Useful China
Well, finally the Chinese government is good for something.
Now, you can obviously figure out China's stake in this; they don't want their status as one of only five veto-wielding nations eliminated. So, they may end up helping us out in the long run, though not for the right reasons.
I think you have to admit, though, that the nations pushing for an increase in the number of permanent seats are almost wholly unworthy of those seats. As I mentioned yesterday, Germany's unemployment is in double digits, and in spite of some positive steps toward becoming a major power in the 1980's and '90's, they're having a great deal of trouble even giving the outward appearance of solvency. India and Brazil, in spite of their stability, are still developing countries; India's case for permanent membership isn't terribly strong, and it's still much stronger than Brazil's.
The one nation that could make a strong case, especially if it abandoned its pacifist ideology, is Japan; they're already a strong, democratic, capitalist nation. Even so, we don't need another France as a permanent member of the Security Council, to stand back and watch when rogue nations need to be held to account. If you go back and read the U.N. charter, the entire point of the United Nations when it was founded in the wake of World War II was to enforce international law in the interest of preventing war. It wasn't meant as a debating society or a trade council; effort should be made to give the U.N.S.C. some teeth, not make it even more impotent.
And I won't go into detail on the pathetic demand by the African Union. I'll give them credit, the African Union is making a real, tangible effort to stabilize Africa. When they actually make some accomplishments along those lines, they should be accepted as a viable force in the world. However, when A.U. peacekeepers can't do jack to fight genocide in Sudan, they don't deserve two (or even one) permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council.
Of course, I think the best solution is for the United States to abandon the U.N. altogether; I'm convinced that it's irreparably broken, and my guess is that yanking American funding would effectively eliminate it. However, I doubt that's going to happen, so the best thing to do is make some attempt to fix the U.N.; however, granting permanent Security Council seats to a former world power with a crumbling economy whose preceding half-century has been less-than-stellar, two developing countries, and a pacifist nation is not the solution to the U.N.'s problems.
Beijing will work with the United States to block a plan to add new permanent members to the UN Security Council, China's UN ambassador says.
Wang Guangya said he agreed the deal with the new US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, at a meeting.
Both countries oppose a plan put forward by the Group of Four - Brazil, Germany, Japan and India - to add six new permanent members to the Council.
Meanwhile, the African Union has voted to demand two veto-wielding seats.
The G4 had asked them to drop the veto demand.
Now, you can obviously figure out China's stake in this; they don't want their status as one of only five veto-wielding nations eliminated. So, they may end up helping us out in the long run, though not for the right reasons.
I think you have to admit, though, that the nations pushing for an increase in the number of permanent seats are almost wholly unworthy of those seats. As I mentioned yesterday, Germany's unemployment is in double digits, and in spite of some positive steps toward becoming a major power in the 1980's and '90's, they're having a great deal of trouble even giving the outward appearance of solvency. India and Brazil, in spite of their stability, are still developing countries; India's case for permanent membership isn't terribly strong, and it's still much stronger than Brazil's.
The one nation that could make a strong case, especially if it abandoned its pacifist ideology, is Japan; they're already a strong, democratic, capitalist nation. Even so, we don't need another France as a permanent member of the Security Council, to stand back and watch when rogue nations need to be held to account. If you go back and read the U.N. charter, the entire point of the United Nations when it was founded in the wake of World War II was to enforce international law in the interest of preventing war. It wasn't meant as a debating society or a trade council; effort should be made to give the U.N.S.C. some teeth, not make it even more impotent.
And I won't go into detail on the pathetic demand by the African Union. I'll give them credit, the African Union is making a real, tangible effort to stabilize Africa. When they actually make some accomplishments along those lines, they should be accepted as a viable force in the world. However, when A.U. peacekeepers can't do jack to fight genocide in Sudan, they don't deserve two (or even one) permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council.
Of course, I think the best solution is for the United States to abandon the U.N. altogether; I'm convinced that it's irreparably broken, and my guess is that yanking American funding would effectively eliminate it. However, I doubt that's going to happen, so the best thing to do is make some attempt to fix the U.N.; however, granting permanent Security Council seats to a former world power with a crumbling economy whose preceding half-century has been less-than-stellar, two developing countries, and a pacifist nation is not the solution to the U.N.'s problems.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home