I believe it is time for the United Nation Security Council to reform its membership to reflect the present day reality on the ground.

The opinion of NL political analysts like Beaf, Jarus, Sagamite, Gbawe etc, is welcome.

UNITED NATION SECURITY COUNCIL: NEED FOR REFORM

Recent events around the world and the global economic downturn have focused the minds of several world leaders and opinion formers on the need for reform and better representation at such global organisations like the United Nations Security Council.

The UN Security Council in addition to other functions and powers is primarily responsible under its charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.
It presently has 15 members out of which 5 (United States, China, France, Russian Federation and United Kingdom) are permanent members.

Although each member of the UN Security Council has one vote, decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least 9 of the 15 members but decisions on substantive and important matters require 9 votes including the concurring votes of all 5 permanent members. This is the rule of great power unanimity called the ‘’ Veto Power ‘’.

Under the UN Charter all UN members agree to accept and are under obligation to carry out the decision of the Security Council whether they like it or not.

The UN Security Council has maintained the same 5 permanent members since its inception in 1946, this arrangement may be right for the first 50 years of its existence but it is no longer tenable in today’s world. The Security Council needs to be reformed and restructured to reflect the political and economic realities on the ground.

For instance, countries like India, Japan, Germany, and Brazil are not permanent members of the Security Council in spite of their present economic strength. The UN needs to move away from its present US-Eurocentric position; a new world order must replace the present disposition.

As a humble observer on important global issues, I would like to present a proposal which may go a long way in addressing the issue of equitable representation at the UN Security Council.

In my proposal, the world is divided into 5 geo-political zones or blocs with each zone having countries to represent their interests.

The 5 zones are

(1) The Americas
(2) Europe
(3) Africa / Middle East
(4) Asia
(5) Pacific / Australasia / Oceania.

The 5 geo-political will be represented by 25 countries to be called the G25 Group of Countries. This new body will replace the current membership of the UN Security Council. No country will have a veto power and council decisions and resolutions will be ratified by affirmative votes of at least 17 of the 25 members (roughly a 2/3 supermajority).

This arrangement will allow for greater co-operation and transparency between countries and no single country will be able to hold the rest of the world to ransom by the use and abuse of the power of veto.

Moreover, membership of the group will be up for review and renewal every 10 years depending on prevailing circumstances and the decision as to which countries leave or join as replacement(s) will be made a majority of 20 countries.

Now which countries should belong to the super G25 Group of Countries?

The Americas will be represented by

- USA
- CANADA
- MEXICO
- BRAZIL
- ARGENTINA

Europe will be represented by

- UNITED KINGDOM
- FRANCE
- GERMANY
- ITALY
- SPAIN
- RUSSIAN FEDERATION
- TURKEY

Africa / Middle-East will be represented by

- SAUDI-ARABIA
- EGYPT
- SOUTH-AFRICA
- IRAN
- NIGERIA

Pacific / Australasia / Oceania will be represented by

- JAPAN
- AUSTRALIA
- INDONESIA
- MALASIA

Asia will be represented by

- CHINA
- INDIA
- SOUTH-KOREA
- PAKISTAN

The new G25 Group include all the members of the existing UN Security Council and other countries which are members of the G20, N11 (Next 11), D8, BRIC.

The group will also include the world’s 20 most populous countries ( China: population 1,338 M, India: 1,188M, USA: 310.3M, Indonesia: 237.5M, Brazil: 193.5M, Pakistan: 170.6M, Nigeria: 150M, Russia: 141.9M, Japan: 127.7M, Mexico: 108.3M, Germany: 81.8M, Egypt: 79.08M, Iran: 75.07M, Turkey: 72.56M, France: 65.24M, UK: 62M, Italy: 60.4M, South-Africa: 49.9M, South-Korea: 49.77M, Spain: 46.072M ) except Bangladesh, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Democratic republic of Congo, Thailand and Myanmar .

Moreover, the G25 includes the top 15 largest economies in the world

So it is very representative in terms economic strength, human capital and geographical balance.

11 Asia
2 Africa
6 europe
5 america

@Op, Brilliant idea you have there sir.

However, I think it's a little skewed in favour of Europe and Asia. I suggest both Spain, Turkey should be dropped. Turkish  interest can be represented by both the Europeans and Arabs, depending on the situation. Spain is actually living in it's past glory, it's a dead weight.

Both Japan and South Korea will pander to the US wishes in the council; one of them should be dropped. This will also reduce the number of Asia block in the council. The slots of Spain, Turkey, and Japan/South Korean should be rather be given to Middle East and Africa, to shore up their representation.

And I think for a balanced and functional world system, Middle East should be separated from Africa.  And the only Jewish State in the world - Israel should also be represented, as a member of the Middle East block.

The Arabs, and Africans can never  truly rely on the Egyptian (indeed North Africans) for support or block vote; we are not sure if Egypt  (indeed North Africa) considers itself first as Africans or Arabs. Hence Egypt in the group of Super 25 is a dicey situation. However, Egypt should remain to introduce the unknown dynamics.

Not been able to count on Egypt's vote might leave Africa in a precarious position. Hence, another  two African countries should be considered, to fill the slots taken from Europe - Kenya, Bostwana, and Ghana should probable be considered.


Great idea once again.

@ Emeka_gh,   your input is well appreciated.

In terms of Geo-political zoning, I believe Africa has more in common with the folks in the Middle east so it is a starting point to group the 2 regions together as a single Geo-political bloc.

I do take your view that the proposed arrangement appears skewed in favour of Europe but the reality is that the European Union will always demand more than their fair share in view of their collective economic and political power.

Moreover, it will be difficult to make a case for more than 3 countries from Africa for inclusion on a reformed UN Security Council. it will be nice to hear any arguments against this view.

This is only a starting point in the general and important discussion as to how the Security council can be reformed to reflect today's realities.

NLders,  your comments.

This is an opportunity for President Goodluck Jonathan to raise the issue of reform within the UN Security council.

Nigeria deserves a short at being considered for a permanent seat on the UN Security council.

The issue of balanced representation on the UN Security Council is again under discussion.

Our own President Goodluck Jonathan has recently put forward Nigeria's case so i feel my previous proposal deserves to be examined to say the least.