The curse of enlarging the UN Security Council
I say "curse" because it seems like every time this issue arises it becomes impossible to solve and thus falls apart with no change. All of the articles out recently are all missing the same points about this issue and that's why I'm writing this piece today. I'll take each argument, state it in writing and then agree or disagree with its main points.
1. The UN Security Council today is anachronistic and doesn't reflect today's changed world.
Yes, this statement is true but let me pose a response: so what?
No where in the charter of the UN does it state that the Security Council should be reflective of the world's geography. Instead the idea behind the establishment of the UN Security Council was that it would reflect the structure of the major military powers, those with the means and will capable of using military force or the threat of military force to police the world. That's why there were 5 major powers who were given the right of veto, because these nations all had enormous military power and were capable of using that power to keep themselves and other nations in check.
This brings up the issue of those that are hoping for a permanent seat on the Security Council. Those nations are India, Germany, Japan and Brazil. Without casting doubt on any of these nation's goals one must be cold and hard when determining their suitability for a seat on the Security Council. Do any of these three powers have the means or will to assert military power outside their borders?
Only one does and that's India. Germany and Japan have essentially pacifist constitutions and in the case of Germany a military budget that is less than any of the 5 current permanent powers on the Security Council. How can you have permanent members who want to make decisions about the security of the world yet have no meaningful ability to contribute to those decisions?
Brazil is a large and growing actor on the world stage yet it also has little ability to project Brazilian power outside its borders. By objective standards, and using the formula that was originally designed to designate members of the Security Council the only nation that has earned the right to be counted as a permanent member is India.
2. The Security Council has no permanent members from Africa or members who are Muslim. Adding an African and/or Islamic member will increase the relevance of the UN to Africa and the Islamic world.
When is the last time you heard complaints from average Africans or the Muslims about the lack of an African or Islamic member of the UN? My point exactly.
This argument seems to be based more on white and Christian guilt than on any rational basis for permanent membership. If one is going to use religion as a reason for diversity on the Security Council then there are also no Hindu nor Buddhist members, nor Jewish nor Zoroastrian.
The Security Council is NOT some kind of international version of Studio 54. It's a grouping of nations with the means and will to issue binding declarations dealing with international issues of law and order. Countries don't become permanent members by stating that certain groups will feel "left out" of the process if one of them isn't given permanent membership. Why would the US or France agree to allow South Africa or Turkey a permanent seat on the Security Council when neither of those two nations has the means or will to meaningfully contribute to the maintenance of world order? The Security Council isn't a popularity club (if it were the US wouldn't be included) and the sooner people realize this the better.
In addition the council already has the means of adding regional diversity and that is through the election of non-permanent members to two-year rotating terms on the council. Germany currently holds one of those seats from the European bloc.
3. Japan contributes the second-highest amount to the UN budget. On that basis alone shouldn't it be given a seat?
No.
Membership on the council isn't determined by who contributes to the UN and how much. Dues to the UN are decided on the basis of a nation's GDP and other factors and has little to no bearing on UN Security Council membership and nor should it. If it did China wouldn't have membership at all because it pays less than 1% of UN dues. If one used the "we pay so we should get" argument both Sweden and Korea should have permanent seats, China and Russia would both be kicked off.
4. The UN is becoming anachronistic and changing the membership of the UN Security Council can change this.
Wrong.
Well right, the UN is becoming anachronistic but changing the makeup of the Security Council isn't going to change that fact.
The UN will not be made less anachronistic by adding permanent members like Germany when there are already two other members of the European Union on the council. I've yet to see a single, rational argument stating why adding Japan and Germany would somehow make the UN more "relevant." The UN already is highly popular in these two countries owing to its policies of opposing the US war in Iraq. How would adding Germany and Japan make the UN more relevant?
If anything adding more developed, Western-leaning nations to the Security Council would make the UN less, not more relevant. This all feeds back to argument 2 above. The Security Council isn't a kind of "most popular nation" club.
Demolishing the lame and misguided argument for irrational enlargement of the Security Council is easy on the basis of the reasons stated above. If a nation wants on the Security Council it needs to be aware of the responsibilities that come with that kind of membership and not use misguided and false reasons to try and pressure the current members into giving it membership.
12:19:43 AM 
|
