| Reform or Deform? |
10 March 2003
|
UN Security Council Needs Restructuring
As the Bush administration tries desperately to find 9 votes out of the 15-member UN Security Council to approve its war on Iraq, one thing has become clear apart from a certain French prickliness, and that is the desperate need to restructure the council itself. The current arrangement does not reflect the evolution of global power since 1945, and to remain relevant, changes are needed.
Firstly, it must be noted that the permanent members, i.e., those with the power to veto resolutions, will not give up that ability. Suggestions that the UK and France give up their veto in exchange for a common European one are ridiculous. No nation-state will give up the right to pursue its interests, and Stalin insisted on this tool for that reason.
Secondly, one must acknowledge that there are nations deserving of permanent membership by their size alone -- India for example. That a billion Indians do not have a government vested with a veto, while 60 million Frenchmen or Britons do is silly.
Finally, though, it must be remembered that in changing the structure, one may be making the UNSC less relevant. President Bush alleges that a UNSC failure to let him go to war will make the UN extraneous in US decision-making. There is an unfortunate truth to that. Expanding the council too much will make it too unwieldy to get anything done. Perhaps, a UN-staffed committee with a fat budget headed by a Frenchman can examine a solution, and report back in 100 years. That is how things are done at the UN.