Thursday, June 23, 2005
S.O.S. - D.D.
Who, if anyone, deserves a seat on the UN Security Council?
I think I have a better question. What does it matter?
The United Nations has become increasingly irrelevant. At the end of the Cold War, the common anti-UN fear was of the dreaded One World Government. Now the complaint is simple graft and corruption, not unlike a local coucilman stealing money from the municiple coffers. Wherever there is a large and powerful organization there is ambition and greed. Representative systems are meant to function on the balance of competing "enlightened" self-interest. The representaive are supposed to act in the interests of the districts, states/provinces or nations they stand for. As with most such assemblies today, the members of the UN self-interest is neighter enlightened or national in character.
What purpose would it serve to add another chair to the council? This body only holds a nation to its treaty obligations if there's no monetary draw back for the ambassadors in the chairs. What good would it do to expand the circle of permanent members? Yet another potential veto? Could we make this body less effective?
Perhaps one could assume the question meant "Which nation would make the Security Council more effective, if it were added?" Then my counter question becomes "More effective for whom?" More effective for America? I can't think of anyone who isn't generally against American interests, one of the major reasons the US tends to walk apart from the UN. If such a member could be found and such a balance shift made, how would it be different from the state of things now? American unilateralism with the UN seal of approval?
I aknowledge the possibility that I'm not giving the UN enough credit. It could be better, or more threatening than I think. It might have the potential to become something imortant in the future. I realize that the UN has more impact beyond the borders of my country. In the end, I just don't care.
There are enough fires to worry over at home. I can't spare much thought for the UN. In the spirit of the original question, however, I will name my number one choice for a spot on the SC.
The Principality of Liechtenstein.
Why? Why not?
I think I have a better question. What does it matter?
The United Nations has become increasingly irrelevant. At the end of the Cold War, the common anti-UN fear was of the dreaded One World Government. Now the complaint is simple graft and corruption, not unlike a local coucilman stealing money from the municiple coffers. Wherever there is a large and powerful organization there is ambition and greed. Representative systems are meant to function on the balance of competing "enlightened" self-interest. The representaive are supposed to act in the interests of the districts, states/provinces or nations they stand for. As with most such assemblies today, the members of the UN self-interest is neighter enlightened or national in character.
What purpose would it serve to add another chair to the council? This body only holds a nation to its treaty obligations if there's no monetary draw back for the ambassadors in the chairs. What good would it do to expand the circle of permanent members? Yet another potential veto? Could we make this body less effective?
Perhaps one could assume the question meant "Which nation would make the Security Council more effective, if it were added?" Then my counter question becomes "More effective for whom?" More effective for America? I can't think of anyone who isn't generally against American interests, one of the major reasons the US tends to walk apart from the UN. If such a member could be found and such a balance shift made, how would it be different from the state of things now? American unilateralism with the UN seal of approval?
I aknowledge the possibility that I'm not giving the UN enough credit. It could be better, or more threatening than I think. It might have the potential to become something imortant in the future. I realize that the UN has more impact beyond the borders of my country. In the end, I just don't care.
There are enough fires to worry over at home. I can't spare much thought for the UN. In the spirit of the original question, however, I will name my number one choice for a spot on the SC.
The Principality of Liechtenstein.
Why? Why not?
