United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was formed in 1946 with primary goal of international peace and security. The body was formed with five permanent members, largely the power houses after second world war. World today is lot different than what it was 70 years back. We are no longer in initial years of 20th century looking to avoid next world war. We are in 21st century, we are a global society and we are focused on economy and science growth. But we do have problems that requires greater attention and timely resolution and I doubt that UNSC in its present form is prepared and capable of doing so.
Challenges of 21st century can largely be attributed to the failure of security council. International terrorism is one such example. Permanent members like USA and Russia, two largest military powers post world war II made this a dummy body with both along with their allies were busy with cold war. How could you aim to have peace when you yourself were involve in nuclear arms race. This left rest of the world unattended and issues related to land spur in almost every part of the world.
So why should one have confidence in this security council. and here is why it is outdated;
1. it no longer represents the democratic view. Its opinion is skewed towards smaller set of nations and more than 70% of this world having no voice in security council. Africa, Latin America and democratic Asia has no representation (China of course is far from being a democratic nation).
2. UNSC has limited or zero influence on Islamic terrorists groups like Al-Qaida, ISS. UNSC can start a war but will never be able to end it. With a larger representation of people, UNSC can bring in more credibility and will be looked upon as unbiased body. World peace and security is no longer an objective that can be achieved by weapons of mass destruction.
3. UNSC is becoming rich nations club (may be not so rich considering Russia and China's figures). Rich nations with nuclear arms and large armies are permanent members of UNSC. This only motivates other nations to become more richer and build army that is larger ignoring social and peach objectives.
4. 1946 was a different world. Countries like India were still a nation ruled by Britishers. But as time changed many such have not just become independent but have also grown big by their contribution to the international community. These nations can no more can be ignored as they too play decisive rule in defining the future of our planet.
So who all are in race:
Countries like Japan and Germany have proven beyond doubt that they have skills and attitude to produce products that are unmatched by all standards. They have build economy from scratch and have been advocating peace. They have never engaged in any war post 1947, why should they not be part of UNSC. India represents 1/6th of the world population. The secular democratic nation from Asia has never stepped out of its borders to conquer any country or land. They are the largest democracy and they are secular. Unlike middle east and west which are largely influenced by the religion priorities India has come out with an example yet to observe elsewhere on the blue planet.
The choices are now between Brazil and South Africa, both comes from a continent which till date has no permanent representation in UNSC. I see Brazil having a greater advantage due to its improving economy over South Africa which still has to prove a lot on equal rights to all humans. The South African society is far from neutral, and social and economical parameter aren't as impressive as that of Brazil.
What about others:
Middle east is nations constitute a large significant part of our world. They have come out from the old orthodox way to understand the needs of modern society. But they are still driven by the religious priorities and have almost negligible tolerance towards other faiths. Europe with three representation (UK, France and Russia) and one nomination (Germany) has largest group in UNSC permanent members. Surely they are economically sound but they represent only a smaller section of the world. So is the case with Koreans, they also have to settle issues among each other before they can talk about a place in permanent members of UNSC. Australia and Canada are good options but including them brings in no different perspective than what we already have. They do not influence Asia, Middle east, Africa and Latin America as we India, Brazil, Japan and Germany does. There presence in security council will skewed the opinions further towards the NATO and Northern American region.
Existing member may find a reason or more to oppose the inevitable, expansion of UNSC permanent council members. They fear dilution of say. Historically no one likes competition but this time the big five is fast running out of options. If world has to be a safer and better place, we need representation from larger section. Fresh views will bring in more life and power to UNSC, no nations other than India, Brazil, Japan and Germany can be banked upon for this cause.
@mathurabhay
