09-28-2006, 09:31 PM
Writing about UN Reforms in the IHT (27/9) Prof Ikenburry and Ms Anne-Marie Slaughter have proposed a new theory to make the Security Council more representative and effective.
They are of the view that the Security Council can be made more effective by expanding its membership to include Germany, Japan, India Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria and at least one Muslim nation such as Egypt or Indonesia, as well as a rotating group of smaller nations.
This would mean the creation of a Concert of Democracies to lobby for effective reform and create a possible alternative decision making body if such reforms ultimately proves impossible. The columnists pointed out that Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa, one of the two African countries that would join under any of the plans currently being circulated for Security Council expansion, are all stable democracies. They wondered that why wouldnât this appeal to the Bush administration, which has made democracy promotion its highest foreign policy priority and why shouldnât it appeal to America as a whole.
The standard argument against expansion is that it will make the already slow decision making process even worst. However, the answer to that is not preserving the status quo, but rather getting rid of the biggest obstacle in the process- the Security Councilâs permanent memberâs veto. They felt that the Permanent members would retain a veto on resolutions to censure nations or declare support for or opposition to particular policies, but resolution requiring action in the face of international crisis would pass by either simple majority or weighted majority vote.
The reasoning put forward is very sound but will the Permanent Members be interested in getting their exclusive rights curtailed?
They are of the view that the Security Council can be made more effective by expanding its membership to include Germany, Japan, India Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria and at least one Muslim nation such as Egypt or Indonesia, as well as a rotating group of smaller nations.
This would mean the creation of a Concert of Democracies to lobby for effective reform and create a possible alternative decision making body if such reforms ultimately proves impossible. The columnists pointed out that Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa, one of the two African countries that would join under any of the plans currently being circulated for Security Council expansion, are all stable democracies. They wondered that why wouldnât this appeal to the Bush administration, which has made democracy promotion its highest foreign policy priority and why shouldnât it appeal to America as a whole.
The standard argument against expansion is that it will make the already slow decision making process even worst. However, the answer to that is not preserving the status quo, but rather getting rid of the biggest obstacle in the process- the Security Councilâs permanent memberâs veto. They felt that the Permanent members would retain a veto on resolutions to censure nations or declare support for or opposition to particular policies, but resolution requiring action in the face of international crisis would pass by either simple majority or weighted majority vote.
The reasoning put forward is very sound but will the Permanent Members be interested in getting their exclusive rights curtailed?