Having said that, I think rewarding India with a seat on the Security Council is not entirely without merit. It is the world's largest democracy with a modernizing economy and will likely play a larger role internationally as time goes on. Furthermore, there's a good chance it might offset the growing power of China within the region and internationally, likely one of the key reasons Obama is suggesting such a move. I think that countries should be rewarded with greater responsibilities when they modernize and this is one way to do that. Though I don't support expanding the Security Council and though I think rewarding India's efforts at modernizing is a good thing to do, were I to add a permanent seat to the Security Council I would go with Brazil.
The reason I support Brazil is because South America is generally considered an afterthought on the international stage and this serve the purpose of promoting the strongest country in the region onto the international stage. Everything that India has managed, Brazil has as well, both are strong economies with liberal democracies in place so both are worthy of recognition and of playing a greater role internationally. I still think Brazil makes more sense largely because of geographic reasons, there's already a Security Council seat for 2 Asian countries. (I include Russia because it has a large presence in the region, specifically Central Asia where China has got East Asia covered)
Also, when speaking of adding countries to the Security Council, I always feel that major powers get left off for reasons that are no longer relevant. Both Germany and Japan are strong economies, fully capable of fielding high tech military forces were they to be allowed, that share the politics and economies that are heavily promoted by both the Security Council and the UN. Both are equally capable of nuclear weapons technology (both countries could create nuclear weapons really fast should the need arise), which seems to be a de facto requirement for Security Council membership. Given both of these countries dedication to peace, global initiatives, and other efforts they would make great members of the Security Council. It makes no sense to continually punish these two countries for WWII, admittedly, both countries were responsible for some serious atrocities, but that never stopped the UN from admitting any of the other countries that are currently on the Security Council.
I think a reform for the UN that I have not been heard floated around was the concept of a General Assembly override of Security Council vetoes. Adding to the Security Council really only adds prestige to a particular country, it does not make the UN more effective at managing international relations, promoting global security, or defending human rights. As of right now, any Security Council country can veto any action it disagrees with and that's the end of the matter barring cajoling by other countries. I think an interesting reform that has the possibility of promoting democratic values within the UN and maybe have the effect of getting more stuff done. I think that if 2/3 of the General Assembly were to vote to overturn a veto than the veto should be overturned. I think this would happen rarely because it is very hard to get that many countries to agree on a matter. Think of how hard it is to get 67 Senators to vote together, let alone 127 sovereign states. But, this kind of reform would still have the impact of increasing the odds that something could happen rather than one state on the Security Council completely shutting down the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment