Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David in Ontario who wrote (22900)	4/18/2003 10:39:56 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

Adieu to France? National Post Thursday, April 17, 2003 Monday morning, on a popular Sydney radio program, John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, argued for revocation of France's status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. He asserted that France's veto-bearing membership "distorts" the Council. "If you were starting it all over again," France would have no case to be included. Mr. Howard candidly added that France is only a permanent member now "because it was a global power at the end of World War II." It would be worth seconding Mr. Howard's suggestion just for the sheer fun of watching 60 million smug Frenchmen -- a third of who were openly rooting for Saddam Hussein's forces to defeat the Anglo-American coalition -- contort in fits of nationalistic apoplexy. But his proposal raises a larger issue: What is to be done with the UN in general and the Security Council in particular, now that both have proven themselves so disastrously wrong (for the umpteenth time) on Iraq? Three weeks ago, we admitted we saw no harm in winding down the international debating society. Aside from a few worthwhile agencies, the UN accomplishes very little of consequence. Especially since the end of the Cold War, it has been little more than a festival of anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, deconstructionism and revisionist history. But as we also conceded at the time, "There is little chance the United Nations will actually be formally dismantled any time soon." So how can the Security Council be made more relevant? Mr. Howard, as have many before him, suggests expanding its membership from 15 to somewhere over 20, and creating three levels of membership. At present there are five permanent, veto-wielding members -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- and 10 non-permanent members, representing the world's various regions, who rotate through the Council. Many UN reformers have proposed adding one new permanent, non-veto member from each of Asia, Africa and South America -- India, Nigeria and Brazil are often mentioned as contenders -- as well as two from the industrialized world, usually Japan and Germany. Canada's name used to come up, but almost never does now. We no longer possess the economic, military or diplomatic power to rank. Expanding the Council, though, seems an exercise in futility. More chefs would merely produce a thicker stew, not necessarily a more satisfying one. India's inclusion would provoke at least Pakistan, and more likely the wider Muslim world. Nigeria is one of the most repressive regimes in Africa, and thus the world. Its inclusion would defeat the purpose of reform. The Security Council needs fewer apologists for tyranny, not more. And Brazil flickers in and out of insolvency. Adding more members to the Council would raise the risk that obstructionist voting blocs could be formed on nearly every issue. The UN's ability to react to security crises would be diminished from its already unacceptably slow pace. Nor are most other fashionable reform ideas practical. A seven-year re-examination of the Council by the UN General Assembly suggested: modifying the veto power of the five permanent members; requiring them to provide a written justification each time they used their veto; eliminating vetoes altogether; even requiring at least two permanent members to agree to a veto before a Security Council resolution can be nullified. Perhaps the most promising suggestion was permitting a supermajority in the General Assembly to override a veto. But any modification of the individual veto power would immediately be seized upon by Israel's numerous enemies to pile even more condemnation on the Jewish state. Often in the past, the U.S. veto has been Israel's only safeguard at the UN. The Security Council's inadequacies are not institutional or procedural; they stem from a lack of will and character. The expulsion of France from the Council makes sense because France's actions on the Iraq file exemplify the venality that has paralyzed the UN for more than a decade. Sending France to the minor leagues would be the kind of symbolic act that just might steel the nerves of the other Council members to take their responsibility for international security seriously. In the end, only a change of will can save the UN from self-imposed irrelevance. © Copyright 2003 National Post