What are the ramifications of expanding or changing the membership of the Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council (PSC). Before I give my "final answer" (with apologies to Regis), I think expanding the permanent membership is a very bad move. If it was hard getting five consenting PSC states during the Cold War, how hard will it be with seven, nine, or twelve? Any expansion of the membership will degrade the PSC's ability to pass resolutions and lead to further stalemates.
Do Great Britain and France still justify their own seats, or should Germany should receive full PSC membership? Germany does make a very strong case for UNSC membership: Germany is strong financially and politically and has exhibited leadership in the past, especially in the formation of the European Union. Germans have atoned for their WWII sins and deserve a greater say in the world body.
Japan's ability to ascend to the PSC is also pretty solid. They too have been adequately punished for their WWII legacy (except in the eyes of Korea) and deserve consideration as a new PSC member state. The Japanese post-imperialist comeback, involvement in foreign deployments (including Iraq '03), and open political climate make them a perfect fit for a seat on the UN's ruling body.
India also presents a strong case for UN leadership. Their population, economic growth, and ongoing sociopolitical reform make them an excellent candidate for greater responsibility. A case could also be made for Brazil to come into the fold, thus granting a democratic, relatively stable South American nation a say.
Regarding the rotating seat idea: fantastic. If the UK and France are willing to share a seat with one another, let alone Germany, then that would be very egalitarian and gracious. However, I do not see it happening. Once power is received, it is hardly ever relinquished. Germany receiving a rotating seat with the UK and France in a "European seat", along with China's sharing with India and Japan (two former and, in India's case, current) antagonists would be the best possible, but least likely situation.
I absolutely reject the notion that a SC member would not have the veto power. The legitimizing of Germany, Japan, or India as PSC members would have to be a complete legitimization. Not doing so would make these countries the equivalent of a rotating SC member, except back every year. The point would be to bring any ascending states into the fold, as it were. As the old American Express commercial said, "Membership has its privileges." And PSC status confers that privilege.
So my final answer? In my humble opinion, expanding the PSC to include regional players is overdue but conversely a move towards more stalemates and logjams. It's always easier to get five voices to sing in harmony than nine or eleven.
Food for thought:
The Economist, dated 22 July 2004, reports on a conference at Baden, Austria, to discuss the future of the UNSC. They envisioned:
an expanded 24-member council of three tiers: the existing permanent five (America, Britain, China, France and Russia); a second tier of seven or eight potentially semi-permanent members elected on a regional basis for a renewable term of four or five years (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and South Africa might be in this group); and a third tier of rotating regional members elected, as at present, for a non-renewable two-year term. Only the permanent five would have a veto.
"The beauty of this formula", crows one observer, "is that everyone wins. Some may have hoped for more, but at least no one loses." Under the UN's charter, the council's membership is supposed to be based not just on regional diversity, but also on the members' willingness to contribute to world peace and security.
So instead of expanding to nine or twelve, the consensus of this meeting was to go all the way to twenty-four. Under this plan, the veto power would remain with the current five, but this 24-member SC would better represent the diversity of world voices.
Agree/disagree?