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.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
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.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Can Mohamed ElBaradei Save Egypt?
The 2011 presidential election in Egypt is scheduled to take place roughly a year from now. But in Egypt, "election" is something of a relative term. Certainly, the last Egyptian presidential election, held in September of 2005, was a complete farce. President Hosni Mubarak, who has effectively ruled Egypt as a dictator since 1981, was "reelected" with a whopping 88.6% of the vote. International election observers were barred from overseeing the election, the government held complete control of the media, and reports of vote-buying, intimidation, and police breakups of peaceful protests were rampant.
One can judge whether or not the 2005 Egyptian election met democratic standards by looking at what happened to Ayman Nour of the el-Ghad, the leading opposition candidate. About nine months before the election, Nour was arrested and thrown in prison. Released two months later due to American pressure, he was registered by election authorities (controlled by Mubarak) as receiving only 7.3% of the vote. Immediately after the election was over, Ayman Nour was unceremoniously thrown back in prison.
President Mubarak, increasingly infirm at the age of 82, is unlikely to run for another term in next year's elections. Instead, in good dictatorial tradition, he is grooming his son, Gamal Mubarak, to run for president in his place. It's quite clear that, if Hosni Mubarak has his way, the 2011 election will be no different than the 2005 election, and his son will be "elected" by an overwhelming majority.
But Mubarak's plans for a family dynasty in Egypt may be upset by Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian who lead the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1997 and 2009. He came into the global spotlight during the lead up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, when he directed weapons inspectors in Iraq and concluded that no Iraqi nuclear weapons program existed (he was right, but the Bush administration went forward with the invasion anyway). He has been equally outspoken in calling for negotiations with Iran rather than military action against it, believing that Iran is not an immediate nuclear danger but also that it has not been completely cooperative with the IAEA.
He has been an outstanding leader in the struggle against nuclear proliferation, calling for strong and legally binding inspections of nuclear facilities of all nations, ratification of nuclear reduction and test ban treaties, and an end to the production of fissable materials that might be used for nuclear weapons. For his efforts against nuclear proliferation, he was awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.
ElBaradei retired from the IAEA in 2009, and has now turned his attention to his homeland of Egypt. Since his return, there has been much speculation about whether or not he will run for president himself in 2011. He has not yet announced any candidacy, but he has held meetings with reformists and opposition figures, forming a pro-reform organization known as National Association for Change. It is not technically a political party, but clearly it has the potential to become one.
The National Association for Change is calling for strong international monitoring of the Egyptian elections, equal media time for all candidates, a limit of presidential tenure to two-terms, allowing Egyptians overseas to vote, and many other urgently-needed reforms. If these changes took place, Egypt would move a long way forward on the road towards becoming a democracy.
ElBaradei present a great problem for Mubarak. Since ElBaradei is a well-respected figure of global stature (they don't hand out the Nobel Peace Prize on street corners, after all), Mubarak cannot simply toss him into prison as he did Ayman Nour. The American government might have let him off with a few gentle protests back in 2005, when the person in question was virtually unknown outside of Egypt. If Mubarak arrested ElBaradei, the result would be a global firestorm, certainly a denunciation by the U.N. Security Council, and very likely a termination of the foreign economic and military aid that keeps Egypt propped up. But neither can Mubarak simply ignore ElBaradei, whose popularity both in Egypt and internationally is simply too great. Thus far, Mubarak has responded by unleashing a vicious smear campaign in the Egyptian press against ElBaradei, including disgraceful insinuations about his family.
Global Citizens can hope that ElBaradei's movement for political reform in Egypt continues to gather momentum. Egypt is not only home to one of the world's great ancient civilizations, but one of the centers of the Arab and Muslim world. Unlike most of its fellow Arab states, Egypt is at peace with Israel and enjoy full diplomatic relations with it. Egypt also has an increasingly sophisticated and growing economy, as well as abundant natural resources.
It may well be that the main problem holding Egypt back is its lack of proper political freedoms. If the Mubarak dictatorship were to be ended, Egypt could take its place as one of the great nations of the world, and would shine as a home-grown example to what the Arab people are capable of.
Is Mohamed ElBaradei the man to do it? We'll see.
One can judge whether or not the 2005 Egyptian election met democratic standards by looking at what happened to Ayman Nour of the el-Ghad, the leading opposition candidate. About nine months before the election, Nour was arrested and thrown in prison. Released two months later due to American pressure, he was registered by election authorities (controlled by Mubarak) as receiving only 7.3% of the vote. Immediately after the election was over, Ayman Nour was unceremoniously thrown back in prison.
President Mubarak, increasingly infirm at the age of 82, is unlikely to run for another term in next year's elections. Instead, in good dictatorial tradition, he is grooming his son, Gamal Mubarak, to run for president in his place. It's quite clear that, if Hosni Mubarak has his way, the 2011 election will be no different than the 2005 election, and his son will be "elected" by an overwhelming majority.
But Mubarak's plans for a family dynasty in Egypt may be upset by Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian who lead the International Atomic Energy Agency between 1997 and 2009. He came into the global spotlight during the lead up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, when he directed weapons inspectors in Iraq and concluded that no Iraqi nuclear weapons program existed (he was right, but the Bush administration went forward with the invasion anyway). He has been equally outspoken in calling for negotiations with Iran rather than military action against it, believing that Iran is not an immediate nuclear danger but also that it has not been completely cooperative with the IAEA.
He has been an outstanding leader in the struggle against nuclear proliferation, calling for strong and legally binding inspections of nuclear facilities of all nations, ratification of nuclear reduction and test ban treaties, and an end to the production of fissable materials that might be used for nuclear weapons. For his efforts against nuclear proliferation, he was awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize.
ElBaradei retired from the IAEA in 2009, and has now turned his attention to his homeland of Egypt. Since his return, there has been much speculation about whether or not he will run for president himself in 2011. He has not yet announced any candidacy, but he has held meetings with reformists and opposition figures, forming a pro-reform organization known as National Association for Change. It is not technically a political party, but clearly it has the potential to become one.
The National Association for Change is calling for strong international monitoring of the Egyptian elections, equal media time for all candidates, a limit of presidential tenure to two-terms, allowing Egyptians overseas to vote, and many other urgently-needed reforms. If these changes took place, Egypt would move a long way forward on the road towards becoming a democracy.
ElBaradei present a great problem for Mubarak. Since ElBaradei is a well-respected figure of global stature (they don't hand out the Nobel Peace Prize on street corners, after all), Mubarak cannot simply toss him into prison as he did Ayman Nour. The American government might have let him off with a few gentle protests back in 2005, when the person in question was virtually unknown outside of Egypt. If Mubarak arrested ElBaradei, the result would be a global firestorm, certainly a denunciation by the U.N. Security Council, and very likely a termination of the foreign economic and military aid that keeps Egypt propped up. But neither can Mubarak simply ignore ElBaradei, whose popularity both in Egypt and internationally is simply too great. Thus far, Mubarak has responded by unleashing a vicious smear campaign in the Egyptian press against ElBaradei, including disgraceful insinuations about his family.
Global Citizens can hope that ElBaradei's movement for political reform in Egypt continues to gather momentum. Egypt is not only home to one of the world's great ancient civilizations, but one of the centers of the Arab and Muslim world. Unlike most of its fellow Arab states, Egypt is at peace with Israel and enjoy full diplomatic relations with it. Egypt also has an increasingly sophisticated and growing economy, as well as abundant natural resources.
It may well be that the main problem holding Egypt back is its lack of proper political freedoms. If the Mubarak dictatorship were to be ended, Egypt could take its place as one of the great nations of the world, and would shine as a home-grown example to what the Arab people are capable of.
Is Mohamed ElBaradei the man to do it? We'll see.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Resolving the European Paradox in the U.N. Security Council
We've been talking a lot lately about the urgent need to reform the United Nations Security Council. Two weeks ago, we laid out the need for an expansion of its permanent membership, and suggested that India, Japan, Brazil and South Africa be given permanent seats. Last week, we explored the possibility of giving a permanent seat to a Muslim-majority nation, and determined that Indonesia would be the most ideal choice. This week, we'll be talking about the need to resolve the problems related to permanent European representation on the Security Council.
Currently, the United Kingdom and France both hold permanent seats on the Security Council, and it would be all but politically impossible to persuade them to give them up, even if that were determined to be a good idea. Germany has long been agitating for a seat of its own, and its immense economic strength and role in financing the United Nations gives its claim great weight.
But giving a seat to Germany raises problems. First, many other European nations (Italy in particular) are opposed to it, because the same criteria for giving Germany a seat could apply to other European countries, at least to some degree. Why, so the argument does, should Germany be considered more deserving of a permanent Security Council seat than Italy? After all, Germany cannot represent the whole of Europe.
This point is articulated by the rise of the supranational experiment of the European Union. In recent years, and particularly since the passage of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU has been acting with a more unified voice in foreign affairs. Its immense economic strength, its innovative use of soft power, and its crucial role in global economic development make it obvious that it is going to be an important force in global affairs during the 21st Century. Indeed, as far as relations with the rest of the world are concerned, the EU is likely to be more important than individual European national governments.
Considering Europe's disproportionate role in global affairs, it does not seem improper for two seats on the Security Council to be held by Europe, as is presently the case. The problem is to give Europe an arrangement that adequately represents all the people of Europe as they become increasingly unified in a federation. Some have suggested simply abolishing the British and French seats and giving the European Union a representative on the Council, especially if the role the EU plays in foreign affairs becomes more decisive than the role played by national governments. This might work, but we must face the fact that persuading the the British and French to give up their individual, nationally-held seats at the Security Council is politically impossible. An innovative compromise must be found.
The seat held by the United Kingdom presents two other problems. First, there is no guarantee that the British will remain in the EU indefinitely. Unlike other major EU states, there are powerful political forces within the United Kingdom that want a complete British withdrawal from the organization. This is not only the rising UKIP party (which received the second largest number of votes in the last European Parliament election), but a strong faction within the Conservative Party itself. Opinion polls routinely show strong support for British withdrawal, so this possibility cannot be ruled out.
Also, there is the possibility, low but not nonexistent, that the United Kingdom itself could break up within the next few decades. The Scottish National Party is currently in control of the devolved Scottish Parliament, and continues to pursue its dream of an independent Scotland. Plaid Cymru does not have the same strength in Wales, but still yearns for an independent Wales. While the idea of a breakup of the United Kingdom may be rather far-fetched, it cannot be discounted altogether. If the United Kingdom is reduced merely to England, should it retain a permanent seat at the Security Council?
Here is a possible compromise that could attempt to straighten out these convoluted issues. Suppose that the two present seats, held by the British and the French, were combined into a single seat which the British and French would hold in annual rotation. This might be termed the Entente Cordiale seat. At the same time, a new seat could be created that would be filled by a European Union representative, with the stipulation that the EU representative would never be French or British. If the British ever withdrew from the European Union, it could still hold its half-seat, and if the United Kingdom ever broke up by Scottish and Welsh secession, the seat could fall to England, which would likely be the successor state to the United Kingdom under international law.
This arrangement may seem convoluted, but it or something like it may represent the best possible solution, balancing the need for significant European representation on the Security Council, while acknowledging political realities by preserving British and French influence on the Council. here are no perfect solutions for such problems as these, but we can always find the best possible option.
Putting what we have discussed over the past few weeks into a single package, then, the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council should be expanded from five seats to ten, so as to include the United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, the European Union, and a seat in annual rotation by the United Kingdom and France. As it currently the case, ten nonpermanent members will continue to be elected to two-year terms by the General Assembly.
Such an expansion would be the most fundamental reform ever to be enacted within the United Nations. But as we have already discussed, it would make an already bad problem even worse. A major problem with the Security Council is the ability of any single permanent member to veto any resolution, which causes the Council to lock up completely whenever any permanent member believes it own interests would be threatened by a resolution. Doubling the number of permanent members obviously makes this problem twice as bad as it already was. Therefore, any expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council must be accompanied by a reform of the manner in which the permanent members are allowed to use their veto power.
We'll talk about that next week.
Currently, the United Kingdom and France both hold permanent seats on the Security Council, and it would be all but politically impossible to persuade them to give them up, even if that were determined to be a good idea. Germany has long been agitating for a seat of its own, and its immense economic strength and role in financing the United Nations gives its claim great weight.
But giving a seat to Germany raises problems. First, many other European nations (Italy in particular) are opposed to it, because the same criteria for giving Germany a seat could apply to other European countries, at least to some degree. Why, so the argument does, should Germany be considered more deserving of a permanent Security Council seat than Italy? After all, Germany cannot represent the whole of Europe.
This point is articulated by the rise of the supranational experiment of the European Union. In recent years, and particularly since the passage of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU has been acting with a more unified voice in foreign affairs. Its immense economic strength, its innovative use of soft power, and its crucial role in global economic development make it obvious that it is going to be an important force in global affairs during the 21st Century. Indeed, as far as relations with the rest of the world are concerned, the EU is likely to be more important than individual European national governments.
Considering Europe's disproportionate role in global affairs, it does not seem improper for two seats on the Security Council to be held by Europe, as is presently the case. The problem is to give Europe an arrangement that adequately represents all the people of Europe as they become increasingly unified in a federation. Some have suggested simply abolishing the British and French seats and giving the European Union a representative on the Council, especially if the role the EU plays in foreign affairs becomes more decisive than the role played by national governments. This might work, but we must face the fact that persuading the the British and French to give up their individual, nationally-held seats at the Security Council is politically impossible. An innovative compromise must be found.
The seat held by the United Kingdom presents two other problems. First, there is no guarantee that the British will remain in the EU indefinitely. Unlike other major EU states, there are powerful political forces within the United Kingdom that want a complete British withdrawal from the organization. This is not only the rising UKIP party (which received the second largest number of votes in the last European Parliament election), but a strong faction within the Conservative Party itself. Opinion polls routinely show strong support for British withdrawal, so this possibility cannot be ruled out.
Also, there is the possibility, low but not nonexistent, that the United Kingdom itself could break up within the next few decades. The Scottish National Party is currently in control of the devolved Scottish Parliament, and continues to pursue its dream of an independent Scotland. Plaid Cymru does not have the same strength in Wales, but still yearns for an independent Wales. While the idea of a breakup of the United Kingdom may be rather far-fetched, it cannot be discounted altogether. If the United Kingdom is reduced merely to England, should it retain a permanent seat at the Security Council?
Here is a possible compromise that could attempt to straighten out these convoluted issues. Suppose that the two present seats, held by the British and the French, were combined into a single seat which the British and French would hold in annual rotation. This might be termed the Entente Cordiale seat. At the same time, a new seat could be created that would be filled by a European Union representative, with the stipulation that the EU representative would never be French or British. If the British ever withdrew from the European Union, it could still hold its half-seat, and if the United Kingdom ever broke up by Scottish and Welsh secession, the seat could fall to England, which would likely be the successor state to the United Kingdom under international law.
This arrangement may seem convoluted, but it or something like it may represent the best possible solution, balancing the need for significant European representation on the Security Council, while acknowledging political realities by preserving British and French influence on the Council. here are no perfect solutions for such problems as these, but we can always find the best possible option.
Putting what we have discussed over the past few weeks into a single package, then, the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council should be expanded from five seats to ten, so as to include the United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, the European Union, and a seat in annual rotation by the United Kingdom and France. As it currently the case, ten nonpermanent members will continue to be elected to two-year terms by the General Assembly.
Such an expansion would be the most fundamental reform ever to be enacted within the United Nations. But as we have already discussed, it would make an already bad problem even worse. A major problem with the Security Council is the ability of any single permanent member to veto any resolution, which causes the Council to lock up completely whenever any permanent member believes it own interests would be threatened by a resolution. Doubling the number of permanent members obviously makes this problem twice as bad as it already was. Therefore, any expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council must be accompanied by a reform of the manner in which the permanent members are allowed to use their veto power.
We'll talk about that next week.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approves New START
Good new on the nuclear disarmament front. Yesterday, in a 14-4 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to approve the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with the Russian Federation. As we have discussed previously, this treaty would require both sides to reduce their deployed nuclear arsenals by 30% and, perhaps more importantly, create a strict inspection regime allowing each side to verify that the other is fulfilling its treaty obligations.
The treaty will now be sent to the full Senate for a ratification vote. Considering the upcoming mid-term elections, it is unlikely that the vote will take place before early November, although not impossible. The most likely scenario at this point is for a vote during the lame duck Senate term, after the fall elections but before the new Senate has been seated. Democrats don't want to be accused of trying to gain a diplomatic victory for President Obama in the weeks leading up to the mid-term election, while Republicans don't want to be put in a position of placing politics before national security.
Prospects for ratification appear good. It requires a two-thirds majority to ratify a treaty in the Senate; if we assume that all Democrats and the two independent senators who caucus with them remain supportive, this means that eight Republicans will need to cast votes in favor. On the Senate Foreign Relations Committee itself, three Republicans voted with the Democratic favor in favor of New START: Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), and Senator John Isakson (R-GA). All three are to be commended for their favorable votes, and Senator Lugar in particular is to be commended for the outstanding work he has done on behalf of nuclear disarmament throughout his Senate career.
Assuming these three senators vote in favor of ratification when it comes to the floor of the full Senate, five additional Republican votes are needed. Of Republicans who do not sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, only Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) has indicated that he is supportive of the treaty. But considering how nearly half of the Republican delegation on the Foreign Relations Committee ended up voting in favor of the treaty, we can rest easy that it will be successfully ratified if even close to that proportion of Senate Republicans comes out in favor of it.
All Global Citizens in the United States need to contact their senators immediately and let them know that ratification of New START is an urgent necessity both for the United States of America and for the world as a whole.
The treaty will now be sent to the full Senate for a ratification vote. Considering the upcoming mid-term elections, it is unlikely that the vote will take place before early November, although not impossible. The most likely scenario at this point is for a vote during the lame duck Senate term, after the fall elections but before the new Senate has been seated. Democrats don't want to be accused of trying to gain a diplomatic victory for President Obama in the weeks leading up to the mid-term election, while Republicans don't want to be put in a position of placing politics before national security.
Prospects for ratification appear good. It requires a two-thirds majority to ratify a treaty in the Senate; if we assume that all Democrats and the two independent senators who caucus with them remain supportive, this means that eight Republicans will need to cast votes in favor. On the Senate Foreign Relations Committee itself, three Republicans voted with the Democratic favor in favor of New START: Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), and Senator John Isakson (R-GA). All three are to be commended for their favorable votes, and Senator Lugar in particular is to be commended for the outstanding work he has done on behalf of nuclear disarmament throughout his Senate career.
Assuming these three senators vote in favor of ratification when it comes to the floor of the full Senate, five additional Republican votes are needed. Of Republicans who do not sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, only Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) has indicated that he is supportive of the treaty. But considering how nearly half of the Republican delegation on the Foreign Relations Committee ended up voting in favor of the treaty, we can rest easy that it will be successfully ratified if even close to that proportion of Senate Republicans comes out in favor of it.
All Global Citizens in the United States need to contact their senators immediately and let them know that ratification of New START is an urgent necessity both for the United States of America and for the world as a whole.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Battle of Britain Day
Today is Battle of Britain Day. Seventy years ago, courageous pilots, mostly British but also including Poles, Czechs, Frenchmen and Commonwealth fliers, were locked in a fierce aerial battle over England in a desperate effort to thwart the imperial ambitions of Hitler and the Nazis. Numbering only 2,332 men, they won the battle against long odds and helped save the world from Nazi despotism. As Churchill said, "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Global Citizens must never forget The Few.
Global Citizens must never forget The Few.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Should a Muslim Nation Be a Permanent UN Security Council Member? If So, Who?
Last week, we discussed the urgent need for the expansion of the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. The current composition (the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France) better reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 rather than 2010, and if the Security Council is going to have the credibility necessary to fulfill its mission of ensuring peace and stability in the world, more nations need to be included.
In the previous article, we suggested that India, Japan, Brazil and South Africa be given permanent seats on the Security Council. In upcoming articles, we shall look into the issues surrounded giving a permanent seat to a Muslim-majority nation, resolving the problem of European representation (namely, how to give it adequate representation without concentrating too much power in Europe), and reforming the use of the national veto within the Security Council. This article will focus on the issue of a Muslim-majority nation.
The lack of Security Council membership for a Muslim nation is a dilemma. Muslims make up one-fifth of the world's population, and it seems absurd that such an important portion of the human family lacks representation on the most powerful political body in the world. And since many of the world's problems today stem from a perceived conflict between traditional Islam and the modern world, establishing Muslim representation on the Security Council would seem to be an important step in resolving the resultant problems.
But if a Muslim nation is to be granted permanent membership on the Security Council, what country should it be?
One candidate suggests itself immediately, but also immediately disqualifies itself. This is Saudi Arabia. The homeland of Islam, and the location of the two most important religious centers of Islam in the form of Mecca and Medina, the Saudi kingdom is also an economic power due to its immense oil resources. It is also a military power of some significance due to its large arsenal of American military aircraft, advanced tanks, and other equipment.
But Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive nations in the world, ruled by a near-absolute monarch and treated by the al-Saud family as their own personal fiefdom. The criminal justice and educational systems are downright medieval, and anything approaching gender equality id a distant dream. There is absolutely no freedom of religion, nor is any political opposition tolerated. Such an autocratic government has no place on the Security Council.
Another possibility is Egypt. It is certainly one of the most important Muslim nations in a geopolitical sense, having a very large population, a developing economy, and a powerful military. Many of the most important Islamic institutions of higher education are to be found in Cairo, and it has played a central role in Islamic history. Equally important in terms of weighing its qualification for Security Council membership, Egypt is one of the few Muslim Arab nations to have signed a peace treaty with Israel and establish full diplomatic relations with it.
But Egypt is also a dictatorship, ruled since 1981 by President Hosni Mubarak. While not the repressive regime that reigns in Saudi Arabia, it is certainly bad enough, with political opponents routinely thrown in prison and nothing approaching a free press. Unless and until Egypt take genuine steps towards democracy, its political system probably disqualifies Egypt from permanent Security Council membership.
What about Turkey? It is an overwhelmingly Muslim nation but has a strictly secular constitution, demonstrating that Islam need not be incompatible with the concept of separation of religion and government. It also would seem to have Security Council qualifications in that it has a powerful military and a developing and increasingly sophisticated economy. Despite recent problems in their relations, Turkey has long maintained sound diplomatic relations with Israel. But there are many problems.
Firstly, while Turkey seems largely free of the Islamist militancy that infects many other Muslim states, there is a large and significant amount of extremist nationalism in many segments of Turkish society, including the military. Indeed, a large investigation into an alleged nationalist coup plot among the military, including hundreds of high-ranking officers, is ongoing in Turkey. This is no idle threat, as the military has forced civilian governments out of power on four occasions since 1960. The military not so subtly threatened to mount a coup against the ruling AK Party as recently as 2007. What if Turkey became a permanent member of the Security Council and then had its government overthrown by the military?
Turkey also has numerous other problems related to its treatment of its own Kurdish population, the issue of Cyprus, and relations with Armenia (including its refusal to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide). All of these are very likely to be on the agenda of the United Nations in the coming years, and giving a permanent Security Council seat to Turkey would make resolving these conflicts vastly more difficult and complicated.
Another possibility is Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world. Indeed, it is the world's fourth most populous nation, which by itself gives it a strong claim on permanent Security Council membership. It also has a strong economy and significant military power.
In the decades after it won independence from the Dutch in the wake of World War II, Indonesia was prevented from achieving its potential by successive periods of autocratic rule, first by the Sukarno regime and then by the Suharto regime. In 1998, however, as the Asian financial crisis wrecked havoc on the Indonesian economy, Suharto was forced from power. The following year, free and fair legislative elections were held across the country, followed by direct presidential elections in 2004. These actions brought Indonesia into the ranks of the world's democracies.
Indonesia is not without its problems. There are numerous separatist factions in parts of the country, and religious tensions run high in many places (although the constitution of the country is refreshing tolerant of non-Muslim faiths). Corruption within the government continues to be a problem. But considering what the situation had been under the Suharto regime, it is undeniable that Indonesia has made amazing progress in the decade since the advent of democracy.
Although it does not yet have diplomatic relations with Israel, Indonesia is relatively removed from the Israeli-Arab conflict that has absorbed so much of the attention of the United Nations over the years. Were it given greater influence and visibility on the international stage, we can expect Indonesia to use this greater power more responsibly than others might.
When looking over the résumés of the various contenders for a hypothetical permanent Muslim seat on the Security Council, no country is perfect. But the one which has the best combination of qualifications is Indonesia. If the decision is made to give a permanent Security Council seat to a Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia is clearly the best bet.
In the previous article, we suggested that India, Japan, Brazil and South Africa be given permanent seats on the Security Council. In upcoming articles, we shall look into the issues surrounded giving a permanent seat to a Muslim-majority nation, resolving the problem of European representation (namely, how to give it adequate representation without concentrating too much power in Europe), and reforming the use of the national veto within the Security Council. This article will focus on the issue of a Muslim-majority nation.
The lack of Security Council membership for a Muslim nation is a dilemma. Muslims make up one-fifth of the world's population, and it seems absurd that such an important portion of the human family lacks representation on the most powerful political body in the world. And since many of the world's problems today stem from a perceived conflict between traditional Islam and the modern world, establishing Muslim representation on the Security Council would seem to be an important step in resolving the resultant problems.
But if a Muslim nation is to be granted permanent membership on the Security Council, what country should it be?
One candidate suggests itself immediately, but also immediately disqualifies itself. This is Saudi Arabia. The homeland of Islam, and the location of the two most important religious centers of Islam in the form of Mecca and Medina, the Saudi kingdom is also an economic power due to its immense oil resources. It is also a military power of some significance due to its large arsenal of American military aircraft, advanced tanks, and other equipment.
But Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive nations in the world, ruled by a near-absolute monarch and treated by the al-Saud family as their own personal fiefdom. The criminal justice and educational systems are downright medieval, and anything approaching gender equality id a distant dream. There is absolutely no freedom of religion, nor is any political opposition tolerated. Such an autocratic government has no place on the Security Council.
Another possibility is Egypt. It is certainly one of the most important Muslim nations in a geopolitical sense, having a very large population, a developing economy, and a powerful military. Many of the most important Islamic institutions of higher education are to be found in Cairo, and it has played a central role in Islamic history. Equally important in terms of weighing its qualification for Security Council membership, Egypt is one of the few Muslim Arab nations to have signed a peace treaty with Israel and establish full diplomatic relations with it.
But Egypt is also a dictatorship, ruled since 1981 by President Hosni Mubarak. While not the repressive regime that reigns in Saudi Arabia, it is certainly bad enough, with political opponents routinely thrown in prison and nothing approaching a free press. Unless and until Egypt take genuine steps towards democracy, its political system probably disqualifies Egypt from permanent Security Council membership.
What about Turkey? It is an overwhelmingly Muslim nation but has a strictly secular constitution, demonstrating that Islam need not be incompatible with the concept of separation of religion and government. It also would seem to have Security Council qualifications in that it has a powerful military and a developing and increasingly sophisticated economy. Despite recent problems in their relations, Turkey has long maintained sound diplomatic relations with Israel. But there are many problems.
Firstly, while Turkey seems largely free of the Islamist militancy that infects many other Muslim states, there is a large and significant amount of extremist nationalism in many segments of Turkish society, including the military. Indeed, a large investigation into an alleged nationalist coup plot among the military, including hundreds of high-ranking officers, is ongoing in Turkey. This is no idle threat, as the military has forced civilian governments out of power on four occasions since 1960. The military not so subtly threatened to mount a coup against the ruling AK Party as recently as 2007. What if Turkey became a permanent member of the Security Council and then had its government overthrown by the military?
Turkey also has numerous other problems related to its treatment of its own Kurdish population, the issue of Cyprus, and relations with Armenia (including its refusal to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide). All of these are very likely to be on the agenda of the United Nations in the coming years, and giving a permanent Security Council seat to Turkey would make resolving these conflicts vastly more difficult and complicated.
Another possibility is Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world. Indeed, it is the world's fourth most populous nation, which by itself gives it a strong claim on permanent Security Council membership. It also has a strong economy and significant military power.
In the decades after it won independence from the Dutch in the wake of World War II, Indonesia was prevented from achieving its potential by successive periods of autocratic rule, first by the Sukarno regime and then by the Suharto regime. In 1998, however, as the Asian financial crisis wrecked havoc on the Indonesian economy, Suharto was forced from power. The following year, free and fair legislative elections were held across the country, followed by direct presidential elections in 2004. These actions brought Indonesia into the ranks of the world's democracies.
Indonesia is not without its problems. There are numerous separatist factions in parts of the country, and religious tensions run high in many places (although the constitution of the country is refreshing tolerant of non-Muslim faiths). Corruption within the government continues to be a problem. But considering what the situation had been under the Suharto regime, it is undeniable that Indonesia has made amazing progress in the decade since the advent of democracy.
Although it does not yet have diplomatic relations with Israel, Indonesia is relatively removed from the Israeli-Arab conflict that has absorbed so much of the attention of the United Nations over the years. Were it given greater influence and visibility on the international stage, we can expect Indonesia to use this greater power more responsibly than others might.
When looking over the résumés of the various contenders for a hypothetical permanent Muslim seat on the Security Council, no country is perfect. But the one which has the best combination of qualifications is Indonesia. If the decision is made to give a permanent Security Council seat to a Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia is clearly the best bet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)