrounding the use of the veto. This would inherently result in reduced usage of the veto and by extension a more active and effective Security Council greatly enhancing both its legitimacy and efficiency while leading to minimal negative externalizes as a result of the reforms. To retain the status quo within the Security Council however, would serve only to invite continued dysfunction, a decline in legitimacy and would ultimately result in the institution itself fading into irrelevance.

For more on the UN’s ability to enforce international law, follow the below link:

https://thepacificperspective.wordpress.com/2016/10/25/has-the-united-nations-failed-international-law/Published by thepacificperspective