From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Thu Feb 27 2003 - 20:37:48 MST
Christian Weisgerber writes:
> Wei Dai <weidai@weidai.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you sure this is an argument that you want to push?
> > Suppose you succeed and everyone accepts this argument. Now
> > if the U.S. does go to war without a second resolution, the U.N.
> > is finished. On the other hand if everyone accepts Holbrooke's
> > "spin" that a second resolution is not necessary, the U.N. will
> > survived this episode.
Yes I'm sure. There is no possibility that everyone will accept Holbrookes
spin or anyone elses spin for that matter, either from the US side or from
the
French side. Intelligence is not monopolized by any nation and there are
plenty
of capable minds (even if they are a small percentage of the total
population)
who are able to see through spin and recognize the truth that is written in
signed documents of the importance of the Charter and of 1441.
> > Does anyone have any ideas about how the Security Council might
> > be redesigned more rationally?
>
> With nuclear proliferation looking inevitable--after all it *is*
> 1940's technology--the old structure looks bound to collapse, but
> I have no idea how to replace it.
If the old structure means the current members of the Security Council
who are permanents remain permanents and some further incremental
changes are made to the non permanent members I cannot agree that
the "old structure" is bound to collapse. It might collapse but it is not
bound too.Whether or not it does depends first on the competence and
statesmanship of George W Bush and second on the statesmanship of
Jacques Chirac. Bush must make the overture or be judged by history
to have failed to do so. Chirac must respond when the overture is made
or the same consequence applies.
If I had to accept a small but workable number of countries onto a
hypothetical security council that had the need to be both operationally
effective in the world and to represent a wide variety of interests and then
I found by some random chance that the permanent members that I just
happened to have to work with were the USA, the UK, France, China
and the Russian Federation then I would be astounded that I was so
lucky as to get these five. Certainly a case could be made for other
countries being as good as these but that is not the point. Other countries
can still play a role. What is the point is that it would be very hard to
produce a new Security Council in a new UN from the ruins of this one
that would actually be better in its composition that that which already
happens to be there.
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 27 2003 - 20:15:25 MST