UN: INDIA SHOULD REPLACE THE UK

 

The five permanent members of the Security Council:

the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France,

Russia (the main successor state of the Soviet Union) and China.

In the last years, many voices have asked for changes in the composition of the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations, made up of the five winners of World War II: France, America, Russia, Britain and China. Those five occupied permanent seats and have a very important veto power. The Council also has seats occupied by other countries, on an elected basis and for a given period of time only.

Mainly, those asking for changes were suggesting to give the permanent seat presently occupied by Russia to another major power, usually India. Boris Johnson, when he was Prime minister of Britain, have made remarks about it, among others. Of course, the start of the Ukrainian invasion has gave the subject a broader appeal.  Last Thursday, for instance, the American ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, has referred to it.

Of course, for the Western World, such a change would be welcome and would seem to go in the way of the many sanctions taken against Russia. It would be seen as a well-deserved punishment for the crime of peace-breaching.

On a more general level, that change would not be helpful, for many reasons. It is true that many changes have occurred since the end of WW2 and the formation of the UN. Germany and Japan, from crushed enemies, have become powerful and rich democracies. Russia, inheritor of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, have lost ground, geopolitically, since the implosion of its predecessor, as Britain and France, with the loss of their respective colonial empires. China, from an impoverished Third-World nation, was able to transform itself in the second most rich country in the world, while India seems to be at the start of a great economic miracle and will soon have the biggest population in the world.

The present arrangement, for the permanent seats at the Security Council, is unsatisfactory at many levels. Four of the five countries are made up of Europeans citizens or have a population that is mainly European. Three of the five are closely identified with Western civilization. France and Britain are two Western European countries with many things in common. As for America and China, they are the two most important countries in the world, now, and they should stay as members for that very reason. 

Of the countries that could be granted access to a permanent seat at the Security Council, many possible candidates are possible: Japan, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, Nigeria, etc. The most important, for many reasons, is clearly India, because of its rich culture, its long history, its huge population, its geographical size, its growing economy, etc.

In short, the USA and China must retain their permanent seat at the Security Council. Russia too, for the following reasons: even with a diminished status, it benefits from its sheer size, its important population, its military power, its economic potential, its Russian-speaking minorities all around the former Soviet Union, etc.

The United Kingdom and the United States are two members of the Anglosphere. That cultural region should have one permanent seat, not two, with the consequence that the smaller country must go. As for France, it is, with Germany, the beating heart of the European Union. After Brexit, the European bloc now count only one nuclear power and one veto-holder at the Security Council. For that reason, France, as a de facto representative of the European Union, should stay in place.

The result is that the permanent seats of the Security Council, ideally, should be reshuffled and should be made of those five countries: China, United States, India, Russia, and France.

* **

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2023/03/31/la-russie-ne-devrait-pas-etre-membre-permanent-du-conseil-de-securite