‘Let’s corner’: Great civilizations will enter the ‘world government’

Peter Akopov

“By declaring today that the world is more than five, we are confronting the injustice of the global system. We believe that the fate of humanity cannot and should not be left at the mercy of a handful of countries that won the Second World War,” Turkish President Recep Erdogan called for reform The UN Security Council and even said that it has some kind of roadmap to “corner” the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Erdogan has long been fighting the “injustice” of the global political system that has been established since the end of World War II. The point here is not in the specific rhetoric, but in the essence of the problem. The words about “a handful of countries” are really in-appropriate, and the Krem-lin rightly replied that the victors of fascism should not be called that, and the promise to “drive into a corner” the nuclear powers is completely ridiculous. But the need to reform the UN Security Counciland the truth is ripe: the world now is not at all like the one that was in 1945. However, the main problem is that at the moment the world order is in the process of profound transformation – and it is not necessary (and indeed impossible) to fix a rapidly changing picture. It is necessary to agree on a formula for the future – something that will work for many decades. That is, the work on the composition of the UN Security Council, in fact, is not just a consequence of global changes – it becomes part of the work to build a new world order, to find a new balance of forces and interests of world powers and civilizations.

It is not surprising that Sergey Lavrov essentially supported Erdogan, making an important reservation – and not only about the fact that the “five” bears special responsibility for the state of affairs in the world “:

“There is a need to adapt the UN and the Security Council to the new realities. There are no longer 50 countries in the world, as it was when the organization was created, and not 70, as it was when the UN Security Council expanded from 12 to 15 members. Much more – 193 members of the world organization. countries absolutely rightly insist that their representation in the main body of the UN be increased. If we now look at the composition of the Security Council, the West has at least six out of 15 members. When Japan is elected to the Security Council from Asia, this is the seventh vote in the piggy bank of Western politics, which is moving through the UN Security Council. The West no longer needs to add seats in this body, and the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America must definitely add. “

Indeed, now out of fifteen members of the Security Council, the West is represented by six (three permanent members plus three from Europe). And given that Japan is most often elected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, it turns out that the Atlanticists (for all its Pacific location, Japan is undoubtedly in their sphere of influence) control almost half of the seats in the “world government.” Does this correspond to the global balance of power and the ideas of the majority of states about fair representation? No – and every year the gap will be wider.

Although talks about expanding the membership of the Security Council have been going on for twenty years, it is in the 2020s that it seems inevitable – the issue is ripe and overripe. But at the same time it is necessary to immediately stipulate one fundamental thing – we are not talking about expanding the number of permanent members of the Security Council with the right of veto. Because the composition of the “Big Five” was formed for a reason – these are the great powers that created the UN.

It is clear that France was among them relatively accidentally. It is clear that other great powers have emerged over the course of three quarters of a century, but none of the five will voluntarily give up their right of veto. As well as not wanting to grant the same right to other countries (here, too, the consent of all five is needed) – and to force them, according to the same UN Charter, there is no way. Of course, in the future, other powers (or unions) with the right of veto will appear in the Security Council. But this issue can be resolved only after a new world order is formed, a new architecture of international security is created. And on the way to this just reform of the Security Council is needed – expanding its composition, but not changing the list of countries with the right of veto.

The expansion has two components: the inclusion of new permanent members of the Security Council and the expansion of its overall composition. With the second point, it is easier – to increase from 15 to 24 or 25, at the same time revising the regional quotas. What Lavrov is talking about: add the South and the East – today Asia, Africa and Latin America have eight seats in the Security Council, but given that one of them (from Asia) very often leaves “western” Japan, it turns out seven third world seats in seven places in the West (15th is Eurasian Russia). And the point is not only that the center of gravity of geopolitics is shifting to Asia, but in terms of population, Africa alone has long surpassed the entire Western “golden billion.” The point is that the most important civilizations are not represented in the UN.

There is no one and a half billion Islamic world and the same India – that is, individual Muslim countries, like India, may be elected to non-permanent members, or may not be among them. That is, a simple expansion of regional quotas and the total number of Security Council members cannot solve the problem – new permanent members are needed. And this is where the biggest problem begins.

Who should represent Africa and who should represent Latin America? Who will be from the Muslims? How will the Arabs be represented? For almost two decades, there has been a “group of four” consisting of India, Germany, Brazil and Japan, countries that are applying for permanent seats in the Security Council and have pledged to support each other in this struggle. But a coalition is being built against each of them: Mexico and Argentina do not want to see Brazil as a representative of Latin America (they themselves claim this place), India does not like the Pakistanis (behind whom the Islamic world stands), Japan is unacceptable for China and Russia. In addition, she, like Germany, was generally the culprit of the Second World War – that is, the UN was created by those who defeated these countries. Yes, 75 years have passed, yes, now Japan and Germ-any are among the main pa-yers to the UN budget, but why exactly should they be given a permanent member seat? Germany generally sees its future as a member of the European Union – maybe then it would be better for the EU to grant a pe-rmanent seat in the Security Council? And at the expe-nse of France – she is also part of the “united Europe”.

In general, as soon as it comes to a specific list of candidates for new permanent members of the UN Security Council, everything stops. India now has the best chances – but for the sake of her alone no one will start such a complicated operation. And to argue about whether Nigeria or South Africa should represent Africa, who will be from the Arabs – Saudi Arabia or Egypt, why they forgot Indonesia and where Turkey is, you can until the end of the century.

At the same time, there is a much more correct option for increasing the representativeness of the Security Council – it needs to be supplemented with regional integration associations. That is, by those organizations that are gaining more and more weight in the world.

African Union, League of Arab States, Community of Latin America and the Caribbean, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) – at least these organizations should be represented on a permanent basis in the UN Security Council. With all the complexities and incompleteness of these alliances, the future belongs to them. They will undoubtedly grow stronger and in any case can already represent the interests of several world civilizations at once.

To them must be added India (which is itself a state-civilization), and even the European Union (that is, in fact, Germany), because in this case there will be no bias towards the West.

It is important that such a reform can be carried out quickly enough. In such a Security Council, the South will be much better represented – and although the veto will remain mainly with the states of the North, the new composition will be much closer to reality than it is now. And therefore, further complex searches for a new balance of forces and interests, work on a map of the future world order can be carried out in a truly representative composition. And fair – which is very important for the legitimacy of any future projects.

Leave a Comment