Tangentially related: There's a group of countries, led by Italy, called Uniting for Consensus (nicknamed the 'Coffee Club') that are firmly opposed to the expansion of permanent Security Council...
Tangentially related:
There's a group of countries, led by Italy, called Uniting for Consensus (nicknamed the 'Coffee Club') that are firmly opposed to the expansion of permanent Security Council seats. Their alternative proposal is an expansion of non-permanent seats on the Security Council, including seats that are held for longer than the current non-permanent seats are.
I really don't understand how the EU could possibly join the Security Council, much less as a permanent member. It's not a state, and until it is (unlikely to happen, unless the Germans and French...
I really don't understand how the EU could possibly join the Security Council, much less as a permanent member. It's not a state, and until it is (unlikely to happen, unless the Germans and French would like to become 2-3 times poorer), it can't even obtain actual UN membership. How can a non-member with no UN voting rights become a permanent, voting member of the Security Council?
I think the EU should absolutely be part of the Security Council. I also think Russia and China, being two of the world's largest security concerns, should not.
I think the EU should absolutely be part of the Security Council. I also think Russia and China, being two of the world's largest security concerns, should not.
China alone is something like 17% of the entire world population. Double the population of the US and EU combined. Like their government or not, if we're serious about coming up with rules for how...
China alone is something like 17% of the entire world population. Double the population of the US and EU combined.
Like their government or not, if we're serious about coming up with rules for how the world should be governed, they should have a pretty sizeable say.
The problem is that then lots of other non-state bodies would like to join – e.g. why can't BRICS join (it can claim to represent a lot more people than the EU), or the OIC, or the African Union,...
The problem is that then lots of other non-state bodies would like to join – e.g. why can't BRICS join (it can claim to represent a lot more people than the EU), or the OIC, or the African Union, etc. If the EU would like to form a single state, then this would be OK, but otherwise I think it's unreasonable for non-state actors to sit at the grown ups (i.e. state actors) table.
Practically, I don't think the French would be thrilled at the prospect of losing their seat.
Yeah, if Russia loses it's seat it ought to be because its pretensions towards being a geopolitical "great power" will look increasingly comical over the next century, not because they're hostile...
That defeats the point of the UN then. It would then just become America + Friends (/Neutrals). The point of the UN is just to have all major powers have somewhere to talk/posture/denounce etc.
Yeah, if Russia loses it's seat it ought to be because its pretensions towards being a geopolitical "great power" will look increasingly comical over the next century, not because they're hostile to American interests. And if that happens, they should reallocate a seat to a viable rising heavyweight like India, Nigeria, or Brazil.
The Wilsonian institutions seem to be losing their way a bit in this regard. There is a posture among Western nations, international NGOs, and financial institutions to adopt this "West vs. the rest" framework (also, more charitably, characterized as "core and periphery") where the members of the core get outsized influence in these institutions and everyone else is supposed to just kind of accept the norms, policies, and values being pushed out by them. It's not as familiar a form of colonialism as we like to think of because there are many factions and entities within the Global South that support those same systems. But it is very evident that there are some heavy fingers on the scales in terms of deciding what the world ought to look like that functionally writes out a lot of people.
For one thing, the idea that Germany and/or the EU need a seat--even though Western European interests are already WELL represented on the UNSC while African, Asian, or Latin American interests are not at all--seems farcical. Initially China was given a seat on the UNSC as a hand-wave in the direction of inclusivity. India was not because it was just getting out from under the British Raj at the time and they didn't want to legitimize the anti-colonial movements in this way. But being as how China has either tense or outright antagonistic relationships with basically all of its Asian neighbors, the idea that they get to represent the region is downright silly. It's even more silly than the fact that the American seat purportedly speaks for Latin America, and that's already quite silly.
Half the reason Russia has the weight in the global south that it does, particularly with India, is because they're a reliable UNSC vote to protect Indian national interests. Write them out and you're basically signing the UN's death warrant.
Just colonialism in any other name. Establish a system that becomes almost impossible to actually challenge.
The Wilsonian institutions seem to be losing their way a bit in this regard. There is a posture among Western nations, international NGOs, and financial institutions to adopt this "West vs. the rest" framework (also, more charitably, characterized as "core and periphery") where the members of the core get outsized influence in these institutions and everyone else is supposed to just kind of accept the norms, policies, and values being pushed out by them. It's not as familiar a form of colonialism as we like to think of because there are many factions and entities within the Global South that support those same systems. But it is very evident that there are some heavy fingers on the scales in terms of deciding what the world ought to look like that functionally writes out a lot of people.
Just colonialism in any other name. Establish a system that becomes almost impossible to actually challenge.
Yeah, I thought the same thing, like they should be excluded for being bad. Wasn't until I read about what they really do, along with the friendly groups like five eyes and the like that we have...
Yeah, I thought the same thing, like they should be excluded for being bad. Wasn't until I read about what they really do, along with the friendly groups like five eyes and the like that we have other groups chats for talking amongst the other governments.
Aren't there enough western states in the UNSC? The EU already basically has a seat through France. Remove Russia since it's not much of a world power anymore, and add India, I'd say.
Aren't there enough western states in the UNSC? The EU already basically has a seat through France. Remove Russia since it's not much of a world power anymore, and add India, I'd say.
Christoph Hasselbach UN accession was blocked Joined the United Nations as the 133rd and 134th members Council still reflects the geopolitical situation shortly after World War II, and not...
Christoph Hasselbach
UN accession was blocked
The victorious Western Allies of World War II, the United States, Britain and France, which at that time still had a say over how Germany was governed, would have supported UN accession for the Federal Republic alone, but not the Soviet Union, which saw itself as the GDR's guardian. Thus, UN accession was blocked.
Joined the United Nations as the 133rd and 134th members
In the early 1970s, the German government under center-left Social Democrat (SPD) Chancellor Willy Brandt changed tack, normalized relations with the GDR and thus cleared the way for both German states to join. On September 18, 1973, they joined the United Nations as the 133rd and 134th members.
Council still reflects the geopolitical situation shortly after World War II, and not present-day realities
On the basis of this strong commitment and on Germany's economic and political weight, Berlin has been trying for many years to get a permanent seat with veto power, on the UN Security Council, the organization's highest decision-making body. So far, only the US, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and France belong to this exclusive circle. Germany's argument, like that of the other aspirants to a permanent seat, is that the composition of the Council still reflects the geopolitical situation shortly after World War II, and not present-day realities.
Permanent seat for the entire European Union
At times, the German government has tried to call for a permanent seat for the entire European Union instead. But since this would have meant that the United Kingdom (still an EU member at the time) and France would have had to give up their respective seats, this too came to nothing.
Holy grail of German foreign policy
Henning Hoff, a member of the German Council on Foreign Relations and executive editor of foreign affairs magazine Internationale Politik Quarterly, calls the bid for a permanent seat the "holy grail of German foreign policy,"
United Nations is actually in need of reform
"On the one hand, the most important instrument that German foreign policy has is to rely strongly on the UN to establish something like world governance; on the other hand, you see that the structure of the United Nations is actually in need of reform, but there is no prospect of that happening."
Reform of the UN Security Council remains our goal
The coalition agreement of the current German government has its own chapter on multilateralism, which states the following about the goals in the UN context: "We are committed to strengthening the United Nations (UN) as the most important institution of the international order politically, financially and in terms of personnel. Reform of the UN Security Council remains our goal, as does fairer representation for all world regions."
Alternatives
But while all efforts to fundamentally reform the UN have failed, a completely different development is now underway. Hoff says that "China in particular is moving toward creating parallel structures and then trying to present its own structures as alternatives to the UN, so to speak," be they the BRICS countries or the G20.
Shift in thinking
Multilateralism is one of the key words in German foreign policy and has been for decades. But it seems that even the German government is no longer thinking exclusively of the United Nations.
The idea of a "permanent seat" is kind of antithetical to the egalitarian principles of the UN. It's just bowing to geopolitical realities. In an ideal world the primary UNSC seats would exist for...
The idea of a "permanent seat" is kind of antithetical to the egalitarian principles of the UN. It's just bowing to geopolitical realities. In an ideal world the primary UNSC seats would exist for each subregional zone and the member nations within that zone would regularly rotate whose delegate holds it.
But in a world where some nations have way outsized geopolitical power compared to others, it does make sense that the UN should operate to overweight their perspectives. Mostly because it simply wouldn't be a viable organization if it didn't.
Historically, the permanent seats were allocated to nations with standing armies large and well-funded enough to contribute forces to U.N. peacekeeping missions, and which thus should have a veto...
Historically, the permanent seats were allocated to nations with standing armies large and well-funded enough to contribute forces to U.N. peacekeeping missions, and which thus should have a veto on such commitments.
At the time of the U.N.'s formation, the permanent council members made sense. It didn't hurt that they were also resource-rich enough to develop nuclear weapons, over time.
The fact that current members can also veto new permanent members, regardless of capacity to contribute troops/armaments or have need to negotiate nuclear weapons deployment, is nonsensical.
You're mostly right, though Rwanda has a significant contribution. This is actually a cool data set, even if it takes some digging to find out what each mission type represents, and where the...
You're mostly right, though Rwanda has a significant contribution. This is actually a cool data set, even if it takes some digging to find out what each mission type represents, and where the peacekeeping troops are deployed.
Tangentially related:
There's a group of countries, led by Italy, called Uniting for Consensus (nicknamed the 'Coffee Club') that are firmly opposed to the expansion of permanent Security Council seats. Their alternative proposal is an expansion of non-permanent seats on the Security Council, including seats that are held for longer than the current non-permanent seats are.
I really don't understand how the EU could possibly join the Security Council, much less as a permanent member. It's not a state, and until it is (unlikely to happen, unless the Germans and French would like to become 2-3 times poorer), it can't even obtain actual UN membership. How can a non-member with no UN voting rights become a permanent, voting member of the Security Council?
What is this number? According to whom?
Citation needed
I think the EU should absolutely be part of the Security Council. I also think Russia and China, being two of the world's largest security concerns, should not.
…that sounds like a good argument for why they should be on the security council.
China alone is something like 17% of the entire world population. Double the population of the US and EU combined.
Like their government or not, if we're serious about coming up with rules for how the world should be governed, they should have a pretty sizeable say.
Who should be on it?
The problem is that then lots of other non-state bodies would like to join – e.g. why can't BRICS join (it can claim to represent a lot more people than the EU), or the OIC, or the African Union, etc. If the EU would like to form a single state, then this would be OK, but otherwise I think it's unreasonable for non-state actors to sit at the grown ups (i.e. state actors) table.
Practically, I don't think the French would be thrilled at the prospect of losing their seat.
Yeah, if Russia loses it's seat it ought to be because its pretensions towards being a geopolitical "great power" will look increasingly comical over the next century, not because they're hostile to American interests. And if that happens, they should reallocate a seat to a viable rising heavyweight like India, Nigeria, or Brazil.
The Wilsonian institutions seem to be losing their way a bit in this regard. There is a posture among Western nations, international NGOs, and financial institutions to adopt this "West vs. the rest" framework (also, more charitably, characterized as "core and periphery") where the members of the core get outsized influence in these institutions and everyone else is supposed to just kind of accept the norms, policies, and values being pushed out by them. It's not as familiar a form of colonialism as we like to think of because there are many factions and entities within the Global South that support those same systems. But it is very evident that there are some heavy fingers on the scales in terms of deciding what the world ought to look like that functionally writes out a lot of people.
For one thing, the idea that Germany and/or the EU need a seat--even though Western European interests are already WELL represented on the UNSC while African, Asian, or Latin American interests are not at all--seems farcical. Initially China was given a seat on the UNSC as a hand-wave in the direction of inclusivity. India was not because it was just getting out from under the British Raj at the time and they didn't want to legitimize the anti-colonial movements in this way. But being as how China has either tense or outright antagonistic relationships with basically all of its Asian neighbors, the idea that they get to represent the region is downright silly. It's even more silly than the fact that the American seat purportedly speaks for Latin America, and that's already quite silly.
Half the reason Russia has the weight in the global south that it does, particularly with India, is because they're a reliable UNSC vote to protect Indian national interests. Write them out and you're basically signing the UN's death warrant.
Just colonialism in any other name. Establish a system that becomes almost impossible to actually challenge.
Yeah, I thought the same thing, like they should be excluded for being bad. Wasn't until I read about what they really do, along with the friendly groups like five eyes and the like that we have other groups chats for talking amongst the other governments.
Aren't there enough western states in the UNSC? The EU already basically has a seat through France. Remove Russia since it's not much of a world power anymore, and add India, I'd say.
To be honest Russia is probably as much (if not more so because of their expansion into Africa) of a player as France on the world stage.
If we take France as France, maybe, but not if we take it as the EU's vote.
Christoph Hasselbach
UN accession was blocked
Joined the United Nations as the 133rd and 134th members
Council still reflects the geopolitical situation shortly after World War II, and not present-day realities
Permanent seat for the entire European Union
Holy grail of German foreign policy
United Nations is actually in need of reform
Reform of the UN Security Council remains our goal
Alternatives
Shift in thinking
The idea of a "permanent seat" is kind of antithetical to the egalitarian principles of the UN. It's just bowing to geopolitical realities. In an ideal world the primary UNSC seats would exist for each subregional zone and the member nations within that zone would regularly rotate whose delegate holds it.
But in a world where some nations have way outsized geopolitical power compared to others, it does make sense that the UN should operate to overweight their perspectives. Mostly because it simply wouldn't be a viable organization if it didn't.
Historically, the permanent seats were allocated to nations with standing armies large and well-funded enough to contribute forces to U.N. peacekeeping missions, and which thus should have a veto on such commitments.
At the time of the U.N.'s formation, the permanent council members made sense. It didn't hurt that they were also resource-rich enough to develop nuclear weapons, over time.
The fact that current members can also veto new permanent members, regardless of capacity to contribute troops/armaments or have need to negotiate nuclear weapons deployment, is nonsensical.
Aren’t basically all the blue helmets from India and Bangladesh now?
You're mostly right, though Rwanda has a significant contribution. This is actually a cool data set, even if it takes some digging to find out what each mission type represents, and where the peacekeeping troops are deployed.