One of the main objections to the United Nations is its aptly-named "democratic deficit". The delegates the various countries of the world send to the United Nations are not elected directly by the people, but are selected by the governments themselves and cannot act independently of them. This certainly raises questions of credibility regarding delegates from autocratic states such as China and many Arab nations. But even the delegates from democratic nations are suspect, because they represent the agenda of the whichever political party is dominant at any given time, rather than the genuine wishes of the citizens of their country.
This problem could be addressed by the creation of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, composed of delegates elected directly by the people rather than chosen by the individual governments. This would create a direct link between the United Nations and the citizens of the world it is supposed to represent. Implementing such an assembly would be the most fundamental reform ever enacted in the United Nations, and would mark a seminal moment in human history.
Assuming that all countries except the smallest will have multiple-member delegations to the proposed UNPA, we can expect that national delegations will be represented by more than one political party. We could see an American delegation that included both Republicans and Democrats, a British delegation that included Labour, Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats (and perhaps even Scottish Nationalists), and so forth. This injection of varying political persuasions would do much to strengthen and democratize the United Nations as a whole, shaking up its deliberations and raising its profile with the citizens of the world.
Elections to the UNPA would have to be democratic, free and fair in order for the organization to have any credibility. Sham elections in places like Egypt, Iran, or China could simply not be tolerated. Therefore, it is imperative that the United Nations and independent observers oversee the elections to the UNPA in a completely unfettered environment. If any nation declines to accept this, then they should not be permitted to send delegation to the UNPA. Such close U.N. supervision of elections would have the added benefit of strengthening democratic institutions in emerging democracies, as citizens would gain greater experience in conducting free and fair elections.
The creation of a UNPA would also present an opportunity to resolve another common and deserved criticism of the General Assembly: the fact that all countries have a single vote, regardless of population. Currently, we can see the absurd spectacle of little Monaco (population 30,000) having the same voting power in the General Assembly as China (population 1.3 billion). Clearly, the number of voting UNPA delegates per nation would have to take population into account.
But if we followed a path of exact proportional representation by population, another problem immediately presents itself, in that the larger nations would simply overwhelm the smaller nations by sheer force of numbers. Indeed, two nations, India and China, would control more than one-third of the seats by themselves. Clearly, exact proportional representation will not work.
The problem here is very similar to that faced by the 55 men who wrote the United States Constitution. The small states obviously wanted each state to have an equal say in the legislative functions of the government, while the larger states wanted voting power to be based on population. To solve this, the Constitutional Convention adopted the famous Connecticut Compromise, creating a Senate in which the states had equality and a House of Representatives in which votes were determined by population. Clearly, to create a UNPA, we need to find an equally brilliant compromise.
Joseph Schwartzberg, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a strong proponent of the UNPA, has created an electoral matrix that attempts to properly balance the need to give more populous nations greater representation, while avoiding the danger of having the biggest nations completely swamp the smaller ones. It uses such factors as population and financial contribution to the U.N. budget to calcuate the number of seats each nation should have. Even the smallest state would have at least one seat, while the larger nations of India, China and the United States would have around fifty or sixty seats. While not a perfect electoral system, it could be the framework of an eventual compromise.
Beyond all these questions, of course, is the basic question of exactly what the purpose of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly would be. Initially, it would likely serve as merely as a consultative counterpart to the General Assembly itself, until the electoral system had been properly ironed out. Within a few years, however, the UNPA should begin to take on duties beyond merely giving advice. The UNPA, being directly accountable to the people, could credibly take on jobs such as selecting the U.N. General Secretary and exercising proper oversight of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Eventually, the UNPA and the General Assembly might effectively evolve into a bicameral legislature, with the UNPA representing the people and the General Assembly representing the nations.
Over decades, the democratic credibility of the UNPA as a manifestation of the sovereign will of the people could allow it to evolve into a genuine world parliament, with the ability to pass binding legislation on such matters as shall be delegated to it. An age of global problems requires a global approach to solving them, and a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly would seem to be a necessary step in that direction.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Liu Xiaobo Fully Deserves Nobel Peace Prize
Yesterday's announcement that jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was electrifying. As Mr. Xiaobo is one of the most prominent campaigners for human rights in China, the Nobel Committee had a fully justified choice in giving him the award, as the world needs to focus on the political liberalization of China now more than ever.
An academic by training, Mr. Xiaobo has been at the forefront of the movement for Chinese democracy since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Because of his activism, he has repeatedly be arrested and imprisoned by the Chinese state authorities. In 2008, he was one of the major authors of Charter 08, a manifesto calling for a comprehensive reform of the Chinese governmental system, including freedom of expression and religion, an independent judiciary, and legislative democracy. Not long after Manifesto 08 was issued, Mr. Xiaobo was again arrested and, in fact, is currently in prison.
The rise of China will be one of the most important stories of the 21st Century, and the potential power of the ancient nation, in both economic and military terms, is immense. While China has cast off its communist past as far as its economic development is concerned, the Chinese Communist Party retains its political power with an iron fist, ruthlessly crushing all internal opposition. Indeed, it's not surprising that the Chinese government has denounced the Nobel Committee for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to one of its citizens, and has even blocked internet searches on the subject.
The entire world should look to Mr. Xiaobo and the Chinese democratic movement he represents as one of the great hopes for the future. For a variety of reasons, the world has turned a deaf ear to the Chinese democracy movement since the Tiananmen Square protests were crushed twenty-one years ago. Mr. Xiaobo receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a hopeful sign that this is beginning to change. In the coming years, the world needs to focus on the political liberalization of China in the same way that it focused on the end of apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s.
Congratualtions to Mr. Xiaobo for his deserved achievement, and let's hope it's a sign of things to come.
An academic by training, Mr. Xiaobo has been at the forefront of the movement for Chinese democracy since the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Because of his activism, he has repeatedly be arrested and imprisoned by the Chinese state authorities. In 2008, he was one of the major authors of Charter 08, a manifesto calling for a comprehensive reform of the Chinese governmental system, including freedom of expression and religion, an independent judiciary, and legislative democracy. Not long after Manifesto 08 was issued, Mr. Xiaobo was again arrested and, in fact, is currently in prison.
The rise of China will be one of the most important stories of the 21st Century, and the potential power of the ancient nation, in both economic and military terms, is immense. While China has cast off its communist past as far as its economic development is concerned, the Chinese Communist Party retains its political power with an iron fist, ruthlessly crushing all internal opposition. Indeed, it's not surprising that the Chinese government has denounced the Nobel Committee for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to one of its citizens, and has even blocked internet searches on the subject.
The entire world should look to Mr. Xiaobo and the Chinese democratic movement he represents as one of the great hopes for the future. For a variety of reasons, the world has turned a deaf ear to the Chinese democracy movement since the Tiananmen Square protests were crushed twenty-one years ago. Mr. Xiaobo receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is a hopeful sign that this is beginning to change. In the coming years, the world needs to focus on the political liberalization of China in the same way that it focused on the end of apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s.
Congratualtions to Mr. Xiaobo for his deserved achievement, and let's hope it's a sign of things to come.
Friday, October 8, 2010
United States Should Sign Mine Ban Treaty
The amelioration of human suffering is a sacred principle for all Global Citizens, and one cause of great human suffering in our age has been the deployment of massive numbers of antipersonnel landmines during conflicts in Africa, Asia, the Balkans, and Latin America during the 1980s. These devices are specifically designed to maim rather than kill, the sickening logic being that it requires an enemy to expend more resources caring for a badly-wounded soldier than to dispose of a dead body. Vast swaths of land remain infested with these minefields, usually long after the conflict for which they were deployed had ended.
Every week, hundreds of people are maimed and killed, many laid decades before for use in conflicts long since over. Almost all the people being killed by landmines today are innocent civilians with no connection to any combatant force. A very large proportion of those injured or killed are children.
Adding to the miserable human toll are numerous other costs. Landmine fields often prevent refugees from returning to their homes after the end of a conflict, hindering the economic redevelopment which might prevent a future war. Livestock are often killed by landmines, contributing to poverty and starvation. The long-term negative impacts of the deployment of antipersonnel landmines, both direct and indirect, boggles the imagination.
On December 3, 1997, 122 countries came together in Ottawa and signed a comprehensive treaty banning the production and deployment of antipersonnel landmines. Since then, many nations in Africa and Asia have made great progress in clearing their minefields, returning the land to productive use, and allowing people from war-torn regions to begin to rebuild their lives. The total number of countries that have signed the Ottawa Treaty now stands at 156. The movement to free the world from the scourge of antipersonnel landmines represents one of the most glorious episodes of the last few decades of human history.
But despite innumerable requests, the United States of America has refused to sign the treaty. Indeed, antipersonnel landmines are still being produced in American factories.
The fact that America has not joined the movement to ban antipersonnel landmines should not be tolerated by American citizens. Having an opportunity to alleviate the suffering of humanity, yet not taking it, is a failure on the part of the United States to live up to the Enlightenment values on which the country was founded.
It is high time for the United States to join with the rest of the world, submit its name to the Ottawa Treaty, and join in the effort to rid the world of antipersonnel landmines. All American Global Citizens should contact the White House and contact their Senators. Tell them that the United States should sign the Ottawa Treaty, and should do so immediately.
Every week, hundreds of people are maimed and killed, many laid decades before for use in conflicts long since over. Almost all the people being killed by landmines today are innocent civilians with no connection to any combatant force. A very large proportion of those injured or killed are children.
Adding to the miserable human toll are numerous other costs. Landmine fields often prevent refugees from returning to their homes after the end of a conflict, hindering the economic redevelopment which might prevent a future war. Livestock are often killed by landmines, contributing to poverty and starvation. The long-term negative impacts of the deployment of antipersonnel landmines, both direct and indirect, boggles the imagination.
On December 3, 1997, 122 countries came together in Ottawa and signed a comprehensive treaty banning the production and deployment of antipersonnel landmines. Since then, many nations in Africa and Asia have made great progress in clearing their minefields, returning the land to productive use, and allowing people from war-torn regions to begin to rebuild their lives. The total number of countries that have signed the Ottawa Treaty now stands at 156. The movement to free the world from the scourge of antipersonnel landmines represents one of the most glorious episodes of the last few decades of human history.
But despite innumerable requests, the United States of America has refused to sign the treaty. Indeed, antipersonnel landmines are still being produced in American factories.
The fact that America has not joined the movement to ban antipersonnel landmines should not be tolerated by American citizens. Having an opportunity to alleviate the suffering of humanity, yet not taking it, is a failure on the part of the United States to live up to the Enlightenment values on which the country was founded.
It is high time for the United States to join with the rest of the world, submit its name to the Ottawa Treaty, and join in the effort to rid the world of antipersonnel landmines. All American Global Citizens should contact the White House and contact their Senators. Tell them that the United States should sign the Ottawa Treaty, and should do so immediately.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Microfinance: A Revolution in Foreign Aid?
It has become clear that the prevailing model of foreign aid is not nearly as effective in alleviating global poverty as is desireable. Pushed by celebrities like U2's Bono and high-profile activists like Jeffrey Sachs, the prevailing model often amounts to simply dumping massive amounts of Western money in poverty-stricken countries, and dispatching teams of Western experts to undertake development projects. Despite huge expenditures and decades of work, poverty rates in most of the Third World have barely budged, and some areas have actually gone backwards.
The hearts of those who pursue these policies are certainly in the right place and I have nothing but the highest respect for the hard work these aid workers put in. But facts are facts. Most efforts to alleviate global poverty using the prevailing model are not particularly effective. Many of the proponents declare that the failure has resulted from insufficient funds, and politicians are always calling for doubling foreign aid every time a new budget comes up. But the problem is not so much a lack of resources as a largely flawed approach.
The reasons for the failure of the prevailing foreign aid model are easy enough to see. By making the people of Third World nations dependent on Western money, no matter how well-intentioned its givers may be, a cycle of dependence is created from which it is usually impossible to break out. Individual self-sufficiency is the key to a prosperous society, and this is precisely the aspect most lacking in the prevailing model of foreign aid.
For Global Citizens, tackling the problem of global poverty is clearly a high priority. Not only does our basic humanity demand it, but it also serves pragmatic global interests. Global poverty creates instability, which in turn breeds dangerous extremism that can be taken advantage of by groups like Al Qaeda. Furthermore, the economic development of previously poverty-stricken nations opens the door for mutually-beneficial trading opportunities. But since the prevailing model of foreign aid has largely been a failure, what can be done?
The answer may lie in a relatively new concept for global poverty reduction: microfinance. This new approach to poverty reduction in the developing world has been pioneered over the last few decades by Muhammed Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank and the winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.
The idea behind microfinance is quite simple. Very small loans are made to people living in poverty, who use the loans to start small business enterprises. These people would obviously be ignored by conventional banks and are thus unable to gain access to financial capital, or would otherwise be taken advantage of by loan sharks and driven even deeper into poverty. By gaining access to the microfinance loans, these people are slowly able to build up their own self-sufficiency, all the while paying back the loan with the profits made from their small start-up businesses. Eventually, the loan will be paid back, and the person will have pulled themselves up from poverty into a position where they can stand on their own feet.
The genius behind microfinance is that it does not trap the person in a cycle of dependency, and lets loose the natural human impulse for self-improvement. This is not a case of some governmental or organizational bureaucracy micro-managing things, but of an individual gaining control of their own destiny. Between being forced to take a handout or having the opportunity for improve one's situation using one's own abilities, all people with the spark of humanity inside them will take the latter every time.
Western donor nations would do well to shift a large proportion of their foreign aid budgets away from projects using the prevailing model and instead turn their focus more to microfinance efforts along the lines laid down by Muhammed Yunis. If demonstrable successes can be achieved, an entirely new approach to reducing and eventuy eliminating global poverty could be formulated.
Below is a video about Grameen Foundation USA, the leading microfinance organization in the United States. It provides an excellent overview of microfinance in general.
The hearts of those who pursue these policies are certainly in the right place and I have nothing but the highest respect for the hard work these aid workers put in. But facts are facts. Most efforts to alleviate global poverty using the prevailing model are not particularly effective. Many of the proponents declare that the failure has resulted from insufficient funds, and politicians are always calling for doubling foreign aid every time a new budget comes up. But the problem is not so much a lack of resources as a largely flawed approach.
The reasons for the failure of the prevailing foreign aid model are easy enough to see. By making the people of Third World nations dependent on Western money, no matter how well-intentioned its givers may be, a cycle of dependence is created from which it is usually impossible to break out. Individual self-sufficiency is the key to a prosperous society, and this is precisely the aspect most lacking in the prevailing model of foreign aid.
For Global Citizens, tackling the problem of global poverty is clearly a high priority. Not only does our basic humanity demand it, but it also serves pragmatic global interests. Global poverty creates instability, which in turn breeds dangerous extremism that can be taken advantage of by groups like Al Qaeda. Furthermore, the economic development of previously poverty-stricken nations opens the door for mutually-beneficial trading opportunities. But since the prevailing model of foreign aid has largely been a failure, what can be done?
The answer may lie in a relatively new concept for global poverty reduction: microfinance. This new approach to poverty reduction in the developing world has been pioneered over the last few decades by Muhammed Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank and the winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize.
The idea behind microfinance is quite simple. Very small loans are made to people living in poverty, who use the loans to start small business enterprises. These people would obviously be ignored by conventional banks and are thus unable to gain access to financial capital, or would otherwise be taken advantage of by loan sharks and driven even deeper into poverty. By gaining access to the microfinance loans, these people are slowly able to build up their own self-sufficiency, all the while paying back the loan with the profits made from their small start-up businesses. Eventually, the loan will be paid back, and the person will have pulled themselves up from poverty into a position where they can stand on their own feet.
The genius behind microfinance is that it does not trap the person in a cycle of dependency, and lets loose the natural human impulse for self-improvement. This is not a case of some governmental or organizational bureaucracy micro-managing things, but of an individual gaining control of their own destiny. Between being forced to take a handout or having the opportunity for improve one's situation using one's own abilities, all people with the spark of humanity inside them will take the latter every time.
Western donor nations would do well to shift a large proportion of their foreign aid budgets away from projects using the prevailing model and instead turn their focus more to microfinance efforts along the lines laid down by Muhammed Yunis. If demonstrable successes can be achieved, an entirely new approach to reducing and eventuy eliminating global poverty could be formulated.
Below is a video about Grameen Foundation USA, the leading microfinance organization in the United States. It provides an excellent overview of microfinance in general.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Is ITER the Answer to Our Energy Problems?
Two months ago, representatives from the European Union, the United States, Russia, Japan, India, China and South Korea met in France to discuss the future of the ITER project, a massive experiment based in southern France to determine whether a commercial nuclear fusion reactor is technologically and economically feasible. At this meeting, despite the severe budget pressures caused by the present global economic situation, it was determined to allocate the necessary funds to allow the project to go forward.
Discussions on launching the ITER project began all the way back in 1985, but it was only in 2005 that a location was selected and it wasn't until 2007 that serious work on the project began. Recently, concerns have been raised about whether the participants will live up to their responsibilities in terms of funding, but the recent meeting seems to have laid these concerns to rest, at least for the moment.
ITER stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Incidentally, it also means "the way" in Latin. If the project is successful, it could open the door for commercial fusion power by the middle of the century, thereby ending humanity's reliance on fossil fuels and potentially solving the vast majority of the world's environmental problems at a stroke.
The process of nuclear fusion is simple. Indeed, it is the same process that powers the Sun. By bringing isotopes of hydrogen together and causing them to fuse, a tiny amount of matter is converted into an enormous amount of energy. If harnessed, this energy can be used in precisely the same manner as in any other power plant, driving steam turbines to produce electricity.
The advantages of nuclear fusion are mind-boggling. Unlike fossil fuel power plants, there would be no production whatsoever of greenhouse gases. Unlike fission nuclear reactors, there would be no possibility of any form of Chernobyl-style meltdown and there could be no production of any material which could be used to make nuclear weapons. While the fusion reaction itself produces no radioactive waste, parts of the reactor wall would gradually become mildly radioactive over time, but this is a matter of little concern, as the amounts of radioactive material would be minuscule and they would have a half-life of less than a century.
Perhaps the greatest advantage to nuclear fusion is the fact that the fuel is readily available in enormous quantities all over the world. The most convenient fusion reaction would be combining hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium in a fusion reactor. Deuterium can be obtained by ocean water, while tritium can be produced in the reactor itself. In other words, the fuel for our potential nuclear fusion reactors is as cheap as we could possibly hope for it to be.
Considering the advantages of nuclear fusion, it's easy to wonder why we haven't built large numbers of fusion reactors all across the world already. The answer is that the engineering challenges to achieve economical fusion (in which more power is generated than is required to keep the reaction going) are immense. Not only that, but they are enormously expensive. Until we master the technology and devise effective techniques, nuclear fusion will remain a dream.
That's what the ITER project is all about. The seven partners in the project will share the cost, estimated at tens of billions of dollars, in order to build and operate an experimental reactor that will be used to design and develop the necessary technology and techniques over two decades or more. Assuming it is successful, it could serve as a prototype for genuine commercial nuclear fusion reactors that could be operating throughout the world by the middle of the century.
The project is enormously expensive, but not nearly so expensive as the International Space Station (which, unlike ITER, has no specific object or goal in mind). Considering the potential payoff of commercially feasible fusion power, the investment is certainly worth the risk. While it would be foolish to imagine fusion as some sort of silver bullet that will solve all the world's energy problems instantaneously, it certainly has the long-term potential to be an enormously important part of the world's energy matrix in decades to come. But it will only work if we start now.
Below is a brief documentary, in two parts, produced by the European Union to give a general background of nuclear fusion power in general and the ITER project in particular. Keep in mind that it was created in 2005, and a great deal has happened since then.
Discussions on launching the ITER project began all the way back in 1985, but it was only in 2005 that a location was selected and it wasn't until 2007 that serious work on the project began. Recently, concerns have been raised about whether the participants will live up to their responsibilities in terms of funding, but the recent meeting seems to have laid these concerns to rest, at least for the moment.
ITER stands for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Incidentally, it also means "the way" in Latin. If the project is successful, it could open the door for commercial fusion power by the middle of the century, thereby ending humanity's reliance on fossil fuels and potentially solving the vast majority of the world's environmental problems at a stroke.
The process of nuclear fusion is simple. Indeed, it is the same process that powers the Sun. By bringing isotopes of hydrogen together and causing them to fuse, a tiny amount of matter is converted into an enormous amount of energy. If harnessed, this energy can be used in precisely the same manner as in any other power plant, driving steam turbines to produce electricity.
The advantages of nuclear fusion are mind-boggling. Unlike fossil fuel power plants, there would be no production whatsoever of greenhouse gases. Unlike fission nuclear reactors, there would be no possibility of any form of Chernobyl-style meltdown and there could be no production of any material which could be used to make nuclear weapons. While the fusion reaction itself produces no radioactive waste, parts of the reactor wall would gradually become mildly radioactive over time, but this is a matter of little concern, as the amounts of radioactive material would be minuscule and they would have a half-life of less than a century.
Perhaps the greatest advantage to nuclear fusion is the fact that the fuel is readily available in enormous quantities all over the world. The most convenient fusion reaction would be combining hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium in a fusion reactor. Deuterium can be obtained by ocean water, while tritium can be produced in the reactor itself. In other words, the fuel for our potential nuclear fusion reactors is as cheap as we could possibly hope for it to be.
Considering the advantages of nuclear fusion, it's easy to wonder why we haven't built large numbers of fusion reactors all across the world already. The answer is that the engineering challenges to achieve economical fusion (in which more power is generated than is required to keep the reaction going) are immense. Not only that, but they are enormously expensive. Until we master the technology and devise effective techniques, nuclear fusion will remain a dream.
That's what the ITER project is all about. The seven partners in the project will share the cost, estimated at tens of billions of dollars, in order to build and operate an experimental reactor that will be used to design and develop the necessary technology and techniques over two decades or more. Assuming it is successful, it could serve as a prototype for genuine commercial nuclear fusion reactors that could be operating throughout the world by the middle of the century.
The project is enormously expensive, but not nearly so expensive as the International Space Station (which, unlike ITER, has no specific object or goal in mind). Considering the potential payoff of commercially feasible fusion power, the investment is certainly worth the risk. While it would be foolish to imagine fusion as some sort of silver bullet that will solve all the world's energy problems instantaneously, it certainly has the long-term potential to be an enormously important part of the world's energy matrix in decades to come. But it will only work if we start now.
Below is a brief documentary, in two parts, produced by the European Union to give a general background of nuclear fusion power in general and the ITER project in particular. Keep in mind that it was created in 2005, and a great deal has happened since then.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
European Space Agency Should Pursue Upgrades for Automated Transfer Vehicle
This article from the BBC, written by science correspondent Jonathan Amos, makes for some interesting. The European Space Agency (ESA) will soon be faced with a decision over whether to pursue significant upgrades to their Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) program, or allow the program to run its course and end.
The ATV program has been highly successful thus far. The vehicle is designed to transfer large quantities of supplies and other cargo to the International Space Station, then serve as a disposal vehicle for waste generated by the crew, who fill the ATV up with the refuse and then dispatch the ATV to burn up in Earth's atmosphere. Most importantly, the vehicle operates only entirely by computer, being able to move towards the ISS and dock with it without any human guidance.
The first ATV, appropriately named the Jules Verne, was launched in the spring of 2008 and performed its mission successfully. A second ATV, with the equally appropriate name of Johannes Kepler, is scheduled for launch in the coming months. Several other ATV missions are in he works, with at least five more scheduled to serve the ISS between now and 2015.
The ESA is considered upgrading the ATV program so as to allow it to return cargo to the Earth by giving it the ability to reenter the Earth's atmosphere and land intact. Even more ambitious plans are being considered which would adapt the ATV into a vehicle capable of carrying a human crew. These plans are quite ambitious, though they would cost a considerable amount of money. As the ESA has only a fraction of the financial resources as NASA, and in light of the intense budget pressures currently facing European nations, this is not a decision that the ESA will make without long and perhaps heated debate.
Still, the ESA should pursue these plans, developing first an ATV which can survive reentry and thus return cargo to the Earth, and subsequently an ATV adapted for use by a human crew.
Manned spaceflight is going through some rough times. The Space Shuttle program of the United States is due to end next year, and President Obama has decided to terminate the Constellation program that was intended to create a successor manned spaceflight system, essentially turning over American manned spaceflight to private industry for the foreseeable future. By committing to the eventual creation of a European manned spaceflight capability, the ESA could give manned spaceflight a considerable boost.
More to the point, it's time for the ESA to step up to the plate of space exploration in a more serious manner. America's fiscal crisis is virtually guaranteed to curtail the American space program for the foreseeable future. The ESA has gradually emerged on the stage of unmanned space exploration in recent years, sending highly-successful missions to Mars and Venus and also contributing mightily to projects focused on cosmology, both on its own and in cooperation with other space agencies.
But manned spaceflight has remained a low priority for the ESA. All European astronauts have essentially been passengers on Russian or American missions. It's time for Europe to develop its own manned spaceflight capability, and adapting the ATV to serve as a manned space vehicle seems to be the most logical way in which it could do so. When it does, Europe will begin to recapture the exploratory spirit with which it once changed the world.
The ATV program has been highly successful thus far. The vehicle is designed to transfer large quantities of supplies and other cargo to the International Space Station, then serve as a disposal vehicle for waste generated by the crew, who fill the ATV up with the refuse and then dispatch the ATV to burn up in Earth's atmosphere. Most importantly, the vehicle operates only entirely by computer, being able to move towards the ISS and dock with it without any human guidance.
The first ATV, appropriately named the Jules Verne, was launched in the spring of 2008 and performed its mission successfully. A second ATV, with the equally appropriate name of Johannes Kepler, is scheduled for launch in the coming months. Several other ATV missions are in he works, with at least five more scheduled to serve the ISS between now and 2015.
The ESA is considered upgrading the ATV program so as to allow it to return cargo to the Earth by giving it the ability to reenter the Earth's atmosphere and land intact. Even more ambitious plans are being considered which would adapt the ATV into a vehicle capable of carrying a human crew. These plans are quite ambitious, though they would cost a considerable amount of money. As the ESA has only a fraction of the financial resources as NASA, and in light of the intense budget pressures currently facing European nations, this is not a decision that the ESA will make without long and perhaps heated debate.
Still, the ESA should pursue these plans, developing first an ATV which can survive reentry and thus return cargo to the Earth, and subsequently an ATV adapted for use by a human crew.
Manned spaceflight is going through some rough times. The Space Shuttle program of the United States is due to end next year, and President Obama has decided to terminate the Constellation program that was intended to create a successor manned spaceflight system, essentially turning over American manned spaceflight to private industry for the foreseeable future. By committing to the eventual creation of a European manned spaceflight capability, the ESA could give manned spaceflight a considerable boost.
More to the point, it's time for the ESA to step up to the plate of space exploration in a more serious manner. America's fiscal crisis is virtually guaranteed to curtail the American space program for the foreseeable future. The ESA has gradually emerged on the stage of unmanned space exploration in recent years, sending highly-successful missions to Mars and Venus and also contributing mightily to projects focused on cosmology, both on its own and in cooperation with other space agencies.
But manned spaceflight has remained a low priority for the ESA. All European astronauts have essentially been passengers on Russian or American missions. It's time for Europe to develop its own manned spaceflight capability, and adapting the ATV to serve as a manned space vehicle seems to be the most logical way in which it could do so. When it does, Europe will begin to recapture the exploratory spirit with which it once changed the world.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Veto Power in United Nations Security Council Must Be Reformed
Over the past few weeks, we have been discussing the urgent need to alter and expand the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council in order to better reflect the geopolitical realities of the 21st Century, thus making it a more effective instrument at preserving peace and security around the world. Under the system we have laid out, the new Security Council would consist not of five permanent members, but of ten: the United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, a seat held in annual rotation by the United Kingdom and France, and a seat held by a representative of the European Union.
Such a reform would be revolutionary, and it would do much to increase fairness and proper representation within the United Nations. But if enacted by itself, it would also add to a recurring problem with the functioning of the Security Council. Since any single permanent member can veto a Security Council resolution, it is often difficult if not impossible to get meaningful resolutions through unless there is perfect unanimity among the permanent members, which rarely if ever takes place. Expanding the permanent membership from five to ten makes this problem twice as bad as it already had been.
A cautionary tale from history is that of the Liberum Veto in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which lasted from the mid-16th Century to the end of the 18th Century. In many ways, Poland was far ahead of its time in terms of creating a constitutional government that allowed for religious toleration. But in the assembly of nobles which shared power with the king, any individual noble was able to exercise a veto and, if he so desired, terminate the proceedings. This eventually brought the workings of the Polish government to a complete standstill, leaving the country unable to resist the territorial aggression of Austria, Prussia, and Russia.
A quick glance at the history of Security Council vetoes serves to illustrate the problem of an individual, absolute veto. Permanent members cast vetoes, or block progress simply by threatening to cast vetoes, whenever they feel they must do so in order to protect their own interests or those of their close allies. The philosopher Bertrand Russell once compared it to allowing burglars to veto laws against theft. The United States routinely casts individual vetoes to block resolutions directed against its ally Israel, with Russia doing the same thing regarding Serbia. China has used its veto power to block resolutions condemning the repressive government of Zimbabwe, Sudan, or Burma, where they have economic interests. There has often been complete deadlock in the Security Council on these critical issues, and the peace and security of the world has suffered as a direct result.
So long as any individual member can veto any resolution, the United Nations Security Council can only function if all the permanent members are in complete accord. In the vast majority of situations, this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. If the permanent membership of the Security Council is expanded, the problem will only become worse. For this very reason, any expansion in the membership of the Security Council must be accompanied by a simultaneous reform in the Security Council veto.
There are those who favor abolishing the veto altogether, thus making all resolutions in the Security Council determined by a simple majority vote. Even if this were ideal, but it is also something to which the permanent members of the Security Council would never agree. It will be difficult enough to get them to reform the veto at all; persuading them to give it up altogether is likely to be a lost cause for at least the next few decades. And there are clear situations when it is both necessary and proper for permanent members to veto resolutions. For example, the United States has routinely had to veto resolutions that denounce Israel for taking retalitory actions in response to terrorist attacks yet fail to mention the terrorist attack itself, thus making it appear that Israel as though Israel had launched unprovoked aggression.
A solution that is both achievable and worthwhile would be an elimination of the individual veto in exchange for a requirement that all Security Council resolutions need a two-thirds majority of the permanent members of the Security Council to pass. In other words, all resolutions will require a simple majority of eleven of the twenty Security Council members (the ten permanent ones and the ten non-permanent ones), but will also require seven of the ten permanent members to vote in favor. This system would allow any three of the permanent members to block resolutions they oppose. In effect, this would replace the individual veto with a minority veto.
Some have also suggested that Security Council members not be allowed to veto resolutions dealing with specific issues. Citizens for Global Solutions has suggested that the permanent members of the Security Council "voluntarily restrict their use of the veto in situations involving genocide, major war crimes, and major crimes against humanity." Such a gentleman's agreement might prove useful, but should also be eventually be enshrined in the U.N. Charter itself.
(Full Disclosure: I am a member of Citizens for Global Solutions and serve on its political action committee.)
Replacing the individual national veto with a requirement that three permanent members must vote together for a veto to be enacted, as well as a prohibition on the use of the veto in cases involving genocide, major war crimes, and major crimes against humaniy (in other words, the sort of crimes which are within the jurisfiction of the International Criminal Court) would mak the United Nations Security Council and must more effective instrument in preserving the peace and security of the world.
The world is in urgent need of a United Nations Security Council that can function quickly and effectively, thus fulfilling the role the founders of the United Nations intended for it. Expanding its permanent membership to better reflect the realities of the 21st Century is a necessary step in this process, and must go hand-in-hand with the reformation of the veto process. Once these two changes are made, we can hope that we will have a United Nations that can more effectively prevent wars, stop genocides, block nuclear proliferation, and bring those guilty of crimes against humanity to justice.
Such a reform would be revolutionary, and it would do much to increase fairness and proper representation within the United Nations. But if enacted by itself, it would also add to a recurring problem with the functioning of the Security Council. Since any single permanent member can veto a Security Council resolution, it is often difficult if not impossible to get meaningful resolutions through unless there is perfect unanimity among the permanent members, which rarely if ever takes place. Expanding the permanent membership from five to ten makes this problem twice as bad as it already had been.
A cautionary tale from history is that of the Liberum Veto in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which lasted from the mid-16th Century to the end of the 18th Century. In many ways, Poland was far ahead of its time in terms of creating a constitutional government that allowed for religious toleration. But in the assembly of nobles which shared power with the king, any individual noble was able to exercise a veto and, if he so desired, terminate the proceedings. This eventually brought the workings of the Polish government to a complete standstill, leaving the country unable to resist the territorial aggression of Austria, Prussia, and Russia.
A quick glance at the history of Security Council vetoes serves to illustrate the problem of an individual, absolute veto. Permanent members cast vetoes, or block progress simply by threatening to cast vetoes, whenever they feel they must do so in order to protect their own interests or those of their close allies. The philosopher Bertrand Russell once compared it to allowing burglars to veto laws against theft. The United States routinely casts individual vetoes to block resolutions directed against its ally Israel, with Russia doing the same thing regarding Serbia. China has used its veto power to block resolutions condemning the repressive government of Zimbabwe, Sudan, or Burma, where they have economic interests. There has often been complete deadlock in the Security Council on these critical issues, and the peace and security of the world has suffered as a direct result.
So long as any individual member can veto any resolution, the United Nations Security Council can only function if all the permanent members are in complete accord. In the vast majority of situations, this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. If the permanent membership of the Security Council is expanded, the problem will only become worse. For this very reason, any expansion in the membership of the Security Council must be accompanied by a simultaneous reform in the Security Council veto.
There are those who favor abolishing the veto altogether, thus making all resolutions in the Security Council determined by a simple majority vote. Even if this were ideal, but it is also something to which the permanent members of the Security Council would never agree. It will be difficult enough to get them to reform the veto at all; persuading them to give it up altogether is likely to be a lost cause for at least the next few decades. And there are clear situations when it is both necessary and proper for permanent members to veto resolutions. For example, the United States has routinely had to veto resolutions that denounce Israel for taking retalitory actions in response to terrorist attacks yet fail to mention the terrorist attack itself, thus making it appear that Israel as though Israel had launched unprovoked aggression.
A solution that is both achievable and worthwhile would be an elimination of the individual veto in exchange for a requirement that all Security Council resolutions need a two-thirds majority of the permanent members of the Security Council to pass. In other words, all resolutions will require a simple majority of eleven of the twenty Security Council members (the ten permanent ones and the ten non-permanent ones), but will also require seven of the ten permanent members to vote in favor. This system would allow any three of the permanent members to block resolutions they oppose. In effect, this would replace the individual veto with a minority veto.
Some have also suggested that Security Council members not be allowed to veto resolutions dealing with specific issues. Citizens for Global Solutions has suggested that the permanent members of the Security Council "voluntarily restrict their use of the veto in situations involving genocide, major war crimes, and major crimes against humanity." Such a gentleman's agreement might prove useful, but should also be eventually be enshrined in the U.N. Charter itself.
(Full Disclosure: I am a member of Citizens for Global Solutions and serve on its political action committee.)
Replacing the individual national veto with a requirement that three permanent members must vote together for a veto to be enacted, as well as a prohibition on the use of the veto in cases involving genocide, major war crimes, and major crimes against humaniy (in other words, the sort of crimes which are within the jurisfiction of the International Criminal Court) would mak the United Nations Security Council and must more effective instrument in preserving the peace and security of the world.
The world is in urgent need of a United Nations Security Council that can function quickly and effectively, thus fulfilling the role the founders of the United Nations intended for it. Expanding its permanent membership to better reflect the realities of the 21st Century is a necessary step in this process, and must go hand-in-hand with the reformation of the veto process. Once these two changes are made, we can hope that we will have a United Nations that can more effectively prevent wars, stop genocides, block nuclear proliferation, and bring those guilty of crimes against humanity to justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)