Amir Taheri
"The United Nations is passing through the gravest crisis of its existence!" This is how UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been describing the situation of the controversial organization in the past two years.
| And much of it is due to Kofi, personally... |
| ... though I think it began with U Thant ... |
Last year's divisions over the liberation of Iraq and the scandal over UN involvement in the oil-for-food racket in partnership with Saddam Hussein, are only part of the crisis. Annan, now in his second and final term as secretary-general, may well have been speaking only for the record. And there is no indication that he has any new ideas with regard to dealing with the crisis.
| There's no indication he has any new ideas at all... |
| ... the old ones working so well of course ... |
Nevertheless, there is growing consensus that the UN, unless subjected to through reform, is unlikely to recover its former status as an instrument of international will. Reforming the UN is high on the agenda of the forthcoming G-8 summit of major industrial powers, due to beheld in Britain next May.
| The G-8 would form an acceptable core for the UN's successor organization, assuming one is needed... |
| 'cept it includes the French ... |
Two reform projects are expected to be debated at the summit in the hope that a compromise would be reached. One set of proposals could be described as "minimalist". It consists of relatively modest proposals for change, especially in the composition of the Security Council. Both Japan and Germany support the "minimalist" project that envisages their becoming permanent members of the council with veto powers.
| If there's an equivalent to the Security Council in a successor organization, I'd suggest doing away with the veto power entirely and making it a majority vote. |
Japan is the second major contributor to the UN budget, after the United States. Germany is the third contributor. Together the three nations account for almost two-thirds of the UN budget. As constituted at present, the Security Council is lopsided. Of its five veto-holding members three, Britain, France and Russia are European powers. Asia is represented by a single power: China. The whole of the American continent has the US as its representative. As for Africa and Australia, neither has a veto-holding member. To make matters more complicated, the rotating members of the Security Council always include two other European states. This means that Europe, which accounts for just 10 percent of the world's population, always has a quarter of the Security Council seats, including three veto-holding powers.
| Looking at productivity rather than population, however, gives a different picture entirely... |
Adding a veto-holding Germany to this mix will be a further extension of Europe's influence in the council. One alternative is to take away the veto from both Britain and France and allow the European Union to have a permanent veto-wielding seat on the Security Council. France and Britain, however, oppose such a move, for different reasons. France sees its veto in the Security Council as its last claim to relevance the position of a major power. Losing it would apropriately reduce France to the level of a medium-size power in a corner of Europe.
| "Lump us with the Hungarians and the Poles? What an insult! We'll leave if... ummm... " |
Britain's reasons for opposing the idea of a single EU seat are rooted in fears of a pan-European superstate swallowing the remaining vestiges of British national sovereignty...
| A fear that is completely appropriate, judging by Chirac's remarks lately ... |
More at the link... |