Bold new face for UN?<\/p>\n
One formula to reform the UN, though not the ideal one, is to
\nexpand the Permanent Five to a Permanent Seven, with Germany and
\nJapan taking places alongside the U.S., China, Russia, Britain
\nand France. The problem with this is that it gives Europe four
\nseats, which is hard to justify, and locks out the developing
\nworld, whose clamor for a seat at the main table will be
\ndifficult to ignore with the growth revolution going on in Asia
\nand Latin America.<\/p>\n
Indonesia, India, Nigeria, Egypt, Brazil and Argentina can all
\nmake a case for inclusion. A seat for the developing world to be
\nrotated among Asia, Africa and Latin America would be viable if
\nFrance and Britain would make way for the European Union to be
\nrepresented by rotation. That would make it the Permanent Six --
\nU.S., China, Russia, Japan, EU and the developing world.<\/p>\n
A bloc approach can cause unseemly squabbling for two reasons:
\ndeciding which countries go into the rotation cycle will be a
\ntest of diplomacy as none would admit to being unqualified, and a
\nnumber of developing countries (Singapore, South Korea or Mexico,
\nsay) will not remain so for long.<\/p>\n
A compromise, then would be to create a Permanent Seven and
\nincrease the non-permanent seats to as many as 15 to 17 to
\naccommodate the emerging nations. It would not be unwieldy. Dr.
\nBoutros Boutros Ghali's view that Security Council membership
\nshould not go beyond 17 or 18 from the present 15 is a timid one.
\nChange of this order will have to endure for several decades to
\nbe useful. Restricting numbers is not the way. It would
\nperpetuate the fiction of tired, faded nations being in charge.<\/p>\n
-- The Straits Times, Singapore<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/bold-new-face-for-un-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }