Reform of the Security Council?

The debate if Brazil should have a permanent seat in the Security Council nowadays is an issue that is receiving more and more attention from the international media. Brazil is part of a branch of countries that are named BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China). These countries are major powers that are becoming more and more important and influential in the international panorama. Of these three countries, Russia and China are already part of the Security Council as permanent members with veto right.

In the last couple of years there has been talks and discussion about adding more members to the permanent council. There is a sensitive issue due to the importance of being part of this council. The resolutions are law abiding and their effects are really important. Well, the international relations trend suggests that in case of enlarging the members they should be Germany, Brazil, India and Japan. In 2004, these four countries, also known as the G4, claimed that the Security Council has to be reformed. They suggested that the Security Council should be extended from five permanent seats up to eleven. The six new seats should belong to the G4 states as well as to two African countries. Moreover, they want to dispose the veto right.

But does Brazil deserve the responsibility of being member of the council? Let’s have a look deeper into the country. With a population of almost 200 million and the biggest economy in Latin America, is the most influential country of South America. It has a lot of resources and despite of its poverty, the policies from the state are beginning to be appreciated in the general improvement of the conditions. Furthermore, Brazil had an impressive growth of its economy despite the global crises. However, it has a less power and influence in the military aspect. Although being the second biggest country in the whole continent after US, they lack of nuclear powers and they fall behind other countries such as Germany, Turkey or Israel.

But should the military aspect decide if I country can have a permanent seat? And why do the five permanent member still have the veto right?

In my opinion, I think that the structure of the Security Council is not up to date anymore as it was constructed after World War II. Nowadays, the world has changed and more countries became more important. Even though they have also ten members which are not permanent, the five permanent’s power and influence is too high. Moreover, I think that the veto right is a big problem, because it delays or even stops resolutions. But it also has to be considered that the Security Council probably would not exist without it as the political situation was not stable enough when the council was formed. Although there are several reasons against a reform, I support the idea of Brazil and the other G4 countries as it would help to improve the security in the world.


Los comentarios están cerrados.

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: