These are my random musings. Hopefully they will be witty, insightful, and frequently updated.
Is more better?
Published on June 20, 2006 By singrdave In International
What are the ramifications of expanding or changing the membership of the Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council (PSC). Before I give my "final answer" (with apologies to Regis), I think expanding the permanent membership is a very bad move. If it was hard getting five consenting PSC states during the Cold War, how hard will it be with seven, nine, or twelve? Any expansion of the membership will degrade the PSC's ability to pass resolutions and lead to further stalemates.

Do Great Britain and France still justify their own seats, or should Germany should receive full PSC membership? Germany does make a very strong case for UNSC membership: Germany is strong financially and politically and has exhibited leadership in the past, especially in the formation of the European Union. Germans have atoned for their WWII sins and deserve a greater say in the world body.

Japan's ability to ascend to the PSC is also pretty solid. They too have been adequately punished for their WWII legacy (except in the eyes of Korea) and deserve consideration as a new PSC member state. The Japanese post-imperialist comeback, involvement in foreign deployments (including Iraq '03), and open political climate make them a perfect fit for a seat on the UN's ruling body.

India also presents a strong case for UN leadership. Their population, economic growth, and ongoing sociopolitical reform make them an excellent candidate for greater responsibility. A case could also be made for Brazil to come into the fold, thus granting a democratic, relatively stable South American nation a say.

Regarding the rotating seat idea: fantastic. If the UK and France are willing to share a seat with one another, let alone Germany, then that would be very egalitarian and gracious. However, I do not see it happening. Once power is received, it is hardly ever relinquished. Germany receiving a rotating seat with the UK and France in a "European seat", along with China's sharing with India and Japan (two former and, in India's case, current) antagonists would be the best possible, but least likely situation.

I absolutely reject the notion that a SC member would not have the veto power. The legitimizing of Germany, Japan, or India as PSC members would have to be a complete legitimization. Not doing so would make these countries the equivalent of a rotating SC member, except back every year. The point would be to bring any ascending states into the fold, as it were. As the old American Express commercial said, "Membership has its privileges." And PSC status confers that privilege.

So my final answer? In my humble opinion, expanding the PSC to include regional players is overdue but conversely a move towards more stalemates and logjams. It's always easier to get five voices to sing in harmony than nine or eleven.


Food for thought:

The Economist, dated 22 July 2004, reports on a conference at Baden, Austria, to discuss the future of the UNSC. They envisioned:

an expanded 24-member council of three tiers: the existing permanent five (America, Britain, China, France and Russia); a second tier of seven or eight potentially semi-permanent members elected on a regional basis for a renewable term of four or five years (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and South Africa might be in this group); and a third tier of rotating regional members elected, as at present, for a non-renewable two-year term. Only the permanent five would have a veto.

"The beauty of this formula", crows one observer, "is that everyone wins. Some may have hoped for more, but at least no one loses." Under the UN's charter, the council's membership is supposed to be based not just on regional diversity, but also on the members' willingness to contribute to world peace and security.


So instead of expanding to nine or twelve, the consensus of this meeting was to go all the way to twenty-four. Under this plan, the veto power would remain with the current five, but this 24-member SC would better represent the diversity of world voices.

Agree/disagree?

Comments
on Jun 20, 2006
More voices bring more discord, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make the status quo okay, however...
on Jun 20, 2006
Doesn't matter how many Member Nations are Permanent Members. It is still a gaggle of rapists and murderers who would gladly so anyone raped if it meant they could profit from it.

If you ask me, the planes hit the wrong building in New York on 9/11... probably out of professional courtesy to the Useless UN.
on Jun 20, 2006
If there's going to be a rotating membership it's only fair that the US should rotate as well, perhaps with Brazil (everyone's favourite Portugese-speaking economic powerhouse). Otherwise the UN might as well not change at all.

It is still a gaggle of rapists and murderers who would gladly so anyone raped if it meant they could profit from it.


And the US isn't mercenary in the pursuit of its interests? Get real.
on Jun 20, 2006
If there's going to be a rotating membership it's only fair that the US should rotate as well

Then perhaps these new ascending nations will help foot the UN's mighty bill? The US keeps the UN afloat... maybe your Australia can start handing over some cash?

Step up to that wicket, my Aussie batsman.
on Jun 20, 2006

Reply By: singrdavePosted: Tuesday, June 20, 2006
If there's going to be a rotating membership it's only fair that the US should rotate as well

Then perhaps these new ascending nations will help foot the UN's mighty bill? The US keeps the UN afloat... maybe your Australia can start handing over some cash?

Step up to that wicket, my Aussie batsman.

 

I am sure the Ausies will be happy to foot our share of the UN bills. OH wait the UN does not take bat guano and crocodile tears as payment do they?

on Jun 20, 2006
And the US isn't mercenary in the pursuit of its interests? Get real.


I'm not so naive that I think that no U.S. representative has committed attrocities.. however coordinating and bankrolling attrocities is all the Useless UN has left.

From the "oil for food program" that protected Hussein to the rapes in the nations of Africa, the UN has done NOTHING but play killer for hire.

There are a few auxilleries of the UN that do a lot of good, however, the UN itself has never accomplished anything more than protect tyrants.
on Jun 20, 2006
From the "oil for food program" that protected Hussein to the rapes in the nations of Africa, the UN has done NOTHING but play killer for hire.


Except for the intervention in East Timor, providing the basis for the creation of international institutions like War Crimes Tribunals et al, the intervention in Bosnia, UNESCO, UNICEF, its organisation of refugees, etc etc. Let's face it - there's nothing else in the world like the UN. It may be flawed, but when collective action is necessary it's the only game in town. You can talk up NATO all you like, but the UN has the only banner wihch doesn't say 'imperialism' in the third world.

Then perhaps these new ascending nations will help foot the UN's mighty bill? The US keeps the UN afloat... maybe your Australia can start handing over some cash?


The US pays its dues to the UN and provides a rent-free building because it gets a very good return on its investment. The UN could survive without the US, but I doubt the US would ever be so stupid as to throw away its veto in a fit of pique and dumb politics.

As for Australia, it does hand over some cash, as you well know. And recently it has expended a great deal of its own money on UN-sanctioned interventions and operations in the South Pacific.
on Jun 21, 2006
Cacto, as I said above, some of the auxilleries of the UN have done some good... However, do you really want to bring up "Bosnia" as a success story?

It may be flawed, but when collective action is necessary it's the only game in town. You can talk up NATO all you like, but the UN has the only banner wihch doesn't say 'imperialism' in the third world.


That's like saying, The Mafia may be terrible, but look what they do for the children.

'imperialism' in the third world.


Nope, it says, "we rape the third world women, but don't you dare horn in on our action".
on Jun 21, 2006
That's like saying, The Mafia may be terrible, but look what they do for the children.


Yes, but in areas where there is no government and the mafia is the only game in town, they are still better than anarchy. The world has no government, no central source of order. The UN's crimes are nothing compared to the unfairness and horrors that existed before.

Nope, it says, "we rape the third world women, but don't you dare horn in on our action".


Really? Do you have any proof of that? I greatly resent your assertion that friends of mine who have served in UN peacekeeping forces (Bosnia) or have worked for the UN in one of its offices (in this case Translation) are rapists. They wanted to make the world a better place but in your eyes they're little more than filth.

I guess it's your right as an American citizen though to be an arrogant arsehole, dismissing the world for the sake of, well, what exactly? For the life of me I can't tell why you expect the UN to be saintly when it's an inherently human organisation, or why you expect it to act in a manner the US itself is incapable of achieving.
on Jun 21, 2006

The Composition of the PSC has been the original possesors of "the bomb".  Now, that club is so vast that permanency is a bit out dated.  Indeed, the Security council is in itself a toothless old hag with no real purpose.  They have accomplised nothing and shown that even their resolutions are worthless.

I say expand it to include all nuclear members. Let them have some prestige - of what value that is - and bragging rights.  It wont change the impotence of the Council.

on Jun 21, 2006
I say expand it to include all nuclear members.

That would make quite the rogues gallery of states... South Africa, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan? Yikes.
on Jun 21, 2006
That would make quite the rogues gallery of states... South Africa, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan? Yikes.


And just as effective.
on Jun 21, 2006
Cacto:
Yes, but in areas where there is no government and the mafia is the only game in town, they are still better than anarchy. The world has no government, no central source of order. The UN's crimes are nothing compared to the unfairness and horrors that existed before.


There never was meant to be a "world governent".. the further you go up the jurisdiction ladder, the further you go from responsiveness to the people. A world government CANNOT do anything more than bluster, threaten and in the end, fail.

When the UN delegates talk about "diplomacy" they are merely saying, "How much of my country's integrity do I have to give up to get you to give up yours (in the name of your country). How much grain (That doesn't belong to me) do I have to give up... How much market share do the U.S. Companies that I don't own have to sacrifice... How many of your country's children should we starve this week (in the name of "sanctions")? How much money should we pad the wallets of 3rd rate tyrants with, just so we can tell Americans they did good by donating their money?

I greatly resent your assertion that friends of mine who have served in UN peacekeeping forces (Bosnia) or have worked for the UN in one of its offices (in this case Translation) are rapists. They wanted to make the world a better place but in your eyes they're little more than filth.


Hey, I have nothing against the rank and file workers in any of the auxilleries. They are mostly hard working, well meaning people who are putting their money where their mouths are. Whether it is UNICEF or troops in blue helmets... they are out there, putting it all on the line for others... Nothing but respect for them in that! They ARE NOT the UN, they simply do what they can to make some hell hole better than when they got there.

If the UN was simply an organization that coordinated international aid, or a place where diplomats could hash out differences between nations, I would consider the UN one of the greatest organizations going... but you and I both know that they have no interest in such a powerless role.

it's an inherently human organisation, or why you expect it to act in a manner the US itself is incapable of achieving.


When that murderous rapist Kofi Annan refused to do anything about the allegations of rapes by UN workers and leaders... when the security council members knowingly protected Hussein for profit...

It's ironic, when U.S. troops are accused of attrocities, liberals scream, rant and rave about "It's Bush's Fault"... but when it's a sacred cow like the UN, well, then it's not the UN.. it's not even the person accused of the autrocity... it just didn't happen.

In case you didn't notice, when a U.S. troop is accused of any crime, we cut off our right arm to investigate and (if necessary) prosecute. Kofi Annan and the UN leadership NEVER investigate or punish anyone for autrocities... WHY? Because that is what the UN is there for!

Cacto, I have nothing against you at all, nothing I said in this tread is personal against you (or any UN rank and file worker)... but the failed record of the UN speaks for itself.