Expand UNSC to 7 members?

[Michael]

There has long been talk of expanding the UNSC from the present number of five (USA, Russia, China, France & UK).

By all accounts, India is pretty much guarenteed to be the 6th member.

The question is, who should the 7th member be? The usual candidates are Germany, Japan and Brazil.

Any thoughts on this issue?

[Americano]

There has long been talk of expanding the UNSC from the present number of five (USA, Russia, China, France & UK).

By all accounts, India is pretty much guarenteed to be the 6th member.

The question is, who should the 7th member be? The usual candidates are Germany, Japan and Brazil.

Any thoughts on this issue?

I'd drop the UK/France in favor of a combined EU membership with one vote and add India.

[dilettante]

My first thought would be that, unless they change the rule that gives every permanent member veto-power, adding many new members is gonna shut the council down pretty fast.

That said, it seems to me (and I have no pretensions of being well versed in international relations) that a useful member of the UNSC should (1) have sufficient global engagement to care about global security, and (2) have demonstrated both the capability and the will to take part in encouraging and enforcing global security. Bonus points to anyone the UNSC would have to deal with anyway on a regular basis.

Of the three potentials mentioned in the OP, I'd think Germany makes the most sense, though I know very little about Brazil's engagement with the world outside of S.A. I also suspect that China would have a fit if both India and Japan were added to the council one after another.

[Donkey]

Thoughts? Yes, many.

The first being that any meaningful reform will need to see an end to (or limitation of) the veto. More on this later. I'm off to the gym.

[Zarquon]

India and Brazil, though France and UK should be replaced with EU, so that Japan and South Africa are added.

[Michael]

I think the suggestion of kicking France and UK off the UNSC is a non-starter for so many reasons it seems foolish to list them here. Suffice it to say that suggestion is not on the table and never will be.

I agree that there is no way in hell that China is going to permit India and Japan to get UNSC veto-seats, and since everyone pretty much agrees on India, that leaves Japan out in the cold.

I think it ought to be between Brazil and Turkey.

I left Germany off that short list because a 3rd EU member isn't going to be popular with anyone. I also reject Germany and Japan as having too much history as imperialist warmongers that caused way too much damage during the 20th century for anyone to forget.

[Michael]

South Africa

I am TOTALLY opposed to that. South Africa has absolutely nothing to recommend it. The politically correct trendy popularity of South Africa has thankfully past its prime as the reality of yet another corrupt single-party state emerges in Africa.

South Africa has zero credibility on any issue. South Africa cannot even be taken seriously with African issues.

[Michael]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/11/09/world/subjpPREXY/subjpPREXY-articleLarge.jpg

NEW DELHI — By endorsing India for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, President Obama on Monday signaled the United States’ intention to create a deeper partnership of the world’s two largest democracies that would expand commercial ties and check the influence of an increasingly assertive China.

Mr. Obama’s announcement, made during a nationally televised address to the Indian Parliament, came at the end of a three-day visit to India that won high marks from an Indian political establishment once uncertain of the president’s commitment to the relationship. Even as stark differences remained between the countries on a range of tough issues, including Pakistan, trade policy, climate change and, to some degree, Iran, Mr. Obama spoke of India as an “indispensable” partner for the coming century.

“In Asia and around the world, India is not simply emerging,” he said during his speech in Parliament. “India has emerged.”

Mr. Obama’s closer embrace of India prompted a sharp warning from Pakistan, India’s rival and an uncertain ally of the United States in the war in Afghanistan, which criticized the two countries for engaging in “power politics” that lacked a moral foundation.

It is also likely to set off fresh concerns in Beijing, which has had a contentious relationship with India and has expressed alarm at American efforts to tighten alliances with Asian nations wary of China’s rising power.

Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/world/asia/09prexy.html?_r=1&hp)

I really hate trying to follow US foreign policy. On the one hand, it is usually monolithic and never changes. Then, when one sees small possibilities of change, some idiot like Obama comes out and makes sure that nothing will ever change by making some stupid political-grandstand announcement.

Did Obama even bother to consider Pakistan before making this announcement? Did Obama consider that Pakistan's nervousness about India is at the heart of America's problem in Afghanistan? Obama just made Afghanistan worse. That fucking amateur in the Whitehouse is annoying.

US foreign policy is a mess and this Obama dude is just wandering around like a bull in a china shop.

Just what the US needs right now - a fight over the UNSC - one of the only international political bodies that actually functions. Beginning the campaign by side-swiping your allies doesn't bode well for anything.

When it comes to US foreign policy, apparently the only thing worst than a Republican in the Whitehouse is a Democrat. :shrug:

[Non Sequitur]

Historically, wasn't India offered a permanent seat and they turned it down?

[Zarquon]

Historically, wasn't India offered a permanent seat and they turned it down?
Yes, in 1955, but PM Nehru turned it down, and asked them to give it to PRC instead. Possibly due to Panchsheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchsheel) and Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai. He was impossibly idealistic in that way.

[Michael]

Just to make my own point clear, I'm not opposed to India having a permanent seat on the UNSC.

I am opposed to Obama getting 'out front' of the issue because that is really dumb policy since it a) will piss of Pakistan and b) is now much less likely to happen.

Reforming or changing the UNSC is a reasonable goal. But if that is being driven by Obama Admin or the US Government, that pretty much will kill the plan because US sponsorship of a UN-reform plan is politically toxic outside the USA.

In other words, a bunch of people who previously might have agreed that India ought to be on the UNSC are now that much more likely to oppose it because it is what the Americans want and a whole lot of the UN members consider hateful anything that USA officially supports. That's political reality. And Obama just stepped into it - apparently without a clue.

Indeed, if you want to make sure the UNSC will never be reformed and India will never have a seat there, then getting Obama to make a public speech on the topic and lead the initiative is probably one of the best ways to achieve that goal. The USA just shot themselves in the foot with this announcement.

Rookee in Whitehouse keeps making these 'unforced errors'.

[Non Sequitur]

Is reform of the UN even realistically possible?

[Michael]

Is reform of the UN even realistically possible?

It is possible - but France is almost certain to be the spoiler and jealously guard her privileged position (all the more so as France sinks in overall relative world stature).

If it wasn't for that, I'd say yes, it should be possible to reform the UN. Certainly a vote in the General Assembly would be possible - it is the UNSC where the opposition will be (from those who seek to preserve the status quo from which they benefit).

Either way, Obama is still foolish for putting himself and USA out in front of this issue for nothing. What does the US get in return for this? Some good will from India? Like that an a buck might buy you a cup of coffee. India is already heavily beholden to the USA for Bush's nuclear policy gift. Now India is beholden to Obama's diplomatic gift.

USA doesn't seem to get anything out of these deals except short-term trade advantages - and yet the USA has to pay the full international political price for both deals. Looks to me like India has been successful in wooing the USA to do her bidding.

[Donkey]

*shrug*

Wooing India may not be a long term (really long term) terrible idea.

[Zarquon]

The real point is to agitate China by showing who's still the biggest player in the region, which probably had something to do with the fact that he visited the most "successful" democracies in the region- India, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan (of which two became democracies fairly recently, and Japan, hardly counts, with its self-perpetuating, duopolistic political class and apathetic voters).

[Michael]

*shrug*

Wooing India may not be a long term (really long term) terrible idea.

Giving big and valuable gifts on the first date isn't my idea of a good wooing strategy.

US has already given India that special nuclear deal (the one that pissed all over the NPT) and now the US is giving this UNSC recognition gift.

This relationship looks more like a desperate US is trying to buy/rent some political influence the ONLY way they know how. India would be stupid to turn down these free gifts.

The real question is why does the USA feel the need to be be a begger on the world stage?

[dilettante]

Allying with India makes a certain amount of sense. India and China will be the big players in Asia (and eventually globally). At this point, the US and China are pretty much set up to be competitors for the foreseeable future, so India is the natural counter-balance.

Supporting a nuclear India is part of balancing a nuclear China (which the US can't do anything about). As for the UNSC, I don't see what the US has to gain from adding anyone to it, given its current rules and structure. So it doesn't really matter whether the change is feasible. But supporting India's bid gives a boost to US-Indian relations. If the Chinese grumble about it, well, that just further distances India from China, another boon for the US.

[Michael]

Allying with India makes a certain amount of sense. India and China will be the big players in Asia (and eventually globally). At this point, the US and China are pretty much set up to be competitors for the foreseeable future, so India is the natural counter-balance.

Supporting a nuclear India is part of balancing a nuclear China (which the US can't do anything about). As for the UNSC, I don't see what the US has to gain from adding anyone to it, given its current rules and structure. So it doesn't really matter whether the change is feasible. But supporting India's bid gives a boost to US-Indian relations. If the Chinese grumble about it, well, that just further distances India from China, another boon for the US.

I don't doubt that it is in the US interest to seek alliance with India.

I'm only pointing out that the US is [repeatedly] taking the posture of a supplicant to India to do it.

My comment is about the bankruptcy of US policy, not a critique of India.

If the US wants international influence, trashing the NPT and making secret UNSC favor deals with India is probably the worst way to go about achieving that influence.

I guess what really annoys me about US foreign policy is the way the US government treats each country as an island or a silo. That is to say, US formally deals with India and the US formally deals with Pakistan as entirely different topics that have nothing to do with each other. This is myopic and dumb policy. Any favor for India is taken to be an attack on Pakistan by the Pakistanis. That's reality and US doesn't seem to understand this.

Israel and the Arab countries of the Middle East is another place where US treats the players separately as if they have ZERO awareness of what the US is up to next door.

That is to say, the US government seems to act as if its relationships with India or Pakistan or Israel (or whatever) are entirely stand-alone issues that are NEVER affected or impacted by other US policies involving other nations.