A brief summary of the debate:
Just about everyone agrees that the UN Security Council is no longer
representative. Although many people argue that there should be no veto
in the UNSC, there are five countries that are strongly opposed to that
concept, and they all have veto power over UNSC reforms - so that just
ain't gonna happen. Likewise, any plan for dropping France and Russia is
similarly dead in the water.
Most observers reckon that on the basis of contributions to the UN, Japan
and Germany are deserving of permanent Security Council seats. Of course,
as the old Pakistani ambassador quipped - "That proposal simply makes an
institution that is representative of the world in 1945 representative of
the world as it was in 1939. :)" Keeping with that line of thought, Italy
consistently argues that if Germany gets a permanent UNSC seat, then it
should also.
Moreover, this would make the Council which is already fairly heavily
weighted towards Western Nations (in the eyes of developing countries),
even moreso weighted in that direction.
Thus, in my mind, Security Council reform is a moot point until the
European Union finally completes their drive towards a common foreign
security policy. This would result in combining the UNSC permanent sea
of France with Germany, Italy, and much of the rest of the EU - perhaps
even including the UK.
Once this happens, it then becomes possible to envision expanding the UNSC
to 25 members or so, with 7-8 of them as permanent members (pending whether
the UK joins the EU seat.) India is basically a done deal to be in the
next wave of permanent SC seat additions, especially since Pakistan and
Indonesia are no longer viewed as wholly respectable nations - India would
be the choice by virtue of its population, economy, and status as a
developing country. The only fly in the ointment is that India needs to
settle the Kashmir dispute first - but since I have already projected a
future in which the EU has a single foreign policy, anything is possible.
The next addition as a permanent members would be Egypt. It has he
advantage of being simultaneous Arab, African, and Muslim - thus appeasing
three key UN consitutencies. In addition, it has a large population,a
peace treaty with Israel, diplomatic prestige, and the West can even
pretend that it is a democracy.
Once Egypt and India are added as permanent members, one Latin American
country will no doubt get a permanent seat as well. The only problem is,
nobody knows which one, although Argentina and Venezuela have helped narrow
the field through their respective troubles. Basically, it would be
either Brazil or Mexico, and I personally give the nod to Mexico based on
its current performance of standing up to the United States in its current
non-permanent SC membership, and the simple fact that Brazil speaks
Portugese, and the rest of Latin America will never concede Brazil as their
permanent representative.
So, there you have it. That *is* how UNSC reform will end up - only the
professionals haven't figured it out yet.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern
them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female;
own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of
freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the
duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common
calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
-US National Security Policy, 2002
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
