Describing President Barack Obama's endorsement of India for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council as a "grand rhetorical gesture", a former US ambassador to the UN, has warned that any enlargement of the 15-member's body's permanent category would further weaken it.
"Adding additional permanent members to the existing cacophony will further weaken its effectiveness on responding to terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and other issues," said John Bolton, who served at the world body under the Bush administration. At the same time, he pointed out that the lack of international consensus about changing Security Council membership for over 20 years now.
"India should remember that President (Richard) Nixon first endorsed Japan as a permanent member of the Security Council four decades ago. President (Bill) Clinton backed Germany in 1993. Both are still waiting," Bolton said in an article published in The Wall Street Journal Friday. "Immediately after Mr Obama's endorsement in New Delhi," Bolton wrote, "Pakistan officially rejected the idea of a permanent seat for India, and China adopted a noncommittal posture. Many in Japan doubtless gritted their teeth.
"Reformers argue that the council would have greater legitimacy if it reflected current international reality rather than the world of 1945. But the council falls short today not primarily on legitimacy but on efficacy," said Bolton, a hard-liner.
The former American ambassador wrote, "Membership politics are completely gridlocked. Germany believes it deserves a permanent seat if Japan succeeds, which simply emboldens Italy's candidacy.
But "Europe" will never receive another permanent seat, since it already has three of the current five (Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States). "No one in London or Paris is rushing to give up their slot to a representative of the European Union Brazil's campaign for another Western Hemisphere seat founders on its Portuguese, rather than Spanish, language and history, with multiple Latin American countries eyeing the same spot.
"Africa demands a permanent seat or two (ask Nigeria and South Africa), and many Arab states think Egypt would both represent their interests and qualify as African, just as Boutros Boutros-Ghali did as UN secretary-general. And what about Pakistan to balance India, or Indonesia as another 'rising player'? Adding permanent seats to the Security Council is more fun than, and almost as cheap as, buying properties in 'Monopoly.'
"The United States should support a Security Council that performs its UN Charter functions effectively. Almost certainly, however, the larger the council becomes, the more difficult it would be to achieve that objective. The pulling and tugging among 10 permanent members would mean even fewer decisive council actions than at present. "Although few will openly say so at Turtle Bay, many UN diplomats understand this dilemma perfectly well and hope that Mr Obama's pronouncement will not provoke another counterproductive round of contentious but ultimately failed negotiations.
"Accordingly, the optimal American position is to insist that whatever changes are made to the council protect what limited utility it currently has. A country doesn't qualify for permanent membership simply because it has a large population, represents an under-represented continent or region, or is a rising power.
"Japan's economy and contributions to the UN system uniquely qualify it to become the next permanent member, as Mr Obama belatedly reaffirmed in Tokyo. All of the other aspirants, although not without their own merits, don't sufficiently stand out from the other wannabees. "What we still lack is a formula that admits a few new members without everyone else bellying up to the bar. Until that formula emerges, there may be no changes to the council's membership. So be it. Our first rule should be 'do no harm'."
Comments
Comments are closed.