The United Nations appears to be a hindrance to American interests as it sadly does accurately represent the rogue's gallery of nations that are members. We can roll along as is, reform the UN, or get out as some would have us do and form some type of League of Democracies based on the Anglosphere and other democracies.
Certainly, change is coming, as this article notes:
A clock starts ticking this Thursday for major reform of the United Nations. That's when a panel of 16 prominent leaders, appointed last fall by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, will recommend how to overhaul an institution that's been articularly adrift since the US-led war in Iraq.
This is the report. I know what you're thinking. The UN is going to look at reforming itself? Where's the door? We're outta here. And certainly, only fools would trust the UN to reform itself. The UN document is a joke. I wouldn't trust any part of it. The parts on a new Security Council to replace the permanent 5 and the rotating non-veto ten envision adding non-veto members (either permanent or all rotating) to provide 24 members, 6 each from the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
This is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but there isn't a single country in Africa that deserves a permanent seat. South Africa might one day. Nigeria could a lot longer from that. Egypt or Ethiopia could conceivably aspire to qualifying but they can't even dream of that day yet.
Even in the Americas, only Brazil seems like it might one day qualify but again, not yet.
We don't need a study to know that Japan, Germany, and India are the real candidates for permanent seats.
And the talk of new permanent members without the veto of the current permanent members is ridiculous. If you qualify for the exclusive club, you should get the privileges. And the repsonsibilities, too. Which is why anybody but the above-mentioned three should be non-starters. Who is fooling who by suggesting permanent seats for anybody else?
My suggestion for reforming the Security Council isn't new for anybody who's read The Dignified Rant for the last couple years. I'd have seats for the USA (because we are the lone superpower), Russia (because they have too many nukes to ignore), Japan (because we should show that you don't need nukes to be a permanent), India (because they have nukes, are large, and are economically advancing), China (ditto), and the European Union (because they claim to be a unified--or unifying--political entity and are large, advanced, and have nukes). Britain and France would have to give up their permanent seats as members of the EU. Unless they opt out of the EU and then they are grandfathered in with their permanent seat.
Then keep 10 rotating seats but assign them to regional entities. Assign all nations to an Americas, African, Middle Eastern, European, Asian, or Pacific region with each region given seats based on population and GDP. Each would have at least one seat assigned to that region and the regions could decide how to fill their allotment.
So we'd have 10 rotating seats chosen by regional blocs, and 6 permanent seats with vetoes, plus perhaps 2 more permanent veto seats if Britain and/or France opt out of the EU. It is my hope that the British will stay out of the EU to keep their seats and the French and Germans will value an opportunity for leading the EU more than having their own permanent seats and so get submerged in the broader European entity.
But this structural change in the Security Council is only one part of the change that must take place for the UN to become a real body for liberty. We have to have open books so the freeloading incompetents who waste money at high salaries can be booted out. We need to make sure that simple things happen like making sure the members of the human rights committee actually respect human rights. There is so much to do and the current body is so biased against the US and freedom and democracy generally that I've read some calling for a body just for democracies. This is understandable. We associate with rank thugs in the UN.
But do we really want a League of Democracies? I think this option would actually be worse than what we have.
Just think, the world's democracies haven't exactly been eager to support us in Iraq. Sure, we do have support from many democracies, but just because we'd be in the company of free countries does not mean they'd support us. And if we were members of a League of Democracies, would we not have a greater obligation to follow the majority even if we don't formally have a majority rules agreement to be a member?
Face it, having thugs and fiends in the UN makes it easier for us to ignore that body when it sides with our enemies and instead gather allies outside the UN to support our objectives. If we gain the support of the UN, that's great; but as things stand now, we do not look too bad as far as I'm concerned when we ignore the UN's farcical moral authority.
So end the fantasy of creating a resolute body of freedom-defending democracies banding together to destroy our common enemies. We can't create that in a formal body. For every Australia, Britain, South Korea, or Netherlands that joins us in Iraq, there is a Spain, Belgium, France, or Germany that will snipe at us, work against us, and look for ways to charge us with crimes. We must live with the democracies as they are and not as we wish them to be.
So stay in the UN. Fire Kofi Annan. Reform the Security Council as I've suggested. Open up the UN books to open audit. Decimate the permanent bureaucracy (I'll settle for firing a tenth). And demand performance in exchange for our money. Heck, only let the performers stay in New York. Open up a satellite office in Kinshasha and send any underperforming bodies to the field office! That will improve effectiveness!
Better the devil we know, I think.
