Wait, so does this mean India is going to don a black mask and cape and turn to the Dark Side?
Obviously the Security Council is a relic of the geopolitical balance that existed towards the end of WWII. It was essentially the large Allied powers trying to set up a system that they could control and which might prevent future wars. Very little about its composition makes sense today.
If I were drafting a new Security Council from scratch, a more likely set of members would be a representative from the EU, one from the U.S., one from the Asian democracies (a basket including South Korea, Japan, and India) , plus China and Russia. And Russia’s only there because it has a lot of nukes.
Of course, this will never happen. Like it or not, the Security Council is what it is, and it isn’t likely to change.
That’s why I like the second alternative, which is to simply start up a secondary international structure that coexists with the UN - this one made up only of democracies with strong human rights protection and a commitment to freedom and democracy in the future. I’d make that an organization that includes permanent council members of the UK, the US, the EU, India, Japan, and a middle-east seat that can only be occupied by democratic regimes. I’d put Israel and Iraq on it as partners and force them to work together, and offer a seat in the mid-east bloc to any other country willing to make enough democratic reform to qualify. Jordan and Lebanon might be induced to reform far enough to qualify in the short to medium term.
We might also offer another ‘democratic bloc’ seat to a basket of parliamentary democracies that include Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and a central/South American bloc composed of countries from that region with strong democratic principles and human rights protection.
I’d put an automatic review process that allows new countries to enter and other countries to be kicked out if their democratic or human rights status changes. Carrot and stick.
This strategy would act not just as a counterweight to the increasingly authoritarian impulses of the UN, but the regional bloc idea would force cooperation between states so they could project power through the Democratic Alliance or whatever we call it.
Looking at your proposed from-scratch SC, it’s pretty much the existing one only with India or Japan substituted for the UK or France. That tells me the geopolitical balance hasn’t changed much since 1950.
Except for the exceptions you made, which are REALLY big exceptions. And the only reason Russia is there because of a giant supply of legacy nukes. Going by economic size, it has no business being there.
France and the UK are exploring unifying their military operations, because they can’t afford even the much-reduced military forces they have now. If the Security Council were being redrawn today, it’s hard to imagine either of them getting a seat. At the end of WWII, both of them were still in control of fairly large colonial empires. Now, not so much.
Of the five permanent council members, only China and the U.S. have maintained or expanded the stature they had at the end of WWII. And since then, France and the UK have diminished significantly in stature, and the Soviet Union doesn’t even exist any more. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that the geopolitical balance hasn’t changed much since 1950.
France and the UK are certainly not exploring “unifying” their military operations. The Royal Navy may seek short-term cooperation with the French until its new aircraft (and carrier) are ready. Bit different.
That isn’t to say that their importance hasn’t diminished, of course.
You’re right - I should have used a more accurate term to say they were looking at greater military cooperation to allow them to further reduce their own military forces. They’re not ‘unified’ in any real sense, nor do they plan to be. Even the aircraft carrier deal is more of a temporary joint operations thing.
From the standpoint of being functional members of a security council, the UK and France have largely lost the ability to project their power. China can project power on its continent, the U.S. can still project power globally, but that’s about it. Russia can threaten with nukes and has some power projection with respect to its old Soviet Republics, but in reality its military is a mere shell of what it once was.
It should be noted though that in terms of sheer military strength, the UK and France are both still near the top five, and so is Russia. However, they won’t be in that position much longer if current trends continue.
Both economically and militarily, it makes as much sense for Germany to be on the SC as it does for France or the UK to be there. India is more powerful militarily than all three of them, and even Brazil is catching up fast.
I heard of this middle-eastern country called Turkey. It wouldn’t need to share a seat to fill the role in your hypothesized new and improved UN.
Also, what purpose would this sub-UN serve? It sounds like a plan to fracture it and end it.
I left Turkey off the list because it’s not clear whether it would belong in a mid-east bloc or in the EU.
The purpose of another organization would be to further the goals of democracy and human rights, and to provide a counterbalance to a UN that increasingly seems to be a megaphone for some of the world’s worst actors and a legitimizer of despotic regimes.
You’re a little ahead of yourself there. In manpower terms, India may be more powerful, but its hardware ranges from the advanced (Su-30MKI, Arjun tank, Akula-class submarines) to the obsolete (MiG-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, T-55 tank, Kilo-class submarines).
The UK, and to a slightly lesser extent, France, still field the most advanced hardware outside the US, and it won’t be close for some time.
I’d be concerned that the formation of such a league would mean that those opposed to democracy or human rights, and one in which (as I understand it) some of the most powerful countries on the planet would gather to do their business without input from others, would be the formation in both economic and political response of *other *such leagues. If you form a group to take control of affairs, the natural reaction is for others to form a competing group, if only to be able to keep up with an old boy’s club. Take your ball and go home, and you probably shouldn’t be surprised if everyone else starts playing football without you.
I see, it’s a safe bet it won’t become a part of the EU.
And what Revenant Threshold said about fractionation.
You could spin it as a slap in the face to China, though, which it would most certainly be. China is already unpopular in many circles in this country.
All indications are that the right wing noise machine is content to pillory Obama for visiting a Muslim temple while in India but not a Hindu one. :rolleyes:
Our Blessed Guru Darth Shree Rajneesh says: “There is no Dark Side, there is no Light Side, all is illusion.”
Then he usually blows up a planet. It is a puzzling dharma.
The increasafucking what of the what now?!
Historically France have voted on our side. They generally extract the highest possible diplomatic price for their vote but they always vote our way when it’s really important, that’s why we let them on the SC in the first place, it was the three allied votes against the two commies. China have a lot of present and future competition with India, they’re comprting for influence and hegemony in their part of the world. I’m interested to hear China’s reaction to India on the SC when a coherent reaction emerges.
They’re vestal virgins in these regards compared to the United States. And of course the biggest megaphone at the UN is America’s. And the US would fail any human rights test to get in any new group now. We don’t even have habeas corpus anymore and the prez says he can assassinate US citizens without due process and the reasons he chooses to assassinate people are state secrets.
China will never agree and and this will drive a wedge between the two countries especially considering that India was once offered a permanent seat and they passed it on to China.
Meanwhile our support will give us diplomatic advanteages.
Didn’t we let France on the Security Council to make up for them being invaded during WWII? Also, if we went to regional democratic representation from a fresh UN, is Jordan democratic?