Citizens and guests of New York are recommended to drive around Manhattan as little as possible these days and to enable the world to function better. High delegations from more than 140 countries, which rushed to the annual session of the UN General Assembly with the largely disappointed hope of being able to improve international relations or at least the position of their country, have priority.
Hardly any of them will express satisfaction with the global situation, burdened by the war in Ukraine, climate breakdowns, the consequences of the pandemic, the drastic deepening of differences between the rich and the poor, and the lack of solidarity. On this occasion, more than usual, they are asking for a change in the composition of the UN Security Council, because it has been failing for a long time in preserving peace and stability in the world, for which it is the only officially authorized body.
Five of its permanent members, with the right of veto - America, China, Russia, Britain and France - are most often called to account. They are accused of endangering the survival of humanity through certain estrangements and mutual frictions, at least as much as they still significantly contribute to its progress. Personally, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned several times about the approach of Armageddon, in the form of a nuclear or catastrophe due to overheating of the planet's atmosphere.
The aforementioned five have, by the way, a longer mandate than any statesman. The right to practically decide the fate of the world was acquired, almost eight decades ago, as a group of winners in World War II, only for its shortcomings to manifest themselves in the Cold War, after the end of which, in 1992, the Council was reformed to make it more representative. .
Three decades have passed, and reforms have been absent. Now, on the other hand, all the states, and the powerful quintet, have declared that it is necessary to, finally, come true.
There are several variants in circulation. According to one of those combinations, which is mostly represented by the West, the new permanent members of the Council would become India, Brazil, Germany, Japan (acting as the G4), as well as one or two African countries.
Any newcomers would not, however, have the right of veto (which has been used 1945 times since 295, mostly from Moscow). None of the five powers that have it is in the mood for others to get that privilege, that they too can stop the decisions of the majority and turn out to be the third factor in the already domesticated duel between the West and the East, democracy and autocracy.
The increase in the number of permanent members is explained by the change in the balance of power in the world and the need to expand regional representation. The G4 is indeed all "new" powers, but complaints are heard that with the entry of Germany, Europe would be "too" represented. And there is also talk that China is not in favor of joining Japan, and that it is quite reserved towards India because, although both are in BRICS, they are burdened by disputes over the demarcation of territories.
There are rivalries within the region, in the style of why not me and she can. The researchers also registered a grouping of "bypassed" in which Italy, Poland, Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea and Turkey. The African favorites are South Africa and Nigeria, but, they say, Egypt, Algeria, Ethiopia, and Kenya would be happy to "spend" them.
It is as if there is a qualifying world championship going on for promotion to the Security Council, to the first league of decision-making in the world. Although the five with the veto would certainly still have the main say, the appearance of new actors would bring new energy, a more diverse statement, and even a better insight into a certain fluctuation, beyond being aligned with the West or the East. India, for example, could sometimes vote in favor of BRICS, and occasionally in accordance with the interests of the Quad group (also the USA, Japan and Australia), with the already confirmed skill of balancing this duality.
The original situation has already been created. For the first time, after a long time, developing countries appear in the first geostrategic plan as candidates for entry into the Security Council. It is also original that their ambitions are supported by the existing great powers, in order to gain their favor in the increasingly strained relations between the West and the East, not only regarding Russian aggression against Ukraine, but also regarding climate breakdowns, trade, systemic classifications into democracies and autocracies, and also in shaping the multipolar world.
The researcher's finding about the criteria for entering that "high society" is interesting. The recommendations are mostly given as gross national income, population, military potential, contribution to the UN budget, strong diplomacy, commitment to the global security order, respect for universal human rights...
Even now, it is not certain whether, when and how much the Security Council will expand. Even as it is, it acted effectively in various crises, and the need for the existence of this body is now more noticeable, because the immediate connection between its paralysis in the polarization of the superpowers and the chaosization of the world is clearly visible.
With the expansion, let's hope again, it would regain at least a little of its original spirit - to significantly influence that disputes are resolved peacefully and that the inviolability of territorial integrity is respected. In any case, we are witnessing a premier attempt to inject a dose of inclusivity into the exclusive quintet by admitting new permanent members to the UN Security Council. And to be at least a little happy that global politics is being democratized, at least symbolically, aware that it has never been and can never be truly democratic.
Bonus video:
