Talk about UN Security Council reform is ongoing, albeit without any success. For a radical reform will necessarily affect the interests of one of the "big five" permanent members of the Security Council, and in the event of such a reform there is a veto.
There was talk of restricting this right to substantive issues in the sense that no one could be a judge in his case. That is, if Russia or China (let us call a spade a spade) in the draft of a Security Council resolution should be sanctioned, then they, as interested powers, do not have the right to vote. But everyone understood that such proposals were made only for a reckoning of time, because this is an attempt with unsuitable means. What kind of diplomacy will go for political suicide?
So the most interesting reform does not pass in any way. In any case, while maintaining the UN and its charter in its current form. By the way, it was precisely with this understanding that the most zealous American senators suggested cutting the Gordian knot, sending the current UN to a landfill and creating an organization of democratic nations in its place where no one would have the right to petition against democracy and its light.
But since today it is hardly realistic, cosmetic measures remain. One such measure was proposed by France.
Republic Permanent Representative Nicolas de Riviere said from the UN rostrum: “France supports the expansion of the Council - at the expense of both permanent and non-permanent members. France supports the candidatures of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan as new permanent members of the Security Council. We also advocate strengthening the presence of African countries among the permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. An expanded Security Council could include up to 25 representatives, including new permanent and non-permanent members. ”
That is, according to de Riviera, instead of five permanent members there will be nine (+ 80%), and instead of ten non-permanent members there will be sixteen (+ 60%).
Of most interest, of course, are the new permanent members, since their powers are substantially greater. Who is there, in the UN Security Council, on an intermittent basis, few remember. Temporary honorary title - and nothing more. As for the candidates for the highest areopagus, the Frenchman could be guided by two ideas.
The economic power of Germany and Japan is really great. The problem is that they are nuclear-free countries (however, it’s a business) and, moreover, (especially Japan) are economic giants, but political dwarfs. Although they are gradually overcoming this imbalance. True, the principle that applied to them was that as of 1945 they were aggressor countries against which the united nations opposed. They were received at the UN much later, and the official appointment of the UN Security Council in 1945 was precisely opposition to new attempts by aggressor countries.
However, three quarters of a century have passed since then - it's time to forget. And Germany and Japan will be nice.
As for India and Brazil, it was perhaps remembered at Ca d'Orsay that, in fact, there is the BRICS, which has considerable influence and economic potential. So why not make the BRICS pleasant? Russia and China are already members of the Security Council, let there be Brazil and India.
The proposed expansion is pretty good, there will be an occasion to talk and praise the diplomacy of Macron, who generally loves to work on the stage of the whole world. And it seems that there will be no opponents, since the main problem of the Security Council - the right of veto - Macron in this case does not even affect. It will only be heard until dawn that the Frenchman exulted that Macron was only pleased.
The only argument against it: works - do not touch (but does not work - do not touch either). The proposed Security Council reform will not essentially change anything, is it worth it?
Again, dilution (additional issue) of Security Council members lowers the status of current members. However, the arguments against the additional issue - this is already some kind of extreme conservatism, but we must move forward, revive and update.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.