Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

June 8th, 2005

Tags

, ,

Comments

15 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Germany’s UNSC Bid Status

According to the German language Spiegel, Germany as well as Japan, India and Brazil are now willing to forfeit their veto rights for 15 years in return for a seat on the UN Security Council. However, though this seems to imply they’ll eventually receive veto power, the official text of their proposal reads differently. It actually says that the matter will only be decided in 15 years thus not actually guaranteeing them a veto. Though this was meant to be a breakthrough aimed at breathing new life into the UNSC reform, US Secretary of State Rice’s reaction was anticlimactic, telling Foreign Minister Fischer that there was no official answer yet regarding American support for Germany’s UNSC seat. The United States has, however, already come out in favor of Japan.

What to make of this? A few questions come to mind.

1) Will the UN even exist in 15 years? If reform continues to move at a snail’s pace, which this proposal would just reenforce, will the organization even be able to function at the minimal level it does today then?

2) Why should the US, or any country, agree to letting other countries join which will run counter to their interests?

3) What purpose do such token UNSC actually serve? Are such lame ducks worth having?

4) Is the UN even reforming in the right direction? Do we need more UN or a streamlined and more efficient one?

5 ) If the current members aren’t willing to allow new ones, why will they be in 15 years?

I invite readers to answer the questions or pose their own in the comments section. There’s no shortage of ink to be spilled over this topic. I’ll be posting a follow up soon.

Comments to this entry

Plunge
June 8, 2005
8:30 pm
The United States has, however, already come out in favor of Japan.

Actually, the US is having second thoughts about this.

Japan will probably postpone submitting a resolution to expand the U.N. Security Council in light of an objection aired last week by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Foreign Ministry sources said Tuesday.

In a telephone conversation Friday with Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura, Rice urged Tokyo to refrain from submitting the resolution this month, the sources said.

"If the resolution is submitted in haste, we would have to oppose to it," a senior ministry official quoted Rice as telling Machimura. "There would be confusion if it is submitted too early."
Dan
June 8, 2005
9:49 pm
Whatever the public diplomacy, I think the US is clearly in favor of German, Japanese, and Indian membership. These negotiations are just to establish the terms of trade.

A UNSC closer mirrors geopolitical reality -- and so is more useful -- than one with-out. Granted, the membership of France and Russia will still be outdated, but it won't be quite as useless.
Mike
June 9, 2005
2:18 am
I have yet to hear a solid reason for the US to remain in the UN period. How much money might we save by investing our energies elsewhere? The reality is that the UN is the same as the League of Nations and there is no compelling reason for us to waste our time with it.
Dan
June 9, 2005
3:52 am
Mike, the world needs a global Star Chamber -- a room for powerful countries to order writs of execution against rogue regimes. The UN may be a vehicle to do that.
Curzon
June 9, 2005
5:29 am
Dan is right on both counts.

The US sees the vast number of uncommited states for reform and doesn't want Japan to make a premature bid without proper backing. See "this story":http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200506091012.htm for more on how the US has only committed to back Japan thus far, not India, Brazil, or Germany. To quote Rice:

"The only country that we have said unequivocally that we support is Japan, having to do with Japan's special role in the UN and support for the UN. But obviously, we are going to look at how to think about UN Security Council expansion within the context of... broader reforms."


As for the UN, it's mandate has to be reigned in (hence I like Bolton), but we need an organization where everyone can meet to discuss, do back channel diplomacy (like the recent DPRK-US talks in New York), and take out bad rogue states.
kamesh
June 9, 2005
7:41 am
An expanded/Reformed UN will have huge geostrategic/geopolitical implications worldwide. As of now these 4 countries are vying for influence in their regions and elsewhere both militarily and economically. Also trying to garner support for their candidature as well.

One more important point to note is that all the countries are democracy's (one of them is the worlds largest --India). This will be like spreading the cause of democracy worldwide.
Curzon
June 9, 2005
8:03 am
To actually answer some of your questions...

2) Why should the US, or any country, agree to letting other countries join which will run counter to their interests?
Indeed. Hence we are only backing Japan.

3) What purpose do such token UNSC actually serve? Are such lame ducks worth having?
It encourages involvement in global security. All four of the potential members are major powers that do close to nothing outside of their regional neighborhoods. 2nd tier (non-veto) permament UNSC membership will require their involvement. Badmouth France, but they are significantly involved in the Pacific and Africa...

5 ) If the current members aren't willing to allow new ones, why will they be in 15 years?
The "lame duck" veto holding members -- Russia, Britain, France -- back all four candidates. The two other major powers -- China and the US -- only back selectively.
Chirol
June 9, 2005
8:45 am
Lame duck as in new members with no veto.
Curzon
June 9, 2005
9:00 am
Sorry, I was asking to be confused. What I meant by lame ducks was the three veto-weilding members that are no longer major powers, i.e. the UK, France, and Russia. Those guys have seen their heyday and don't mind letting others into the club. China and the US are the powers of the 21st century, and they're wary of letting even more countries into their exclusive club.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » The Wrong Direction of Reform
June 9, 2005
9:43 am
[...] e Eastern Religions in the Far East, Part 1: The Tokyo Mosque Related Ger [...]
richeyxx
June 9, 2005
10:02 am
It's my first time here, great blog btw. :)

_1) Will the UN even exist in 15 years? If reform continues to move at a snail's pace, which this proposal would just reenforce, will the organization even be able to function at the minimal level it does today then?_

Probably not.

_2) Why should the US, or any country, agree to letting other countries join which will run counter to their interests?_

Politically speaking, they shouldn't, and as most people noted, that's why they're backing Japan only, because they've been good mates for a long time. China isn't backing anyone, including Japan, possibly for the same reason.

_3) What purpose do such token UNSC actually serve? Are such lame ducks worth having?_

Well, apart from global security commitment (which without veto power seems pretty hard to do), and influence in their own region, I believe that they also want publicity and 'prestige' (a sort of national pride), especially Japan. 15 years is a surprisingly short amount of time, and I think that's a price well paid. It could also be a bet that UN cannot reform even in 15 years (joke, but probably true though, since they've been trying to do the same thing for a long time).

_4) Is the UN even reforming in the right direction? Do we need more UN or a streamlined and more efficient one?_

The direction is right I guess, but rather than enforcing superioty, wouldn't it be nice if these superpowers just act as guidances? But then again the definition of 'guidance' is debatable. Preferably a streamlined and more efficient version of UN, but with the amount of red tape they have, I doubt that could happen.

_5 ) If the current members aren't willing to allow new ones, why will they be in 15 years?_

Even though there are little circles of allies, but who knows in 15 years' time? As with answer 3, I believe most of them are taking a bet that UN is more incompetent than we think.
Grendel
June 9, 2005
7:30 pm
All four of the potential members are major powers that do close to nothing outside of their regional neighborhoods.

That's a very vague statement, and especially in the case of Germany hard to substantiate...
Chirol
June 9, 2005
7:49 pm
Grendel is right. Germany has troops in Afghanistan, an air force base in Uzbekistan and a number of troops in the balkans and other places. They've slowly been taking on a greater role in the world.
Dan
June 9, 2005
10:14 pm
Another thought: The US is not publicly supportive of Germany's bid to undermine the SDP government of Schroeder.
Chirol
June 9, 2005
10:25 pm
Dan: Very likely however Schröder has done most of the damage to himself so I don't see this as having to much of an effect. You can't isolate Germany anyway and as the SPD is already set to lose, I imagine they aren't doing it as much to undermine the SPD but as to wait until the CDU comes in.

However, most Germans support the CDU not because of their foreign policy but largely because the SPD has proven to be incompetent at governing. Thus, ties that are too strong with the US too fast may also backfire and make the CDU unpopular among many people.