#6 The UNSC is the only "real" UN. The rest of the general assembly are, on average, 5th grade educated relatives of whoever rules the country. Except as a permanent forum for endless international groupthink, it does nothing of value. Granted, there actually is a value in groupthink, but only as art, not as policy.
Therefore, what is needed is a revision of the UNSC, based on what I would call a "three tiered" membership. Nations that have economic power, military power, and a willingness to commit significant money, resources and military power to world needs.
Veto members would have all three. That is, money, guns, and a willingness to use them. This would be the US; Russia; China, the EU, India and Japan. Commitments would be on permanent detachment in a neutral country acting as host, and each member would have to contribute an equal share of manpower and money. Equipment would be standardized in make, but from several manufacturers, and any power that wanted to could provide additional non-proprietary equipment to the UN unit. Funding would be made at the beginning of each mission.
Second-Tier Members could vote "yes" or "no", to lend their voice, but would have no veto. They could contribute materially to missions with standardized equipment and personnel. Otherwise, they would pay into a fund to support such missions, equal for all second-tier members. Germany, Britain, France, Australia, Turkey, and other economic powers would belong.
Third-tier members would be non-voting "blocs", NGOs, and multi-national organizations that could argue before the UNSC about missions it contemplated and recommend others. The African Union, SEATO, the WMF, the World Court, etc. Their main value would be to highlight obvious problems ignored by the major powers, such as the Rwanda genocide.
As things stand right now, nobody who has power will allow it to be diluted, so no change will occur at the UN. The only possible way around it is to create a new body, as outlined above, that acts independently of the UN until it is fully functional, then either supplants the UNSC from outside the UN, or replaces it within the UN. |
... "Congess, Republican-dominated, is now talking about withholding half of the US contribution unless US-backed changes are implemented. Enter John Bolton. His nomination was so controversial the President failed to win cross-party backing and he was appointed in a so-called "recess appointment" valid only until the new Congress in January 2007. But judging from his few weeks in New York, Mr Bolton is not at the UN to negotiate.