Which countries should replace the current permanent UN Security Council members

It’s always a dismay for me to see that the seats of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War 2.

The UNSC’s veto power is wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, enabling them to prevent the adoption of any 'substantive' draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft.

I personally think that some of the current members should be replaced by other countries that could represent a higher proportion of the world demographics.

Now let me take a look at each of the current members and argue which of them should leave and which should stay…

1. People’s Republic of China (STAY). PRC is the largest population in the world and it also holds much influence to the world economy (even projected to defeat the American economy in several years to come).

2. United States of America (STAY). Being the largest military and economic power in the world, USA should stay in its seat.

3. Russia (LEAVE). Despite having a role in the establishment of the UN in 1945 and taking an active role in the UN, Russia should leave the seat because it does not represent much of the world’s power as proven in its handling of former USSR countries.

4. United Kingdom (LEAVE). Hasn’t the Western world enough represented already by America? Moreover, there isn’t much difference between the needs of the British government and the American government. They’re very much of the same brain wavelengths.

5. France (LEAVE). Despite the major differences the French government usually have with the Americans, I believe that the French no longer holds that much influence to the world in general.

So…. 2 countries stay and 3 countries leave. I have three other world entities that I think deserve to replace the three on my above list:

1. Brazil. Yes, South America does need a permanent representative in the UNSC membership. Brazil, as the largest population there, should be given the power.

2. Indonesia. Indonesia holds much influence due to the fact that it is the largest Muslim population in the world and also the largest power of ASEAN.

3. India. This second largest country in terms of population, together with it being the largest democracy in the world, India deserves to represent most of the world’s Hindu population.

For a more comprehensive debate on this issue, you could check here.

A number of discussions have taken place recently over the suitability of the UNSC veto power in today’s world. Key arguments include that the five permanent members no longer represent the most stable and responsible member states in the United Nations, and that their veto power slows down and even prevents important decisions being made on matters of international peace and security. Due to the global changes that have taken place politically and economically since the formation of the UN in 1945, widespread debate has been apparent over whether the five permanent members of the UN Security Council remain the best member states to hold veto power. While the permanent members are still typically regarded as great powers, there is debate over their suitability to retain exclusive veto power.

To my knowledge; Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have supported each other in their G4 alliance in their bids to become a permanent UNSC membership. Indeed, if not by replacing the five permanent UNSC members, the UN should let in a higher intake of permanent member countries into 10 (by adding four from the G4 nations and one from Indonesia, the Muslim-majority nation)

Now some may argue that my decision not to include any African country as being slanted. Far from being biased, the largest African country is Nigeria (with around 135 million population) which is still less than Brazil's 185 million. Moreover, isn’t the original Permanent UNSC membership much more biased in the first place? Take a look at it, the current members there does not include any single South American countries, despite having two (or three, if you include Russia) European members.