American Future continues to be on top of things on the forthcoming report on UN reform. I’ve written about it before here.
Since the report hasn’t officially been made public yet I haven’t read it but I’d like to make a small suggestion. Why don’t we get back to basics? If the UN is supposed to be a town meeting of the community of nations don’t you need a community before you can have a meaningful meeting? Being a member of a community means more than just having an address. It means that you share values with your fellows. And it means that you show that you value the community and all of its members in some meaningful way.
Without these shared values and respect it’s not a town meeting, it’s a mob. Regardless of the power of the individual mobsters, does anyone expect anything productive of a mob?
As I’ve written before the UN General Assembly is an undemocratic absurdity with tiny Liechtenstein having the same vote as huge India. And every decision of the Security Council is haunted by the ghosts of the World War II allies.
Even the humblest club has some membership requirements. As Groucho Marx said “I wouldn’t belong to a club that would have me as a member”. Would commitment to basic human rights be too much of a hurdle? With that incredibly low standard many of the current members of the General Assembly simply would not qualify including China and Saudi Arabia.
And how about some credentials for the Security Council while we’re at it? I mean something more than just having an opinion which would seem to be the credentials as things stand. And how about some objective criteria while we’re at it rather than political correctness? Basic requirements would seem to be some minimum GDP, minimum per capita GDP, and minimum percentage of military expenditure to GDP. Or, translated into more human terms, influence, wealth, and the ability to project power. Using those standards of the current membership China is too poor or too populous or both, and neither China nor France nor the UK spends enough on their militaries. Based on the CIA Factbook using even the very modest yardsticks of $1 trillion GDP, $7,500 per capita GDP, and 3% GDP military spending only the United States and Russia make the cut. Potential additional candidates include the United Kingdom, France, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, and a few others. The UK, France, and Brazil would have to increase military spending somewhat. Germany and Italy would have to double military spending related to GDP. Japan would have to triple military spending related to GDP. China and India would have to substantially increase per capita GDP. They’re obviously not ready yet. No African countries meet these qualifications.
Do the countries that meet the qualifications or almost meet the qualifications look familiar to you? That’s right. With the exception of Russia and Brazil it’s NATO.
For those of you who want a quick look at the actual statistics, they’re below the fold.
Country GDP Per capita GDP Military exp. per GDP United States $10.99T $37,800 3.3% Russia 1.28T 8,900 Est. 3.5% United Kingdom 1.67T 27,700 2.4% France 1.66T 27,600 2.6% Italy 1.55T 26,700 1.9% Brazil 1.38T 7,600 2.1% Germany 2.27T 27,600 1.5% Japan 3.58T 28,200 1% China 6.45T 5,000 3.5% India 3.03T 2,900 2.4%
I just linked to your blog from Instapundit and I’m glad I discovered it. I read a lot of blogs and love to find a Chicagoan in the mix (I live in Edgebrook).
Anyway, good post on the U.N. Here are some related thoughts from my favorite post-9/11 commentator, Victor Davis Hanson: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson092404.html.
Hanson has been calling for the Security Council to include large democratic states like India and Brazil to reflect democratic ideals. They may not always agree with the U.S., but as you say, democracies have more in common with each other than with dictatorships and tyrannies.
Jeff Singer:
Howdy, neighbor. Sauganash here. I’ll be swinging over to Happy Foods to do my shopping this afternoon.