 (27)HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER [url=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/contact?c=2&s=Abuse:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/node/705006]REPORT ABUSE[/url]
GRANT 11:20 PM ET March 14, 2011
Up until relatively recently
Up until relatively recently the U.S didn't have that kind of global influence either. There could very well be a war or catastrophe that rockets India, Brazil and other states into new positions of leadership very soon.
GUARANI 4:03 AM ET March 15, 2011
Wait what?
"And more importantly, their entry into the halls of world governance would not necessarily strengthen the developing international legal regime. These new powers lack the same commitment as the older ones to supranational institutions and universal values such as human rights, the collective defense of democracy, a robust climate change framework, nuclear nonproliferation, and so forth. Hence, permanent seats on the Security Council for Brazil, India, and South Africa, coupled with greater participation by China, Pakistan, Indonesia, and even Mexico in international agencies or bodies, might weaken the very foundations of the liberal democratic order"
The same commitment to supranatural institutions as the old powers, who always has some kind of escape clause to UN decisions? The same universal values such as human rights or the collective defense of democracy, where the large powers prop up dictatorships around the world and ignore internal repression (Latin America, Africa, Middle East) until they don't serve their interests anymore? "Only the U.S. military was able to nudge the Egyptian Army into edging Hosni Mubarak out of power (obviously thanks to the popular movement in the street, but Qaddafi has shown that jasmines and chants are not sufficient)" you mean the US's threat to potentially cut off its aid that has kept the same Mubarak in power for the last couple decades (and the inability to do much when another dictatorship simply says no, i want to stay in power)? In the case of nuclear proliferation its a little more of a mixed bag, but you have to remember that SA is the only country that gave up nuclear weapons, while Brazil is constitutionally obliged to refrain from producing any.
Lets be honest, and agree that the great power usually only use these metrics when it is in their self-interest or like now in North Africa, when the West is forced to act by other forces. I mean, its pretty short sighted to say that these new countries should not join the club because they cannot resolve the problems and contradictions that we created for ourselves. Maybe they have new solutions to these problems.
MARTY MARTEL 8:10 AM ET March 15, 2011
What a laugh.............
It makes one laugh when Jorge Castaneda claims that China has commitment to human rights and universal democracy!
It makes one laugh when Jorge Castaneda claims that U. S. has commitment to universal democracy when U. S. has supported umpteen dictatorships, starting with that in China and Saudi Arabia.
It makes one laugh when Jorge Castaneda claims that China has commitment to nuclear nonproliferation when Chinese nuclear technology has wound up in Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria.
It makes one laugh when Jorge Castaneda claims that U. S. has commitment to nuclear nonproliferation when U.S. has totally ignored Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation.
HURRICANEWARNING 4:54 PM ET March 15, 2011
ACTUALLY...
the US has NEVER ignored Pakistan nuclear proliferation. In fact we have been trying to get them to disarm for years, and we have been trying to prosecute those responsible for the proliferation (AQ KHAN). Pakistan is a sovereign nation, whose government is willing to work with ours (sometimes)...what would you have us do exactly? Also, yes the US has stood by and partnered with tyrants, however, this is because it served OUR national interests which is what ANY country does. once again, those countries are sovereign nations, if they want a new government, then they should do it themselves. We are not the world police, and we have never claimed that we are. The bottom line is that WE HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED DEMOCRACY. Democracies have closer ties with us in every respect and are therefore more profitable. However,no, not all our allies are democracies. Again, what would you have us do? Invade them all? Bottom line is, the US does actually set a pretty damn good example, but we are not perfect...is anybody? More importantly, can any power be perfect and omnipotent? NO!!
PUBLICUS 3:52 PM ET March 16, 2011
Carp, carp, crap
When the US Government deals with the leaders of foreign sovereign governments that are ruled by one family of monarchs or the one family of a strongman the carpers carp about that. Conversely, when the US initiates a large scale military operation and order of battle as it did against a murderous dictator such as Saddam Hussein the constant carpers became screamers.
You chronic complainers can't have it both ways. Other governments of Western democracies deal with the leaders of foreign sovereign governments that exist regardless of whether the given foreign sovereign government is a ruling oligarchy comprised of a family monarchy or the family of a military or political strongman such as Marcos in the Phils and more recently Mubarek in Egypt. Many Western democracies did business with Mubarek and for many score years continue to do business with Middle East and other monarchies.
We in (and of) the United States are used to the background noise of the chronic carpers and on the occasions when the chronic carpers become screamers against the US. You fail to move me simply because no matter what the Government of the United States does or doesn't do, you are there quacking like ducks or screeching like elephants in heat. On both sides of any given issue you chronic crapers are entirely predictable, to the point of making yourselves assinine [sic].
You won't quit because you don't know how when or why to quit your alternating carping and screaming so we pay you little or no mind. Really, why pay mind to those who confound themselves because they are mindless carpers and screamers no matter what the United States does or doesn't do.
VINEYCB1 8:47 AM ET March 15, 2011
The Trouble With the BRICs
My response to this paper is in two parts.
Part I
This paper puts an altogether excessive value on the UN system. We should know that in the years since WWII UN has lost much of its sheen and validity as an organization of States seeking to create and live by an international system that would ensure peace and fair dealing between States. In the early years it succeeded to some extent. But somewhere along the line, which it may not be very difficult to pinpoint, some of the great powers, especially US, started using the UN and its numerous other bodies for their policy objectives and almost as instruments of those policies. It is hardly possible now to say that the UN in its present form can still play an important part in preserving world peace and promoting a sense of security among the less powerful member countries.
It may be enough to give one example. Take China’s experience with the UN over a long period. In 1949 the PRC wanted to take the place of the ROC in the UN system, including naturally permanent membership of the UNSC. But the US continued to pretend that ROC, confined to Taiwan, was the rightful owner of that position. PRC had no choice but to lump it for the time being. For long years PRC went on handing out abusive condemnations of the UN and its actions on every conceivable occasion. In a word, there was hardly any scope for a sensible relationship between the UN and the PRC. And then Nixon went to Beijing: the rest of the story we all know. Before long PRC was duly installed as permanent member of the UNSC in place of ROC, which ceased to be even an ordinary member of the UN. There was no reason to regret this. In many ways this was conforming to the ground actualities that Nixon and PRC recognized and acknowledged.
But consider China further. Its record as permanent member of the UNSC is hardly one that it will ever have reason to look back to with pride. Not unlike others of the UNSC, PRC also used its veto repeatedly for causes and objectives not far different from those of the other powers. In this respect PRC was much the same as the other permanent members. As a result UNSC has become more a headache than a protective shield for any of the less powerful members. For the powerful members who can look after themselves the UNSC is a bit of a nuisance and a dispensable quantity. No one really needs UNSC for any objective of any State.
It is hopeless to think that making Brazil, India, and South Africa permanent members of the UNSC shall create a situation which will be unmanageable for the powers that be. Let us remember that at this moment the three Western members are permanently pitted against the two Eastern members. The three new members are unlikely to be hangers on or client states of any others of the UNSC. It is more than possible that these three shall not be overly amenable to the influences of the Western three or of the Eastern two, but they may not necessarily constitute a bloc by themselves.
At the same time, permanent membership of the UNSC is by now a much devalued commodity which does not hold too much attraction for anyone, especially because it has been brought to the present pass by the earlier five by their repeated, excessive, and unabashed use of the veto over the decades.
Part II
I am rather amused that the author has attempted to promote Pakistan to the company of several who are really and truly important members of the world community. Let us not pretend that a donkey-rider may claim parity with horse riders atop wonderful stallions. Pakistan today is in dire financial straits and does not have a week’s rations if the US were to withdraw its support. In short, Pakistan is eating out of US’s hand, as it were. Secondly, it has been a compulsive user of terror as an instrument of its policies for several years: if the US department of state has not declared it as such, it is because this does not suit the US copybook. There have been damning statements by no less than the British prime minister and the French president saying that 80% of global terror emanates from Pakistan. Mrs Clinton also was constrained to warn that if the next terrorist attack on the US mainland were traced to Pakistan, then certain consequences would follow, although she did not quite specify those consequences. The common sense of the matter is that if such a thing happened, then Pakistan would find itself treated as a terrorist state. If that was not Mrs Clinton’s meaning, then she might as well have saved her breath.
Besides, much like its patron and all-weather friend, China, Pakistan has been an unabashed proliferator of technology and materiel for nuclear weapons and missiles. Dr AQ Khan’s smuggling bazaar of such technology and materiel is well known and has been much written about over the years. And yet we are told Pakistan stands in the company of powers like China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico. Pakistan has only one factor that seems to have influenced the author’s assessment – Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This is hardly the place or the occasion for going into how Pakistan acquired technology and materiel for its own nuclear weapons and missiles, but it remains a fact of the situation that Pakistan itself has been responsible for giving technology and materiel to other countries like North Korea, Iran, and Libya (the last one rapidly abandoned its nuclear ambitions after seeing the fate that befell Iraq and Saddam Hussein). In this respect, China and Pakistan have been partners in nuclear proliferation at any rate to North Korea, which has no hinterland of scientific education and research in its universities or technological research and innovation in any of its technological institutions. Nor has Pakistan, for that matter.
Pakistan has failed to build even a system of education which could have supported a society based on principles of moderation and tolerance, which are the only bases and principles on which States in our times can be constructed. There is no room for making States on the basis of any one religion or system of belief. And yet we know that Pakistan has a pervasive system of madrassa education which inculcates ideas and thinking that seeks to take its students to a seventh-century medievalist thought system, to the exclusion of non-Islamic persuasions and even of some Islamic sects. The author should have known that a benighted place like that hardly qualifies to be in the company of the others that he mentions.
Part III
Towards the end of my submissions I am tempted to remind the author that it will not do to create a caste system among the permanent members of UNSC. Let him not start thinking of permanent members without the veto. If any such movement seemed to be in the works, my suggestion to the new candidates would be to reject the idea and turn their back on the UN system altogether. Let the UN find out how much weight it will pull in the world comity if these countries just refrained from participating in UN. It will underline the nonsense that the UN system has already become in the hands of the present permanent five. The new permanent members may yet save the UN from going downhill – if they are invited in with honour and consideration. Otherwise there is very little that can stop the UN from going the way of the League of Nations.
V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, Mar 15 2011, 1755 IST
SAIF UR REHMAN 8:58 AM ET March 15, 2011
Does India deserve to be even discussed as Veto Power?
Does India worth of even discussion or contender of the case?
NO.....
India a hegemon in the region and threatens the stability of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal and Bhutan.
India has territorial and border disputes with almost all its neighbors including China, Pakistan myanmar and bangladesh.
India a country with half the population living below poverty line with apparent cry of INCREDILE ( increadible) India.
India a country with more than 50 ethnic / regional insurgencies fighting for the right of self determination.
India a country with poor records of human rights, minority supression and hindu extremism.
EVEN THEN.....
WHY THE WORLD SHOULD EVEN TALK OF VETO POWER IN RELATION TO INDIA just because its a POPULOUS country? the same populationis on the verge of balkanization.
PUBLICUS 4:33 PM ET March 16, 2011
The CCP vs democracy in India
The CCP-PRC of Beijing offers no lofty aspirations either to its own population or to the population of the world, which is in direct contrast to India which encourages private enterprise, has created multinational corporations which extract no fascist political demands as Beijing does, promotes creativity and an open, lively and free society which engages in vibrant election campaigns and debate and which has a parliament that actually engages in open and vigorous discourse, votes openly to decide public policy and the raising and expenditure of public money and taxes.
India has a free press/media while the CCP-PRC has the state controlled dissemination of propaganda to its sheeple via controlled and managed "news," has the 44 channel Central China TV which delivers the same message in news or 'entertainment' programming in 44 shamelessly same ways. When the CCP in Beijing doesn't want its sheeple to access a site on the internet, the word PROHIBITED appears in bold font and capital letters. This is truly brazen and shameless and is meant by the CCP to be both and more.
India is bracing for new border dispute offensives by Beijing due to the fact that Beijing has become more aggressive towards its neighbors off the PRC's East Coast, to include Japan, S Korea, always Taiwan; and is making wild claims that the misnamed South China Sea, which borders the ten countries of South East Asia is the property of Beijing. The new aggressiveness of the CCP in Beijing indicates Beijing's impatient plan to extend its censorship without borders and its fascism to the East Asia region (and beyond). India knows this, as to the other countries of the region and the world.
The UN needs reform, reorganizing and restructuring. Given that the CCP-PRC has a permanent seat on the UNSC, so should India. The two countries between them contain 2.6 billion of the global population. Let's see how often India votes with the CCP-PRC and Russia on the UNSC and in the General Assembly. Brazil isn't about to jump into bed with the reactionary fascist dictatorship of the CCP in Beijing either.
PICSPIC 12:11 PM ET March 15, 2011
De-Efe
Well, as a Brazilian, I can certainly say it is not a surprise for a fellow Latin American to demean Brazilian capabilities... As if the Middle East/North Africa crisis were not showing once and for all the complete impotence of all Security Council permanent members, particularly France and the UK, who cannot afford actually doing anything and acting upon their words.
Even though it is clear that Castañeda is motivated, regarding Brazil, solely by his internal rage that his own country would never be considered as a candidate for a permanent seat, his words against a permanent seat for India are even more shocking, and even less logical. The world can certainly live with a Brazil that is a not a permanent member of the Security Council - but the UN must solve the Indian problem soon, before India becomes the most populous nation on earth.
At that moment, when an India that is a military and nuclear power becomes the largest nation, the position of the current 5 will seem even more untenable than it is now - especially those of France, the UK, and even Russia. At that moment, if India is not properly recognized as one of the major powers, it will be clear that the moment of leaving the UN will have arrived. (As the first founding member to have left the League of Nations, in 1926, Brazil will have no problem supporting India at that moment in time....)
MUTT3003 3:09 PM ET March 15, 2011
Security Council seat for who........
India deserving a seat at the table just because it is over-populated is a pretty funny idea. Or because it has nukes - BIG DEAL. Not very impressive. What else you got? South Africa, Pakistan, Brazil et al, maybe in fifty years. In all actuality, the US should have a "super veto" over the others on the council. When France and England have to be under the NATO blanket to act big, and are small otherwise, they can keep their regular veto power. Russia, being able to show a bit more muscle than those two (although after it's break-up isn't the same) gets to keep its regular veto. China should not have been at the table in the first place - until fairly recently - gets a regular also.
Even with all of the "America is in decline" BS, there is no other country even close to the US. Who is the first country others come to for assistance. Ask any person in the remotest spot on earth where they would emigrate to if they were able. Show that same person a dollar bill, a yuan, euro, pound or a ruble (real, rupee) and ask which one is recognized. China is stockpiling a lot of US treasuries for a reason.
No other country can compare. And we have Disneyland!
JUFFE 11:39 AM ET March 17, 2011
Containing Brazil
Well, it is stupid to say that Castañeda is motivated by a sort of nationalistic jaelousy. The point here is to defend multilateralism and democracy in international institutions. The efforts by the so called BRICs to take the center stage in global affairs is a threat to those values. Brazil and India don't want a permanent seat in the UNSC to help the world and be a Mother Teresa in assisting the victims of international conflcits, they want power, their sick ambition is what is pushing them to be more "global", to set into people's minds that they are ready for "prime time".
And why Brazil?? Is it better than Argentina, Uruguay or Mexico? Of course not, and Brazil ceratinly doesn't want that seat to represent Latin America, it want for its own good.
I'm Mexican, as a Latin American I defend the tradition of democracy and multilateralism of our region. I stand for collectivity, not for the egos of some governments that want ot create poles of power in the continent.
YGORCS 11:35 PM ET March 17, 2011
Containing Brazil from doing what?
Come on, let's be sensible in this discussion. Being a member of the Security Council isn't a matter of being "better" or "worse". That means nothing in international relationships, especially because who's going to define what makes one "good" or "bad" and which countries are from one or other category? The members of the Security Council SHOULD be democracies that have real clout in the world or at least in a vast region and that also don't have a history of intervining uniterally in other countries. Of course that is just an ideal version of what the Security Council should be, because China isn't a democracy at all and the US have intervened in the most tragic ways in the whole world (and I won't discuss now whether financing and training the army in many Latin American or African countries was indeed a "weird" way to support democracy and save it from communism).
It's funny that the Mexican fellow seems to consider that Brazil must be contained. Contained from doing what? Brazil has influence, Brazil seeks its own interests, Brazil will try to gain influence and obtain benefits and power to its own people and State... So what? That is exactly what all the countries in the world do. What must be contained is the attitude of seeking one's own interests and benefitting from the influence over other countries through imperialism, through aggressive interventions, through support for dictatorships. Apart from that, it's just the way the international relationships have always been: each sovereign country seeks to find their own clout.
So, Brazil should be contained because of exactly what? Brazil hasn't had a war with its neighbors for more than 100 years and the last important war it had actually happened not because it invaded a neighbor, but quite the opposite: Solano López's Paraguay invaded a Brazilian province in the middle 1800's. On the other hand, Argentina, Chile (as far as I remember, twice, once with Bolivia and then with Argentina) and so many other Latin American countries had many wars with each other in the 19th and 20th century. When Brazil participated in wars during the 20th century, it was in events like the 2nd World War. Uruguay was once dominated by Brazil, got its independence and since then Brazil didn't even try to make it our "puppet". Besides, Brazil has never destroyed democratically elected regimes in Latin America or any place in the world, very differently from the US.
That said, I still wonder what sensible, rational argument can be used to explain why Brazil isn't "ripe" for being a member of the Security Council, while the US (which of course supports democracy, as long as we're talking about the lands within its borders) and China are "adequate". Brazil's history, with all its sad and shameful records on human rights and other issues, has been much more peaceful and stable than China's or United States' in what related to international relationships, war and diplomacy.
Population doesn't mean everything, but there has no explanation to why a stable democracy that represents about 1/3 of all the Latin American population and economy and has never begun a serious war within its regions isn't a "natural" candidate to represent its region. Mexico would be a serious candidate and of course would do just as well as Brazil, but fortunately or unfortunately Brazil has more clout, population, area, wealth (in total terms).
Besides, frankly, Brazil is less influenced by the "sphere of power" of the US, depends less on only one country (while Mexico's trade depends heavily on the US, Brazil's largest export partner represents only about 15-20% of the total) and is in the "heart" of a non-represented and increasingly important region, South America. Thus, it's more likely that Brazil brings new ideas and approaches than Mexico. I don't think this question is a nationalist matter, and Mexicans also shouldn't. We aren't choosing misses whose greatest wish is "peace in the world", but influent countries that, preferably, are democratic and have contributed if not to world peace, at least to maintaining stability and sovereignty in the world. And Brazil has had better records in those matters than China, US and Russia, which are ironically three of the five members of the Security Council.
THE_OBSERVER 11:31 PM ET March 15, 2011
The_Observer
A fairer situation would be to raise the number of permanent members of the UN security Council to 7. Dispense with Britain and France's places, add Brazil as a representative of S. America (independent of the US), the Rep. of S. Africa as an African one, and lastly an Oceania one representing the nations of the Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. Troubled and poor areas like S. Asia can wait for a place later and so can highly volatile areas such as the Middle East.
THE_OBSERVER 11:37 PM ET March 15, 2011
The_Observer
I should have added that the new UN Security Council permanent members will have to have at least 3 vetoes to stop a resolution and not one as is the case at the moment.
THE_OBSERVER 11:47 PM ET March 15, 2011
The_Observer
Correction:
"Dispense with Britain and France's places,.." should have read as
"Dispense with Britain and France's places and replace it with one for the EU,..."
GRANT 9:04 PM ET March 16, 2011
France and the U.K would
France and the U.K would never accept that and the E.U hasn't been proven to be a supra-state success. Following that I'm not sure why you think South Africa deserves one if India doesn't. In addition you seem to be greatly oversimplifying the situation in 'Oceania' (which is a difficult place to define) if you really think that those nations, some of which have serious issues with one another, could possibly get along as a single U.N Security Council member. Lastly, southern Africa is easily as troubled as South Asia and East Asia looks like it might get just as volatile as the Middle East in a matter of decades.
MARCELO BARROS 1:02 PM ET March 16, 2011
HURRICANEWARNING, idiot
Beautiful!. Statement of a true scoundrel!
SAM FROM CALIFORNIA 12:49 AM ET March 17, 2011
Hypocrisy in Bahrain
The American hypocrisy in Bahrain and Yemen prove to everyone that the idea that NATO has more "Values" than Brazil, India, Russia or China is a bunch of hogswallop. Saleh is no better in human rights than the Iranian government, but not a peep about him gunning down protesters!
Sometimes I'm disguisted by the public "intellectuals" in this country. It's like the leadup to Iraq all over again ... this echo chamber of naivete and American Exceptionalism distracting everyone from the reality.
NORVIKS 9:04 PM ET March 17, 2011
Brazil definitely not ready
I know Brazil very well. My family has had business there for 30 years. Let's be serious. Brazil can barely manage its own house. Those are facts. And any serious person knows that. The country is so inefficient that any product or service costs 50% more than in the first world. It's due to a lot more than rapacious taxes but in fact reflects the byzantine bureaucracy, derelict infrastructure (which the past 2 governments have done nothing to solve).
Due to global growth and high commodity prices and an internal credit program, tested in Mexico first and UN stamped, there has been a consumer boom in Brazil in the last 5 years and the country has been growing for the first time in 30 years. Will they sustain it?
As a result of this growth the Federal government is awash in cash. It has tons of development programs for industry and infrastructure but it cannot even achieve 10% of what they plan - a small qualified work force (huge mistake: no investment in education in 50 yrs!) and total incompetence are the reasons. Brazilian off-shore platforms import American welders for crying out loud!
Now, does anyone in their right mind want to see Brazilians making key decisions that will affect all of us on the planet? Per the article "Not ready for prime time", Brazil cannot project military power in its own backyard, Latin America, let alone half away across the globe. Finally Brazilians still have a long way to go before they're a mature people who stop reacting emotionally and aggressively, as children do.
You will be a great power, *IF* you really do your homework for at minimum another generation or two and become mature people instead of always whining.
And no your economy is not bigger than France or Britain, both hovering at $2.5 trillions while Brazil is still at $1 trillion - that's the GDP of 200 million people. France and Britain have 60 and 50 million respectively. See the difference?
Russia is already on the Council and has century old military, intelligence and diplomatic tradition. But it's not a liberal nation with values still too far removed from the West. Pretty much the same can be said for China and India.
With the size of the crisis coming, let's keep it in the West 'cause truth be told, we're the only ones who have a "small" chance of solving the plight of 100's of tribes and bickering nations and avoiding a collapse of world order (read *CIVILIZATION*)
YGORCS 11:46 PM ET March 17, 2011
One trillion?
I'm sorry, but you've got wrong data, unless you mean you have more credible information than the IMF and CIA. If you mean GDP in PPP terms, Brazil's GDP was about $ 2.1 trillion in 2010. No, France or Britain (actually, the UK) don't have GDP holvering at $2.5 trillion, but also about $2.1-2.2 trillion each. Again, the UK population has reached about 62-63 million, and not 50 million, which was the UK population perhaps 20 years ago. Just find the data and see it for yourself. The numbers you mentioned seem to be terribly outdated, and unfortunately it gives us the impression that you don't know Brazil as well as you said.
NORVIKS 10:26 AM ET March 21, 2011
Numbers out of Date
The numbers aren't important. The ideas are. And as someone who came here as a teenager and has gone back and forth, anyone who's from the first world and has not actually lived in the third world, doesn't understand that far from the center stage notion of technological backwardness, the third world is like stepping back in time, in our own history. Les Miserables is still a reality in the developing world. Reality is people in the developing world are mean. Plain and simple. As mean as we were 200 years ago. It's a matter of "stages of development" at consciousness level. Hence, they cannot be trusted on the Security Council.
And having seen a family business be "stolen" in sections by three judges in one state, a state utility company in another and private sector businessmen in a third state, I think I know what I'm talking about. The GDP numbers are immaterial. Their immaturity is the dangerous part.
VINEYCB1 3:11 AM ET March 18, 2011
The Trouble With the BRICs
This is not in response to anyone who has written before me. Nor am I trying to defend or reinforce what I wrote above.
A permanent member of the UNSC should be one that has shown by its conduct that it could be regarded by the rest of the world as a responsible member of the world community and that it could be expected to act soberly in any situation that may arise.
It is no use talking about the problems of this or that country which may be a candidate for the permanent membership. Almost all countries, including the existing Permanent 5, have a host of problems within their own countries and with several other countries. Having problems is not a disqualification. The point is how a country attempts to resolve its problems.
In this day and age there are a few objectives which by common consent are regarded as desirable. These include, among others, nuclear nonproliferation, refraining from the use of terror as an instrument of the policy of a country, and, of course, the goold old five principles of peaceful coexistence which have been universally regarded as good. If a country defaults in respect of any one of these, then it ought to be unfit to be a permanent member. But it is a fact of the situation that many of the existing Permanent 5 do not have a clean record in this regard.
I would not talk about the system of government in any particular country, whether an existing permanent member or an aspiring permanent member. If we get into that, it will raise so many questions that it will lead to much disorder and unsettlement. Besides, it may amount to interference in the internal affairs of a country.
V. C. Bhutani, vineycb1@vsnl.com, Delhi, India, Mar 18 2011, 1241 IST
AHSERGIO 2:39 PM ET March 18, 2011
Worse text on FP so far
I really wish to read all comments, but I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who believes this text is a complete waste of time.
All his arguments are followed by exceptions that he quoted, for instance, that the addition of India, Brazil and South Africa to UNSC would make it more legit. Increasing the representativity and legitimacy of UNSC is the great challenge for UN right now, or does it seems that the last round of sanctions had any outcome in constraining Iran's atomic endeavor?
in each and every paragraph the achievements of BRICS are stated just to be nulled by some irrelevant and simplistic argument such as "they still lack the ability to project power the way that countries such as France and Britain can when NATO or the U.N. Security Council so decide. One can agree with such interventions or oppose them, but at this juncture only countries such as these and the United States have the wherewithal to actually do something in crises such as Libya."
By the way, Why is France one of the most indicated to deal with the lybian crisis even after the denounces of Sarkozy's run for president being financed by Kadafi?
A real waste of my precious time this was.
MATC 5:48 PM ET March 23, 2011
Brazil is a post-modern super power
Unlike the other three countries, Brazil could prove to be a post-modern super power anytime soon. Plus, all other three countries are trapped in the same continent with long history of realist military/economic competitions. Rather than developing that, Brazil has a natural advantage to be a silent and perversive super power. It's natural resources with evenly matched mixed ethnic population and its lack of restrictive nationalism could shake the world as what USA did in 20th century. If Brazil develops itself in full scale, makes a sound and well balanced political-economic system, it will be the future leader of the world.
CLASSIC87 8:34 PM ET March 31, 2011
A Case for Security Council Enlargement
I agree that it is time for the US to start seriously considering UN Security Council enlargement. While opponents of UNSC enlargement argue that such a measure has the potential to dilute US power, decrease efficiency and encourage lowest common denominator actions, the US has little to gain from a perceived rejection of UNSC authority. If left unchanged, the UNSC will become increasingly ineffective in addressing today’s security challenges that demand cohesive, broad-based multilateral responses.
The US should, therefore, take the lead by publically supporting UNSC expansion, laying out a long term road map to incorporate major aspirant countries, notbly the BRICS, Germany and Hapan, to new permanent seats based on concrete criteria, such as political stability, the capacity and willingness to act in defense of international security, and the ability to negotiate and implement sometimes unpopular agreements, as outlined in a report by the Council on Foreign Relations. Such a measure will vastly increase the credibility of the Security Council, give aspirant states an incentive to increase their contributions to global security and socialize regional leaders into responsible global actors. Further, by taking a lead, the US can avoid reform schemes that are contrary to its interests and increase global political support for existing arrangements that reflect US values and interests.
ROBERT 13 4:05 PM ET April 7, 2011
BRIC:Why it's too soon to give Brazil and India permanent seats
I have gone through the article and would try to be precise in my comment on the member's nations Brazil and India in regard to be yet considered or not to be given permanent seat in UN Security Council.
With regard to China and Russia, I will not venture to comment on these two countries as to be fair and in the greater interest of assessing the Foreign Policy of any country all facts small or big in its row form should be on the table for consideration.
Moreover, it needs to be discussed threadbare on all point with its likely impacts and relentless deliberation to arrive at a consensus to formulate a foreign policy that would be applicable with the desired impact in international arena of diplomacy. Therefore, to discuss these two countries case the case of US, UK, and French's case needs to be also discussed.
In my consideration for fair assessment the comparison and argument advanced in respect of Russia and China became one sided. Comparison was not made elaborately by also highlighting the lacking incase of US, UK, and French which was not discussed or if even discussed were not reproduced in full in the article.
However, With regard to Brazil the matter may be considered by the committee whenever it deems fit. However, with regard to India it cannot be considered permanently because of the fact is that India may in the view of the International countries the largest Democracy but in fact is not as National Political Party sponsors committal of genocide against its own nationals. A case was registered in the Indian court of law after proper investigation accusing the Political party head Advani as the prime accused.
The case was in the deep freeze of the Indian Supreme Court Until recently. it has be opened for trail to exonerate the accused to make India Clean as Israel is trying to exonerate itself by threatening Goldstone to retract his earlier recommendation.
With regard to Brazil and South Africa's case, the points of objection seem to be weak but may be it needs a full-fledged deliberation. However, India it should be barred from the permanent Security Council Seat as no genocide committal country against which case was filed and was lying in the court for decades should never be the Security Council Member as a rule.
KATHERIN JASON 9:46 AM ET April 10, 2011
The same universal values The same universal values such as human rights or the collective defense of democracy, where the large powers prop up dictatorships around the world and ignore internal repression (Latin America, Africa, Middle East) until they don't serve their interests anymore? "Only the U.S. military was able to nudge the Egyptian Army into edging Hosni Mubarak out of power (obviously thanks to the popular movement in the street, but Qaddafi has shown stavkove kancelarie that jasmines and chants are not sufficient)" you mean the US's threat to potentially cut off its aid that has kept the same Mubarak in power for the last couple decades (and the inability to do much when another dictatorship simply says no, i want to stay in power)? In the case of nuclear proliferation its a little more of a mixed bag, but you have to remember that SA is the only country that gave up nuclear weapons, while Brazil is constitutionally obliged to refrain from producing any.While opponents of UNSC enlargement argue that such a measure has the potential to dilute US power, decrease efficiency and encourage lowest common denominator actions, the US has little to gain from a perceived rejection of UNSC authority. If left unchanged, the UNSC will become increasingly ineffective in addressing today’s security challenges that demand cohesive, broad-based multilateral responses.The US should, therefore, take the lead by publically supporting UNSC expansion, laying out a long term road map to incorporate major aspirant countries, notbly the BRICS, Germany and Hapan, to new permanent seats based on concrete criteria, such as political stability, the capacity and willingness to act in defense of international security, and the ability to negotiate and implement sometimes unpopular agreements, as outlined in a report by the Council on Foreign Relations. Such a measure will vastly increase the credibility of the Security Council, give aspirant states an incentive to increase their contributions to global security and socialize regional leaders into responsible global actors. |
狗仔卡
楼主
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2011-4-23 18:25
