Click to see the full-size image
Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher
Washington does not support Brazil’s entry into the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for fear that the country will adopt divergent positions in votes on issues critical to the United States and that it will be another BRICS member in the body.
Brazil’s demand for a seat in the UNSC is long-standing, but the US has resisted accepting expansion. The US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, recently stated that Washington does not guarantee its support for Brazil in an eventual expansion. She stressed that the US would only endorse the candidacies of India, Germany and Japan, which, together with Brazil, form the G4 — a group that advocates the expansion of the organization.
“We have expressed our support for Japan and, Germany and India. We have not explicitly expressed support for Brazil,” she said on September 12 at a Moderated Conversation on the Future of Multilateralism and UN Reform at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The South American country has adopted diplomacy characterized by independence, often misaligned with Washington’s interests. This explains the support for strategic allies with whom Washington has more stable and predictable relations. Supporting Brazil’s inclusion could create an undesirable precedent, encouraging demands from other countries and leading to an expansion of the council that would exceed Washington’s desired limits. The US seeks to maintain its privileged position by resisting changes that could compromise the effectiveness of the veto power.
However, Brazil’s entry into the UNSC would add a Latin American perspective, a notoriously under represented region. As a leading emerging economy, Brazil would have the capacity to amplify the voices and demands of developing countries, contributing to a more inclusive balance. In addition, Brazil could promote greater plurality on the council, favoring agendas focused on sustainable development and poverty eradication — issues that resonate with the priorities of developing nations.
The current composition of the UNSC no longer reflects the geopolitical reality of the 21st century, which is characterized by the rise of emerging powers that remain under represented. In this context, a more inclusive and diverse structure would bring greater legitimacy and acceptance to the international body’s decisions. Including new powers would, therefore, promote a fairer balance in international policy making and ensure a more equitable implementation of decisions affecting the global system.
It must be noted that the expansion would also result in a more complex and less agile decision-making process, especially in crises that demand rapid responses. The inclusion of new permanent members would have implications for the council’s internal dynamics, altering alliances and negotiations and possibly generating new tensions between members. Nevertheless, an expansion that reflects the reality of a multipolar world would potentially foster more lasting and sustainable solutions to global challenges, giving greater legitimacy to the council.
Washington sees the issue of hemispheric security and the policies of the American continent as centred on the US. The idea of another American country on the UNSC with a permanent seat would undermine the regional leadership that the US claims to have. The reluctance towards Brazil’s entry is an idea of maintaining inevitable political domination and providing a certain capacity to define agendas and policies for the US. Brazil joining the UNSC could bring another vision to security, defense, and geopolitical issues.
Of the G4 countries, Germany is the least relevant for a fundamental change in the UNSC since there are already European representatives. Instead, Germany should be replaced with an African country or consider a G5 with at least one African country — perhaps South Africa or Nigeria.
However, the expansion of the UNSC will only happen in the face of a very serious, fundamental threat to the current international geopolitical and geoeconomic order, greater than the current tension between NATO and Russia. There is a tendency towards ossification in the UNSC; for example, the US vetoes anything that is even minimally aimed at a ceasefire in Gaza.
Today, the countries that challenge the international order have been harmed by it, and Brazil, like many African countries, questions this order. In these discussions about policies for the Global South and articulations of the Global South, there is a discussion within the system. It is not known to what extent this action within the system can force a reform of the UNSC or if it will only be used as a symbol, but reform could contribute to more global stability if it sought a more representative reform that democratizes a little more the governance of security issues via the UNSC.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
i am from brazil and i say, our country is weak in the geopolitical world. but we have great allies 🇷🇺👍
if it wasn’t for orchestrated theatrical corruption south america should have been the most powerful place on earth it has the wealth the water the resources the farming the weather
its all fraud imo. fundamentally the globalists are already saying that the future is the southern hemisphere
brics brazil catholic, russia orthodox, india hindu china buddhist, south africa, whatever. who knows? maybe cannibalism, perhaps voo doo, just joiking joyce, church of england or dutch?
bottom line india south africa are commonwealth, english law basically, brazils vatican canon.chinas the jesuits really imo allegedly of course, so theyre church and crown. russias the odd one out allegedly. the patsy thinking they’ve a” good idea “
brics united are invincible both economically and militarily. it is not only necessary union but also a must in the geopolitical arena as only they can provide balance and justice to the global south
brics+ is the future…
no. the globalists acknowledge secretive that the north’s finished they decimated it with low level radiation since 1945 and that radiation will not go away for half a million years and fukushima was the icing on the cake.
the windsors had brittania so that they could sail away with naval air force protection. after the hateful government took it away they set their islands, new zealand up as their safe house, and that’s why its a nuclear free nation.
imo allegedly naturally
but here’s the rub a dub dub 3 men in a tub gelogists ive head are convinced new zealand long overdue to be submerged totally and disappear like atlantis. it’s only the tips of it above water still now.
still trying to figure out the best way to move my dollars into real money.
the summit is coming soon and after dictator zelinsky goes to the un and just before the us presidential elections. expect g7 hysteria and chaos over the next month.
the us will continue to feel threatened by any country seaking to be free of its counterfiet petrol dollar hyperinflation scam, like an evil king colllecting tribute through a defrauded currency. geee, who wants to have that kind of ‘business’ relationship? get ripped off and if you complain, they’ll coup your arse into a grave.
the us is not opec.
brics summit is coming up. is it true that they will be announcing they will be using gold backed currencies, as the $us petro-reserve currency has been made redundant?
brazil intel agency (abin) is in league with u.s. cia. brazil’s version of j6 went exactly as it did in the u.s.
there’s a small clique of genuine americans in congress they aren’t “washington” per se its not even anerican its a city state built to replicate its roman masters in anticipation.
the clique are the resistance now.
i don’t somehow see the un lasting in its current status; especially when it’s an institution of washington. as us collapses other new effective organizations will rise in its place.
unsc – bric without the s, all sitting comfortably in the unsc. that will make things interesting if there was actually a point to the unsc.