Perhaps the greatest impediment to world peace is the United Nations Security Council itself? This is felt by the power of the mighty veto held by each of the five permanent members. The image of the Security Council is that of a “club of superpowers” each prioritizing its own national interests over the other. In the rule of the jungle, realities of realpolitik assume total precedence where “might is right decision theory” rules supremely. This has reduced the rule of international law to arbitrary geopolitical gerrymandering. This is the legacy of the Security Council, but can it be saved, let alone reformed, to make a better world possible?
Reform of the Security Council was not truly prioritized until the end of the Cold War as the international community transitioned from a bipolar world to a multipolar one. The most significant push for reform began in 1992 under the tenure of Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali by proposing an expansion of the Security Council’s membership. Beginning in 1996, the Italian sponsored “Uniting for Consensus,” also known as the Coffee Club, proposed adding new permanent members of G4 nations to include Brazil, Germany, India, & Japan to the Security Council. Little time was wasted to counteract this proposition by non-G4 nations. Under Islamabad’s leadership, Pakistan would replace India, Mexico, Columbia, & Argentina were to replace Brazil, & Japan would be exchanged for South Korea.
This was proposed to break the Global North’s monopoly of power on the Security Council by affording “deferential preferentiality” to rapidly developing nations in the Global South. In 2005, Kofi Annan proposed his “2005 Plan” to increase permanent Security Council membership to 24 nations including the existing “Club of 5.” As an adherent to Annan’s philosophy on Security Council expansion, Ban Ki-Moon acknowledged the need to increase membership as something long overdue to better reflect the multipolar diversity of the world during his tenure as secretary-general. This has given rise to Security Council outsiders questioning the “propositional feasibility” of such solutions against the backdrop of our increasingly estranged multipolar reality. Do they go far enough or are they simply uninspired solutions designed to tease & appease more increasingly assertive nations eager to even the geopolitical playing field?
Why not explore the “supranational possibilities” for geopolitical union as defined by continent? Instead of 5 permanent members defined by national interest, there would be 8 permanent continental members. A new & reformed Security Council would be represented by continental blocs turned supranational unions for purposes of maximizing equilibrium in the actual distribution of international law. This project would be hatched under a centralizing focus to deny the possibility of war or military aggression between nations. The inspiration supporting the architecture for “supranational continentalization” is derived from the European & African Unions respectively in addition to the Union of South American Nations. Considering the vast ethnologic diversity & geographic enormity of Asia, two supranational unions would be required to represent the continent explaining why a renewed & restored Security Council would have 8 permanent members. At present, the Asian Cooperative Dialogue & the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are Asia’s continental equivalents to supranational union.
Although arguably counterintuitive, Antarctica would be represented on a rotating 4-year basis by nations with the greatest foreign assets on the continent. This would be measured by metrics of scientific research, economic activity, & military defense as defined by spheres of influence. Considering most nations active in Antarctica are already world powers, the supranational body overseeing the continent would work separate of their counterparts already on the Security Council. Rather, they would be represented by a leading scientific agency specializing in Antarctica from the relevant national superpower holding the rotating seat to diversify interests at the council to avoid overlap between more traditional spheres of diplomatic & military influence. For example, Washington could entrust the United States Arctic Research Commission to represent Antarctica under such “associative supranational premises.” The thinking is to inspire a diversification in supranational governance in underrepresented & marginalized areas to effectively civilianize governance instead of militarizing it. This experiment can determine if a separation of “supranational powers” is possible when applied differentially beyond foreign policy maxims at the Security Council. Each resolution cast before such a reordered Security Council would require a two-thirds majority vote effectively eliminating the traditional vetoing power of a single world power.
By recognizing supranational organizations like the European Union as traditional state actors while serving as permanent members of the Security Council simultaneously, the next great evolution in international relations can be achieved delivering a more representative & balanced world of global governance. Nonetheless, it may prove necessary to reinvent the wheel considering controversies & low confidence in existing supranational organizations like the African Union. This new existential basis for the Security Council can possibly exceed capacities & known capabilities of preexisting supranational organizations designed primarily to be “continent centric.” Thus, propositions for a potential “African Geopolitical Union” can be considered as a templated standard for such an experiment made in the name of supranationalism at a renewed Security Council for a restored United Nations.
As always, the task of sourcing leadership for such supranational organizations will prove challenging if not preventative or downright exhaustive, but the end results may definitely prove worth it in the long run.