Islamic states want permanent seat on UN Security Council
Dean
I say that the day that every single member of the OIC is a nation which holds free elections with universal franchise, genuine opposition parties, and free political expression enshrined in its body of law, that is a perfectly fine idea.
Until then: when pigs fly.
(Via LGF.)
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Freedom Rankings
- Defining "Democracy" and The Democratic Peace Theory
- No Democracy Has Ever Experienced A Famine: Part II...
- Reforming the UN Step #1: No More Despots
- More on Democracy
- Islamic states want permanent seat on UN Security Council
Even if the Islamic world becomes a haven of enlightement and freedom, there still shouldn't be an Islamic seat on the Security Council...it'd be as absurd as having a Catholic or Bhuddist seat.
Iran or Turkey should be on the UN Security Council (right now, Turkey - but if Iran becomes free then they can argue it out over whom should have the seat...and maybe they can take it in rotation), but this is a recognition that the mid east should have a permanent seat and the most influential nation of the area should hold it...but it mustn't be an Islamic seat.
At present, seats in the Security Council are allocated by geography. A Buddhist or Islamic seat makes at least as much sense (except that perhaps there aren't enough Buddhist countries).
This IS the UN, so talk of free countries is a tad, um, optimistic.
My feeling is that in a ruin, people may do whatever they want.
Do we get to remove the PRC, then?
The tests for having a seat, methinks, are regional or global dominance and a devotion to the principle that people shouldn't shoot at each other unless it's really, really necessary ... and rightfully so.
--|PW|--
But it's clear that the OIC hasn't thought this trough. It represents 1/6 of the world's population, notionally. That other 5/6 is not Muslim.
I can hardly wait for the Scientiology Mission to the UN to rouse up worldwide concern over UFOs!
Dangit! Beat me to it! Good one!
How about Saudi Arabia? It could keep the minds of the Europeans on basic human rights instead of special rights for Left-handed Vegan Androgynous Lesbians or some such.
Evil Left Handers...
The greatest threat to world security is non-free, non-democratic states. We cannot give non-free, non-democratic regimes the legitimacy and the power that Security Council status would give them.
The OIC is not a legitimate representative government body; it mostly represents thugs and theocratic mullahs who oppress and murder their own people. If and when the OIC actually represents a confederation of FREE muslim states, it should be considered for admission. Otherwise, civilized people everywhere should reject these oppressive gangsters as the illegitmate governments that they are.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but, this view perfectly crystallizes everything that is wrong today with the U.N., and why free people everywhere should be demanding a change.
If we were to take this thinking seriously, we would accept the morally bankrupt notion that war is the worst of all possible crimes. This needs to be challenged wherever and whenever possible, because it's a lie. In practical reality what this thinking boils down to is, "kill your own people all you want, just don't bother the neighbors."
It means we would have sat by and let Hitler gas all the Jews and Gypsies and handicapped people he wanted, just so long as they were German citizens. Hitler would be welcomed on the Security Council because, after all, he was a mass-murderer but at least he showed that he had stable control over his nation.
If we are concerned with world security, then it is a simple fact that the only thing which has been shown--ever--to increase the security of everyday people is democracy. We should not give legitimacy to non-democratic regimes if it can be avoided. 50 years ago it was unavoidable to allow regimes like the USSR and China in--but today it is.
World security is in no way enhanced by giving legitimacy to oppressive thug and theocratic regimes like those represented by the OIC. When these barbaric governments grant free speech, free press, and free elections to their people, they will no longer be barbarians and can be welcomed as a force for security in the world. Until then, they're not legitimate governments and should not be treated as such.
Something else that most folks seem to have forgotten (I'm sure Dean remembers) is that the UN architects wanted to avoid the mistakes made by those who created the League of Nations (another trivia question!), who they considered to be naive.
The men who created the UN wanted to be more "realistic" in recognizing Great Power status, and the need for a balance amongst those powers. This is why the US, Great Britain, France, China, and the USSR got permanent seats on the Security Council. At the time FDR had this hallucination that Chang Kai-Shek's China would be a Great Power immeditately after the war.
Another hallucination was that France was still a Great Power; something manifestly untrue after 1870, or 1918 at the latest.
It might be noted here that Churchill didn't think the UN -as structured- was a good idea. He preferred a layered, regional approach. As he put it, local "united states" (Europe, North and South America, etc, although I'm not sure he was fixated on geography) should address local issues, and only truly major international issues would reach the international organization.
As for the OIC, they aren't a country. Piss off. End of story.
Pennywit is half right; permanent SC seats were originally set to indicate Great Power status, as I explained above. Alas, things didn't work out as the architects expected. Which reminds me, at the time the UK still had an empire, and was expected to play a greater post-war role than actually occured, until recently.
The second condition seems a bit morally bankrupt. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds a bit like "as long as country X doesn't cause trouble (i.e. shoot at their neighbors) everything's cool." That particular approach caused a lot of misery during the Cold War.
Me, I think the permanent SC seating should be changed. Jettison France, for sure. At the least we should cede that seat to Germany, if we restrict permanent seats to European countries.
When you look at potential Great Powers across the globe, Japan and India should come to mind immediately. Both have larger economies than the UK or France (or Germany), and have at least equivalent military power as well. I don't mention Taiwan as their military is mostly defensive (and relatively small) although the Taiwan Navy has become a respectable regional force.
Then there's Africa, with no recognizable "Great" power, although I'm sure Egypt wouldn't mind an honorable mention.
Going by both economic and military power, our list of potential Great Powers include (by continent):
(North America)
-Canada
-United States
(South America)
-Brazil
(Europe)
-UK
-Poland
-Turkey
(Africa)
-zilch. sorry, guys.
(Asia)
-China
-Japan
-India
(Australia)
-Australia
One may argue for other countries, such as France or Germany, but the facts suggest otherwise. These two, for example, currently suffer from stagnant economies, and they don't invest much in their military. What they have is good, but not very much. Others, such as South Korea, are overshadowed by their neighbors. In SK's case, it pales in comparison to China and Japan.
Other countries, such as Israel, have a noticable military power but limited economic influence.
If we had to choose only one country per continent, I would go with:
(North America)
-United States
(South America)
-Brazil
(Europe)
-UK
(Asia)
-Japan
(Australia)
-Australia
...Asia is a tough call. One may argue persuasively that India is a better choice.
(regarding the objection about China and Russia)
But what's your point? :)
Or is this turning into another Heinlein thread? Heh.
The AFP piece actually states that the 1969 attempt to burn down the Al-Aqsa mosque was by Israeli "hardliners", as opposed to a crazy Christian Australian. Hey, the OIC said so!