Now I don't understand why I would offer helpful advice to the UN. I personally have no real issue with the UN. I just have a problem with those busy bodies inside the organization that have an agenda to turn it into a world government. Because of that I have a real distrust for the United Nations in general. My father used to say everyone needs a healthy distrust of authority. So if that's true, I probably account for a good chunk of the Canadian distrust.
Either way when I read the proposed new structure for the UN security council I found myself considering what I would do if I honestly wanted the UN to regain relevance:
Annan offers two proposals that increase the membership from 15 to 24. There are currently five permanent members of the Security Council Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.
Proposal A suggests adding six new permanent seats without veto: two from Africa, two from Asia and the Pacific, and one each from Europe and the Americas. Three more two-year seats would also be added for a total of 13.
No countries are named, but the most likely candidates for the new permanent seats would almost certainly be Nigeria, South Africa, India, Japan, Germany and Brazil.
Security Council proposal B would create no new permanent seats, but would add a new category: eight renewable four-year seats, two each for Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. An 11th two-year, non-renewable seat would also be added.
First of all I asked myself the question what was the original purpose of the Security Council? It was comprised of the prime nuclear powers of the day. The reason was obvious: to prevent a nuclear war. When a country gets a nuclear weapon it becomes a whole new class of nation. Nuclear bombs I've always believed are like guns: they are the greatest equalizer. Big nation or small, if you have an atom bomb, you are listened to. Unlike Canada, which for the most part is ignored.
So why not entrench that principle? Eliminate these "rotating" memberships. And stipulate that the sole requirement for a seat on the Security Council is the possession of a nuclear weapons. That would bring countries like India, Pakistan, and Israel onto the security council.
That would give the Council real relevance. It would go back to it's original role which was to prevent a nuclear holocaust from occurring. Today that threat is more of a regional one and smaller. But for some people in the world it would be real nonetheless. It would also bring a new perspective on global security issues like peacekeeping from former colonies like India.
It would also buttress the UN against irrelevance in the future. Because the countries they place on the council may be relevant now, but in the future they might not be. With a rule like this one relevant countries are guaranteed to be placed on the council once they have reached that level of development.
Some people will say that this will encourage Nuclear proliferation. My answer to that is that no one can stop nuclear proliferation. Not so long as nuclear bombs are the great equalizer that they are. And that won't change unless by an act of God an atomic war becomes survivable...
Either way it's all academic. The real reason the UN has lost credibility is that it's dominated by elite leftist activists, the general assembly passes ridiculously biased resolutions against Israel, and it gave up all pretence of really respecting human rights when it put the worst human rights violators in positions of authority in the UN.