Do you want to defend that? That’s either a bad joke or a sign of your igorance.
Just a slight nitpick on the OP. The Big Five happen to have nukes now. They didn’t become the Big Five because of them. I think only the US and the Soviets had nukes at the time of the UN founding.
I’m already sorry I entered this thread, as stated above.
The statement was in response to the quote in my reply. France was arguably not a “victor” of WWII. They were defeated, and subsequently liberated by the real victors.
Are we such a gaggle of bilious old ogres? (Sorry, don’t know the collective noun for ogres.)
The OP asks genuine (if a little ill-posed) questions with an explicit request to “straighten him out”. Admittedly, his/her subsequent response was rather petulant and ill-considered, but this is perhaps a common reaction upon being introduced to the “interests not principles” approach to international politics described by esteemed ex-serviceman Doors.
What you are being (rather gruffly) told, Wake up, is that while any reasonable, forward-looking human being who would like to see more international cooperation based on the common good and less petty playground squabbling based on national interests would agree with what you espouse, it is simply pie-in-the-sky in terms of actually coming to pass anytime soon.
Because, were such a proposal to be put forward, one of them would veto it.
Who is this “we” of which you speak? The electorate? China notwithstanding, the other goverments take it as their unofficial mandate to actively prevent the wishes of their peoples from doing anything detrimental to their respective national interests. The only two countries who would even consider voluntarily surrendering the veto in the interests of international solidarity are France and the UK, and if the other three held to their selfish, myopic position as they surely would then, well, why bother?
The veto exists to prevent the major powers having a hissy fit and stomping off from the entire institution in an isolationist tantrum. Regrettably, this will not change for several decades, at least. You must understand this before even attempting to go toe-to-toe with the realpolitikers on these boards.
I have to admit, the Catch-22 aspect of that made me chuckle.
The OP’s position is complete nonsense, by the way. Trade a reasonably stable system for chaos in the name of some wrongheaded concept of “fair”? Sounds like an alcohol-fueled idea to me.
Indeed… yes, it has to be said… at certain points in life one has to accept that the evil one knows is far better than the evil which one doesn’t yet know.
Actually, if truth be known, when I become President of the Universe, the first thing I’m gonna change is that the populations of every country other than the Permanent Five should be allowed to vote (along with the indiginous populations of said nations) in the national elections of said countries. It would doubtless throw the cat amongst the pidgeons. The way I figure it is this… if the Permanent Five wish to hold onto their positions of power ad infinitum, the rest of the world should have a say in it - it’s only fair… put the fear of God into 'em I say.
Imagine, for example, Jaques Chirac having to speak English just so he could make an effort to try and impress non-francophiles to hold office. We all know he can speak English but the guy refuses to - on principle. But imagine if holding office depended on it? Heh Heh Heh… man, such a modification to French Politics would drive that poor fool senseless.
Vladimir Putin’s office would be safe I’d suggest. A responsible man under difficult circumstances he seems to me. Same for Tony Blair too. The Chinese would freak out though. Public democracy isn’t too popular in China. But the real worry would be for President Bush. Imagine trying to hold office if the rest of the world were allowed to vote in the USA Presidential Election?
Man… that would be so interesting seeing President Bush trying to win over countries who are in favour of the Kyoto Protocol.
He’d be there trying to keep Republicans happy… and Sowetans, and Fijians, and Japanese, and Austrians, and Icelanders, and Norwegians, and Cambodians… heh heh heh…
This (that is the OP) is the most remarkable example of trolling I have yet seen on this particually fine and rational part of the 'net.
Shame schoolkids are so idle during the summer.
Paul, trolling occurs when one posts opinions or proposals which have no truth or value to the poster themselves in order to get a reaction.
I am a little disappointed in how the OP has been treated here, even considering his/her later responses: the questions themselves were entirely legitimate (heck, I would love to see the end of the dreaded veto, but not at the price of the US disappearing up its own isolationist anus). This “you’re with the big boys now” routine is unbecoming.
Jeez, where have you been?! This isn’t even in the top fifty.
First, I would not say this was trollery, but rather the result of unawareness of how far the same issue has been debated before, combined with some very uninformed copping of attitude.
Re: The Big Five.
(a) Nukes and membership: At the time of the establishment of the UN Charter, only the USA had actual nukes. The UK had much knowledge of the science involved, and the USSR was working hard on getting some by means fair or foul, but only the US actually could make and deploy. The other members of the Big Five acquired them over the following 20 years, essentially as a way of staying in the Big Leagues. The People’s Republic of China had nukes before having the veto seat (It was held from 1948-1971 by the rump government of the RoC in Taiwan, until realpolitik caught up with everyone)
(b) Big Five Status and what happened in WW2: These were the Big Powers left standing at the end of WW2. Looking at it objectively, only the USA ended WW2 in anything resembling really good shape. China and Russia took more damage on their own soil and to their own people than anyone else yet were still standing, as the world’s largest nations (and in the case of Russia, its rebuilt military being the most powerful single army sitting on the Eurasian landmass). Back in Western Europe, except for the occupation France did not end up WW2 that much worse off than Britain. Both nations were still the seats of large empires that held sway over much of the world’s population and/or strategic resources, and the home of important multinational business concerns, had large industrial bases that had NOT been leveled to the ground, and even after going back to peacetime standing retained large deployed colonial armies around the world. Even though the exhaustion of war accelerated the dismantling of those empires within 20 years, they retained a high degree of political, economic, and strategic influence over many of those emergent nations through the Commonwealth and the Communité.
© As to giving up/not giving up Permanent Seats: Hardly likely. Russia will hold on to it as a way to not slip totally into a Third-Rate status; France will want to keep it as leverage to leadership of the EU, and Britain will want hers as a counterbalance to the Europists; China and the US, well… let’s just say that the world probably prefers these Big Bad Muthas inside the tent than outside, even if it means giving them special treatment, so that at least they go thru some formalities before acting up. At best you could propose a seat for India, for balance. But good luck getting it
I thought that the rationale for *not * giving permanent seats (though not vetos) to Germany and Japan went something like:
If we give permanent seats to Germany and Japan that brings the Security Council up to including all 1939 great powers. How can we leave out the world’s largest democracy - India. And shouldn’t the largest Latin American country have a permanent seat. And then we should have an Islamic country on permanently and an African country with permanent status (unless you’re saying they’re not good enough). And you end up with either a larger and more unwieldy council or precious few seats available for the rest of the countries.
It should also be noted that the US and Russia have reduced their arsenals over the past decade or so. Ultimately the limiting factor in this is determined by some intersection of rational analysis and domestic politics. Most of the other nuclear powers have at best minimal deterrents. Outside of the cold war context in which they were born I am not sure how much use they have.
I think that most countries that are not paranoid about invasion/war in the near term future (India/Pakistan/Iran/North Korea) long ago decided that nukes just aren’t worth the trouble. Having nukes would not make Ukraine or Kazakhstan or Belarus a world power (unless they engaged in nuclear blackmail).
I don’t think most countries that are worried about the actions of the US are generally worried about our nuclear supremacy but rather our conventional power projection.
Regarding the NPT, Article VI does call on existing nuclear powers to disarm.
Of course, the amount of progress towards disarmament means different things to different nations.
I’ll do you one better than that. The US has, on several occasions, tabled matters in the UN to pursue general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
According to one paper:
“In fact, Presidents Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson all endorsed disarmament on a broad scale. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Clinton have all signed agreements committing the United States to pursue a General and Complete Disarmament (GCD) Treaty. US policy has not only recognized a GCD Treaty as a formal goal, but the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy Administrations put forward coherent proposals – and strategic paths to achieve them – which dealt with the question of overall or comprehensive disarmament.” Cite.
Perhaps Wake up call has some ideas on how to make other countries more interested in making progress on a GCD Treaty.
The essence of the questions posed by the OP was precisely to point the double standards exercised by the club of 5. The club members continue to develop and maintain more sophisticated WMDs (see cite1 and cite 2). And yet, in the same time, they want to make other countries more interested in making progress on non-proliferation.
It smacks of bigotry, control, domineering, hypocrisy and double standard when you continue to carry big sticks, while preaching to others not to carry any sticks at all.
Meh, I prefer to think of the French of WWII as the modern day England under Danelaw. Both were overwhemled and allowed their invaders to enter, then stuck back and reclaimed their land.
Sorry about the hijack.
Ravenman, I’ve been thinking about your question, and came up with the following:
Suppose a national poll was run in each of the 8 nuclear countries and those that aspire to have nuclear weapons. Suppose the question is:
Given that each and every one of the other countries that have nuclear weapons collectively decide to get rid of their nuclear weapons, would you also agree that your country, too, should give it up?
What do you think the result of the pole would be?
My prognosis/opinion in terms of the poll results (saying YES) is as follows:
France: 80%
China: 75%
Russia: 70%
India: 60%
Pakistan: 55%
UK: 50%
Israel: 40%
US: 25%
What is yours/other Doper’s prognosis?
Wake up call
I tend to think that Israel, Russia and Pakistan would probably be the least likely to disarm, because right now they are conventionally weak compared to potential opponents. Similarly Syria would be unlikely to disarm chemically because its conventional forces have been allowed to languish for a decade or so - its only credible line of defense is chemical.
Throughout the cold war the US (and by extension UK and France) maintained a policy of first use of nuclear weapons because the alternative to the nuclear deterrence was having massive conventional forces capable of dealing with Russia. If the west did not want to spend vast amounts of money on a conscript army it had few viable options to protect itself. At the same time the Soviet Union’s public position was one of no first use of nuclear weapons because, in the event of a conventional war, they kind of expected to win (plus, once the balloon goes up the need for good PR will go away, so a first use policy becomes ok)
At the end of the cold war and the vastly dimished conventional threat of post-communist Russia, the US adopted a no first use policy because there is no one out there who can beat the US conventionally under reasonable circumstances, when our critical interests are at stake. Russia on the other hand adopted a policy of first use of nuclear weapons because they cannot afford a conventional military to defend themselves.
You may be right about France, China, and the UK being willing to disarm if all others do, although how much the prestige (?) of nuclear weapons matters to those countries I don’t know. I kind of suspect China would be unwilling to disarm, though thats not based on anything like a hard analysis.
India I have no clue about.
The US I do think would be reluctant to disarm, even if everyone else did for a variety of reasons - lack of trust in others disarmament (with some historical basis), domestic politics, and inertia - from our point of view we have always had them and we have never used them irresponsibly, even when we had a monopoly or a huge edge - so from our point of view we’re not the problem. The fact that you only need solid 1940’s technology to make a bomb also would encourage us to keep a credible deterrent, unless an impressively thorough inspection and enforcement regime were in place (which probably few of the above countries would tolerate, including the US)
I suggest that you read some history about the involvement of these nations with nuclear weapons before prognosticating how their populace would feel on this particular question.
“Learning without thinking is labor lost; thinking without learning is dangerous.”
And for the record, “General and Complete Disarmament” involves all types of weapons, not just nuclear.