Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
One of the concerns of some students of the cycles of hegemonic wars in political geography are how to establish a system were we can avoid having hegemonic wars.
To what extent did the UNSC work to avoid a hegemonic war by giving all world powers a veto on the legitimate use of force? Then, UNSC veto power becomes the definition of world power, and the tension between a hegemon and an aspiring hegemon is replaced by the tension between the current group of recognised world powers and aspiring world powers.

For instance, Britain and France can hardly claim to be individually as powerful as they were after WWII when they retained their colonial empires. However, we have the EU slowly configuring itself as a world power to replace Britain/France and (thankfully) avoiding the question of Germany as a world power.

The breakup of the Soviet Union has also somewhat diminished Russia, but it seems fanciful to claim Russia is not a world power given its size, its resources, its level of development and its military.

Then there's India which is not recognised as a world power but might well be. A UNSC with the US, EU, Russia, China and India as veto-wielding members would make a lot more sense than the current one. So maybe the biggest potential conflict is actually between Britain/France and India/Germany, and the EU could help resolve that peacefully if Britain decided to finally blend in.

In my opinion neither Russia nor China have any interest to start an overt confrontation with the US: that's just the US neocon propaganda in search of an adequate bogeyman.

The real problem with the current world system is that the hegemon, the US, has been busy dismantling it since the end of the Cold War.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 06:01:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... how the hegemon at the end of a hegemonic war gets a big influence in the form of the international order. The United Nations was something that quite clearly needed looking after, and the Security Council was established to prevent the General Assembly from being an arena where an effective political counterweight to the hegemon could be developed.

Allowing the objective of establishing the United Nations to be subverted is the whole point of the Security Council. China not ending up as a frontline containment state for the USSR was kind of an oops, but.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 02:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Allowing the objective of establishing the United Nations to be subverted is the whole point of the Security Council.

How's that?  The primary objective of the establishment of the UN was to prevent direct armed conflict between the great powers. Allowing it to act against the will of one of those powers would have the reverse effect.  

In any case, I don't see the moral case for greater GA power. One country one vote is inherently undemocratic as is the representation of authoritarian governments.  But that's fine, justice, fairness, and democracy  aren't the point here.

I agree with Mig that the composition of the permanent members group is out of date and that you'd want a merger of the British and French seats into one EU one while giving India a seat.  But the original make up was sensible. The US, France, UK, and Soviet Union were clearly the most powerful countries in the world at the time. China was hobbled by civil war, but as the most populous state it also got in. Who else would you have wanted - Brazil? Canada?  (Germany and Japan were out for obvious reasons, India was still a colony)

by MarekNYC on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... GA power ... I had not idea there was a moral case for greater GA power, but preventing the GA from having power was the point of the Security Council.

The issue at hand in the mid-40's was not, of course, the make-up of the Security Council ... the system of permanent members consisting of the main victorious allies in WWII was pretty much automatic as soon as someone came up with it, and the system of rotating memberships with watered down voting rights fairly obviously the most that the other members could hope for ... but the powers of the Security Council.

Whether the institution as actually established was more effective in its role than it would have been otherwise ... quite possibly. Just because the US got its way does not mean that it was an unalloyed disaster that it did.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 03:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series