Expanding the Security Council

While I am loath to admit it, I actually agree (in part) with Kofi Annan.

Australia has backed a call by the United Nations secretary-general to expand the world body's Security Council.

Kofi Annan says more countries should be admitted to the council to make it more representative of the geopolitical realities of the 21st century.

I agree completely with this rationale. The UNSC has always reflected the geo-political reality of the Cold War world. Now that the Cold War is over (and just who did win that by the way?) it needs to be realigned. However I disagree with statements made by Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in the same article.

"What we would like to see is a Security Council which includes the structures of today as well," Mr Downer said.

"That is, countries like our neighbour Indonesia, Brazil perhaps, certainly one of the African countries, Japan, being permanent members of the Security Council, and then have additional elected members of the Security Council."

Excuse me, but Indonesia? The country lacks any of kind military as well as any kind of political stability. African countries as well. South Africa perhaps being the exception, and that is a long shot by any measure. True, while South Africa does have a reasonably stable democratically elected government (although it is socialist in it's intent); it does have a massive crime problem and it really has not come up with a plan to deal with said problem. A South American country should be on the UNSC, I do agree there. Brazil is perhaps the best choice, but then so would Chile. Japan as a permanent UNSC member? Perhaps, they are one of the world's leading economies. But they seriously lack in the military department, although that limitation is, by and large, self-imposed and they can remove it at anytime simply by amending their constitution.

However there is a larger issue involved here. If the UNSC is to be "realigned" to reflect the post-Cold War world then shouldn't the Central European nations be represented more? How about Poland as a permanent member? As part of the "New Europe" they have willingly embraced the ideals that the UN says it holds dear, free-markets, democracy, freedom, and liberty. As a permanent UNSC member they would have a definite say in the post-Cold War world. As well as provide a certain voice of reason to counter-act the shrillness of other countries, such as France.

Speaking of France, isn't it about time that that third-world country masquerading as a first-world nation give up it's place at the table as a permanent member? Their military is, by and large, non-existent. Every time they get into trouble it seems they need the rest of the free-world to "bail them out" as it were (WWII ring any bells?). Their socialist leaning, nanny-state government is choking their economy. And they are, by and large, treated as a joke by the most powerful nation on earth, the US. "Old European" nations, such as France, do not remember this one basic tenet, "Freedom is not free" and sometimes freedom must be defended at all costs. The United States and the nations of "New Europe" realize this. France does not. Yes, it really is that simple.

However, and to deal with the anti-UN crowd, any attempt to broaden the scope and membership of the UNSC, could, and quite possibly should, be seen as an attempt to dilute the pre-eminence of the United States on the world stage. Of course I am just engaging in idle and complete speculation here, but it seems to me that as the most powerful nation on earth we should have more of a say in world affairs, as they relate to us, than say Poland, or France for that matter, should. Once again, this is just complete speculation on my part. However, I feel it deserves some thought and analysis.

In a post-9/11 world, the United States cannot, and should not, be bogged in the minutiae of a bureaucracy, such as the UN. When our national security is threatened, and our national interests are at stake, we should be able to act unilaterally. And damn world opinion. If other countries want to go along, then fine, they're welcome to. However, to think that we, the most powerful nation on earth, should go running with our hats in our hands to the UN to get their "blessing", is extremely dangerous. The UN cannot convey "legitimacy" on anything the United States does to defend itself, only the United States can.

In that sense, then I must agree with anti-UN crowd. We need to leave, and let the United Nations fend for itself. It has done nothing to make the world a better place, which was one of the reasons why it was created in the first place. It has done nothing to foster democracy and liberty across the planet, which was another reason for it's creation. In short, the United Nations has been a complete, total, and abject failure. It is bogged down in it's own bureaucratic mind-set so much so, that it actually thinks non-stop talking about a problem is actually the way to solve the problem. The article above is a prime example of this. Expanding the UNSC might be the "smart" thing to do diplomatically speaking, but when you add more "cooks to the kitchen" you increase the likelihood of a fire breaking out. And just what is to be done when diplomacy fails? Do we keep "talking" about the problem, in the hopes that it will somehow "go away"? Or do we go out and solve the problem? Say what you will about the Bush Administration's "unilateralism", but you have to be honest enough to admit this one thing. When the world was confronted with a problem, what was the one country -- willing to stand alone if need be -- to go out and solve the problem? Hint: It was a country with United in it's name.

The United States can have diplomatic relations with other countries, but we do not need to be a part of the United Nations for that.

link via (Right-Thinking)