Germany is griping about the US not supporting an expansion for the Security Council.
Washington has thrown a wrench into BerlinÂ’s aspirations of becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council, arguing that the expansion of the body is not its top reform priority.
At a joint press conference with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held back on endorsing Germany's bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, arguing that other UN reforms such as streamlining management were more important than the expansion of the top decision-making body from the current 15 members to 25, as proposed by Germany, Japan, India and Brazil.
Personally, I think Germany has the weakest case for becoming a permanent member of any of those on the list. Europe is already represented by the UK and France. Both of which have veto powers. I see no added benefit from Germany getting a seat.
Brazil probably has the strongest case for being added. South America has no representation at all and Brazil is democratic and relatively stable.
India would also be an excellent choice, but there is a big problem with opposition from Moslem countries. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Moslem country that would be an appropriate counter weight to the addition of India.
Japan has a better case than Germany, but still weak. Though there is merit in that the presence of Japan would be a counter to the Chinese member, though no veto would be given to them.
Africa is still unrepresented with a permanent member. Another quandary since again I can't think of a country on that continent that is stable enough and democratic that would make a good member.
I do believe being democratic is very important to this. No country with a dictator or a monarchy should be on this council. That would give a single person the powers of a nation state. I can't see anyone following the old monarchy arguments any longer. As for the communist countries, far and few, I don't see them as truly democratic either. Most being controlled by a group of elites from militaries or government structures. No one votes for them, so they are only slightly better than a dictatorship.
Brazil probably has the strongest case for being added. South America has no representation at all and Brazil is democratic and relatively stable.
India would also be an excellent choice, but there is a big problem with opposition from Moslem countries. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Moslem country that would be an appropriate counter weight to the addition of India.
Japan has a better case than Germany, but still weak. Though there is merit in that the presence of Japan would be a counter to the Chinese member, though no veto would be given to them.
Africa is still unrepresented with a permanent member. Another quandary since again I can't think of a country on that continent that is stable enough and democratic that would make a good member.
I do believe being democratic is very important to this. No country with a dictator or a monarchy should be on this council. That would give a single person the powers of a nation state. I can't see anyone following the old monarchy arguments any longer. As for the communist countries, far and few, I don't see them as truly democratic either. Most being controlled by a group of elites from militaries or government structures. No one votes for them, so they are only slightly better than a dictatorship.
As for the standings of these four with the members of the permanent council:
Among the current five council members, only France and Britain support all four of the new bidders. China openly opposes any seat for Japan while Russia's position remains unclear.
Within the General Assembly, diplomats say Germany faces the least opposition, while Muslim nations are expected to organize against India and developing nations are believed to want to block Japan's aspirations.
No comments:
Post a Comment