UN Security Council Reform

[Marshal Murat]

Except when the fields need harvesting.

[lancelot]

On the other hand, Germany can also project power, they could easily develop nukes if the need ever arose, they have more citizens than France and are better developed economically. They're about the same size, but they indeed lack the 'trust' France has in its former colonies.

Actually, I think their projection capabilities are pretty limited- especially overseas stuff. In fact, does German law even permit expeditionary moves now?

And the aquisition of nukes is no reason for a seat on the SC. Having nukes should in theory be the last thing that enters the UN equation.

[JR-]

On the other hand, Germany can also project power, they could easily develop nukes if the need ever arose, they have more citizens than France and are better developed economically. They're about the same size, but they indeed lack the 'trust' France has in its former colonies.

Germany, categorically, cannot project power anywhere by any means other than rolling a bunch of panzer regiments across the border into a neighbouring country.

it will eventually have quite good airlift capacity, but:

it has zero amphibious capability.

it has zero sea-lift tonnage (equivalent of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary).

i don't believe that the german army even has much of the logistical tail needed for it to operate out-of-area.

and it does not have, and has no intention to acquire, nukes.

it is also chronically underfunded in a way which is halting the bundeswher's attempt at the revolution in military affairs:

http://www.comw.org/pda/9911eur.html#4

4.3.2.

"There is grave concern, however, that the Bundeswehr's reconnaissance and communications capabilities are not up to the tasks of global - or even continental - power projection. This is why all three services seek to modernize their own command, control and communication systems. In addition a modern interservice satellite communication capacity is to be developed. But there are no plans to acquire a Sentry-type airborne reconnaissance capability; the Bundeswehr is quite content relying on NATO's pool. And there is no provision for an operational ground surveillance system (such as the American J-STARS or the British ASTOR system) which could be particularly helpful in out-of-area contingencies."

4.3.3.

Despite the priority that German planners have given to power projection and crisis stabilization, there have been to date no official German statements clearly delineating the kinds of scenarios for which the Bundeswehr is developing crisis-reaction forces. The only available guidance indicates a need to be able to commit "up to one Army division" to a crisis reaction mission over an extended period of time. But how large a division? In separate theaters? For how long exactly? What type of conflicts and missions? All this remains a mystery.

4.5

Germany still lacks a comprehensive, well-integrated official vision or blueprint mapping the way to the future for the armed forces. Instead, there are only a few pieces of the puzzle: a somewhat tentative list of equipment to be procured between now and 2011, budget projections through 2002, and the force structure scheme of 1994, which is to be fully implemented by 2000/2001. And, as noted above, these are contradictory in some respects, vague in others. However, the so-called Red-Green-coalition, which took over Federal Government in the fall of 1998, decided to set up an expert commission with the task of exploring options for the further development of the Bundeswehr. Its report can be expected before summer 2000.

As a consensus has taken form around the proposition that the German armed forces cannot hope for substantial (real-term) budget increases, there seems to be no alternative to reducing active strength in order to break the current modernization deadlock. Three variants of such a policy are being ventilated in expert circles:

(i) Transition to an all-volunteer force

Proponents see an all-volunteer force as a dedicated, high-tech intervention instrument nearly reaching US standards. But adoption of the all-volunteer path would require a reduction of active strength to about 170,000 (plus limited mobilization potential). A volunteer military any larger than this would not be able to cover the relatively hefty bills for operations and procurement required by a high-technology force geared to intervention missions. Such a force would not constitute a "pillar of solidity" in Central Europe, nor would it lend itself easily to integration with most neighboring armies. But it could lead to the sociopolitical isolation of the military as a professional caste (which has been particularly problematic in Germany's past).

(ii) Limited reduction of active strength (conscription maintained)

The Bundeswehr could be reduced to 250,000 - 260,000 soldiers (with a still considerable mobilization potential). Since this size would include "inexpensive" conscripts, the savings should be sufficient for a general, thorough modernization program (which would include high-tech items only on a selective basis, not as an obsession). Conscription could be socially stabilized at this reduced force level, making almost everyone serve who is fit and not a conscientious objector, by raising the fitness standards, by slightly increasing the proportion of conscripts in the forces, and by reducing the terms of service from 10 to 9 months. The resulting force would still be large enough to integrate itself with most of the neighbors and form a solid block in the middle of Europe. It would also be intervention- capable, but less dependent on strike elements and more on formations dedicated to control and protection missions. Such a military would also possess less provocative potential, especially if restructured in a more defensive manner.

(iii) Voluntary elite plus conscript militia

This option remains vague. Its proponents are not worried about the prospect of producing a two-tier force with inherent problems of cohesion. They would like to preserve the draft system (a holy cow in Germany) mainly for symbolic reasons. They view the conscript element as an inexpensive way to provide for basic home protection only. Most of the available resources would go to the crack intervention element, consisting of precious volunteers. However, the current and foreseeable security environment makes a homeguard (militia) for Germany look useless. Useless, but not necessarily "cheap" - after all, it would still require training, equipment, and an infrastructural foundation. Thus, this scheme would not likely generate enough savings to underwrite the requirements of the sizeable all-volunteer component equipped with cutting-edge equipment.

[JR-]

Actually, I think their projection capabilities are pretty limited- especially overseas stuff. In fact, does German law even permit expeditionary moves now?

And the acquisition of nukes is no reason for a seat on the SC. Having nukes should in theory be the last thing that enters the UN equation.

i believe the constitution does not allow the bundeswher to take part in offensive wars, such as afghanistan, or sierra leonne, rather it can take part in the peacekeeping that happens after the war is concluded. not a terribly useful trait in an SC member.

while i agree that acquiring nukes should not improve your chance of getting on the SC, the simple fact is that those countries with large nuke stockpiles are difficult to remove from the SC. there is a reason why russia keeps spending money on its strategic rocket forces even when the rest of its military has been going down the pan, because as long as they can bring an end to world civilisation via nuclear death we have to treat them with some respect.

[Pindar]

I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.

I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.

I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

[Pindar]

The Society of Nations that was formed after WWI failed within twenty year in its main purpose, the prevention of a new world war. This was in no small part owing to the non-membership of the US, the short-lived membership of the SU, and the withdrawl of Japan and Germany.

The League of Nations did fail. Its failure does not change the illegitimacy of the UN.

[Pindar]

I think the UN did what it was meant to...stop all out war between the big nations.

When did the UN do this? How did the UN do this? The causal link between this assertion and reality does not exist.

[Pindar]

The cold war was prevented from becoming hot very much in part becuase of the UN. It allowed both the USSR and the USA to meet on even ground. Without that pressure valve we would more then likely be posting on a server located in a bunker.

Neither the Kremlin's nor Washington's geo-political nuclear policy was determined or altered in any way by the UN. Had the USSR's tanks rolled across the line between East and West Germany there would have been war.

Diplomacy may predate the UN, but the world having a place to meet and discuss matters does not.

The world does not do so now, simple case in point: Taiwan.

[JR-]

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

you are mixing up the UN, and its security council, when you comment on my post.

i care very little for the inane politicking of hundreds of pissant nations with their petty tribal politicking, (much eurovision block voting).
what i do care about is the consensus on action and direction as agreed between the worlds most powerful nations, i.e. the SC.

[Conradus]

When did the UN do this? How did the UN do this? The causal link between this assertion and reality does not exist.

Korea could've been a lot worse without the UN.

[Pindar]

I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.

I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.

I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

you are mixing up the UN, and its security council, when you comment on my post.

i care very little for the inane politicking of hundreds of pissant nations with their petty tribal politicking, (much eurovision block voting).
what i do care about is the consensus on action and direction as agreed between the worlds most powerful nations, i.e. the SC.

I don't think I mixed anything up. Your first comment is a categorical: you do not believe in fundamental human rights. The second comment is concerned with the authority of the UN. The third comment qualifies your support for the UNSC. Of course, if one rejects the basis and any authority claim of the UN, through which the UNSC exists and is derived, then any UNSC consensus is always already undercut.

[Pindar]

Korea could've been a lot worse without the UN.

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

[JR-]

Of course, if one rejects the basis and any authority claim of the UN, through which the UNSC exists and is derived, then any UNSC consensus is always already undercut.

that presupposes that a SC edict has any authority that derives from its UN'iness.

in my opinion it doesn't. where is does derive its considerable authority is that fact that this pronouncement is the consensus of the worlds most powerful nations.

i don't care if they issue the pronouncement from the chambers of the security council, or the McDonalds kids-party-room, the effect is the same; "take us very seriously or bad things will happen!".

[Conradus]

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

I'm referring to the fact that we didn't have an all-out open war between the US and USSR in Korea, that may be due to common sense of both parties, but the UN also played a part in that. And it showed they could do more than the League who could do nothing when one country invaded another.

[rory_20_uk]

So when one of the 5 countries leaves the UN - who could have blocked it - the UN then works as America and allies go to war wearing a different helmet?

The league was truer to its principles and countries didn't use it as cover to do what they wanted. Warmongers have the decency to be honest and ignore the League rather than subvert it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

I'll bet that was Clinton's fault...

[Pannonian]

So when one of the 5 countries leaves the UN - who could have blocked it - the UN then works as America and allies go to war wearing a different helmet?

The league was truer to its principles and countries didn't use it as cover to do what they wanted. Warmongers have the decency to be honest and ignore the League rather than subvert it.

"Reform" of the UN, setting up a "League of Democracies", etc. are all aimed at the same thing - making rules that favour the US and its followers, and forcing the rest of the world to accept it as soime kind of consensus. If the UN unconditionally followed Washington's lead, or if there were other powers that needed to be balanced, there would not be this talk of a useless UN. Instead, as the sole remaining superpower, the US feels it is due the biggest, sole even, say in world affairs, and the rest of the world should accept this reality, shut up, and follow.

America should stop pretending this is some kind of principled review of the UN's design, and flatly state that they want full control of an international body. At least that woud be honest, and would stop insulting our intelligence.

[Pindar]

that presupposes that a SC edict has any authority that derives from its UN'iness.

in my opinion it doesn't. where is does derive its considerable authority is that fact that this pronouncement is the consensus of the worlds most powerful nations.

i don't care if they issue the pronouncement from the chambers of the security council, or the McDonalds kids-party-room, the effect is the same; "take us very seriously or bad things will happen!".

It is not a presupposition that the Security Council derives its authority from the larger UN. This is obvious.

Edicts from a position of power and edicts from an authority are not the same. Rejecting any authoritative appeal means the UN is quite irrelevant as has been explained.

The "take us very seriously or bad things will happen" approach where effect is the focus has nothing to do with legitimacy. Rather, it is a statement that carries force given the author: the more powerful the more weight. This is distinct from any authority appeal. If this is the model then it eviscerates the UN completely.

[Pindar]

I'm referring to the fact that we didn't have an all-out open war between the US and USSR in Korea, that may be due to common sense of both parties, but the UN also played a part in that.

Demonstrate the causal link where the UN determined US and USSR policy after military action commenced.

[Pindar]

I'll bet that was Clinton's fault...

"I did not have sex with that woman."

[Pindar]

"Reform" of the UN, setting up a "League of Democracies", etc. are all aimed at the same thing - making rules that favour the US and its followers, and forcing the rest of the world to accept it as soime kind of consensus.

Leaving aside the endless appeal of the black helicopter mind set, the rationale for a "league of democracies" would be to instill legitimacy into an international body along the lines of the UN. Such does not exist now.

America should stop pretending this is some kind of principled review of the UN's design, and flatly state that they want full control of an international body. At least that woud be honest, and would stop insulting our intelligence.

If principle and legitimacy are not considered important, then there is no justification for complaint. Hostility to the US alone is not a justification.

[Pannonian]

Leaving aside the endless appeal of the black helicopter mind set, the rationale for a "league of democracies" would be to instill legitimacy into an international body along the lines of the UN. Such does not exist now.

If principle and legitimacy are not considered important, then there is no justification for complaint. Hostility to the US alone is not a justification.

Once your envuisaged legitimate authority is set up, would you accept its decisions if it ever went against US interests, US sovereignty, even? If that legitimate body ruled that the US had transgressed some part or other of its laws, would you support the imposition of whatever sanctions were prescribed for this? If this UN-equivalent sent troops into the US to enforce its decision, would you welcome them with open arms?

Please answer in the absolute, and don't try and wriggle out of it by saying the US would never transgress - we all know the value of such a claim. If, when it comes to an absolute answer, you still believe in the sovereignty of the US over outside agencies, then stop complaining about a body that allows other countries to do the same. My country is as bad as any, but at least few people here claim the kind of principled puritanism that you espouse.

[JR-]

It is not a presupposition that the Security Council derives its authority from the larger UN. This is obvious. Edicts from a position of power and edicts from an authority are not the same. Rejecting any authoritative appeal means the UN is quite irrelevant as has been explained.

The "take us very seriously or bad things will happen" approach where effect is the focus has nothing to do with legitimacy. Rather, it is a statement that carries force given the author: the more powerful the more weight. This is distinct from any authority appeal. If this is the model then it eviscerates the UN completely.

"in my opinion" is the key to this phrase, as in; I don't believe the SC derives its authority/force from its UN'iness.

the seriousness with which SC edicts are taken by the receiving party are directly proportionate the ability of the SC members to 'mess-them-up', and the likely hood that such force will be applied by SC members.

if the SC was composed of Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, and China, do you think we would have had more or perhaps less co-operation from iran on the current nuclear stand-off?
personally, i believe iran would be laughing, but that's just me......

[Meneldil]

The EU is not a nation so doesnt deserve a seat. Unless the countries of the EU sign over their soviergnty to a federal EU then a seat shouldnt exist. It's an economic pact still currently and isnt an elected government.

Highly debatable. The Commission (usually seen as the EU's gov) is chosen by elected national governements, with the agreement of the EU parliament, elected by the population.
If EU is far from being a real political power as it was supposed to be, it's not yet a mere economic pact.

But then, I agree EU shouldn't get a seat, just for the sake of being EU. I also think some new countries should get a seat in the SC (India, South Africa, Brazil, eventually Germany, although there's already 2 euro countries).
It would probably make the SC more representative, but it would need a serious reform, as we already can barely vote something with 5 members.

[JR-]

would these be permanent members?

i am still of the opinion that unless a nation can project serious military power it should not be a permanent SC member, as it has no gravitas to encourage compliance, and no ability to enforce compliance, of SC edicts. how does that sit with you?

[Pindar]

Once your envuisaged legitimate authority is set up, would you accept its decisions if it ever went against US interests, US sovereignty, even? If that legitimate body ruled that the US had transgressed some part or other of its laws, would you support the imposition of whatever sanctions were prescribed for this? If this UN-equivalent sent troops into the US to enforce its decision, would you welcome them with open arms?

Please answer in the absolute, and don't try and wriggle out of it by saying the US would never transgress - we all know the value of such a claim. If, when it comes to an absolute answer, you still believe in the sovereignty of the US over outside agencies, then stop complaining about a body that allows other countries to do the same. My country is as bad as any, but at least few people here claim the kind of principled puritanism that you espouse.

This comment indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the UN. The UN can neither override national sovereignty nor was meant to do so. The UN does not create laws. The UN operates under the guidelines of a treaty. Part of what this means is any signatory is always distinct from the treaty itself. Any force the treaty has is always subject to the signatory. A signatory can ratify, adjust, ignore or perform any other action they desire in relation to the treaty. Other parties can likewise react in kind. Discomfiture over one signatories' actions can mean anything from public reprimand, to the suspension of diplomatic relations, to war: regardless of consequence, the national identify and independence of the signatory is retained.

Now, what does this reality mean in relation to a legitimate UN as opposed to the illegitimate reality. Lets take an example from history: in 1986 the Reagan Administration decided on military action against Libya. This was due to a series of issues including Libyan claims on the international waters in the Gulf of Sidra and terrorist sponsorship ala the Abu Nidal group etc. The US decided to launch air strikes out of bases in the UK. The US asked France for permission to fly over its space in order to prosecute the raid. France refused. Ultimately, the US had to fly all the way around Gibraltar to carry our the attack. There are several elements here. One is the US did not consult the UN. A second is the reaction of France. A third is the decision of the US.

The absence of the UN in the scenario in part reflects the inherent illegitimacy of the UN and in part the impotence of the UN. The impotence is amplified by the illegitimacy. If the UN had served as a conduit, the USSR (among others) would never have condoned the action. Consider the stance of France. While the USSR and France both would have and did oppose the US's action the rationale was not the same and that is important. France has every right to control its air space. As I understand the course of things, the attitude of France was not simply an issue of control of national space or oppositionism. When the US asked for air access to carry out the attack, France explained it was an ally of the US, but couldn't condone such an attack as it saw the action as both counter productive and in fact a belligerency that was akin to, if not in actuality, an act of war. If the US was considering war then their relationship had channels for such an enterprise which France would seriously consider, but the planned attack was outside of those parameters. Now, France is a core nation of the West. The attitude reflected in its decision was both mature and reasoned. In an environment where the Security Council was made up entirely of mature democracies like France, the UK etc. discussion of any planned action against Libya could be met and countered, discussed and a course agreed upon with the understanding that all parties have a fundamental commitment to popular sovereignty and liberty. This is not the current reality. Because it is not the current reality such an envisioned UN protocol is precluded from the get go and the chance a nation may opt for unilateral action actually enhanced.

The decisions of an illegitimate UN are necessarily illegitimate. This has practical consequences. Given the use of the pronoun 'you' in the questions, I assume I'm being asked what my actions would be if I were the US President with a legitimate UN. Under the guidelines I laid out and were we to use the Libyan scenario above, while any nation must retain the inherent right to act as it deems it must, I would be persuaded by the majority considered opinion of those I sat in council with for both practical reasons and in deference to the idea behind the Security Council.

Note: none of my posts are complaints. They simply point out reality. They also point out that fundamental principle is important for democracies which can not be dismissed as simply puritan.

[Pindar]

"in my opinion" is the key to this phrase, as in; I don't believe the SC derives its authority/force from its UN'iness.

Your opinion would be wrong as authority is not sui generis. For the Security Council any authority claim is a product of, and dependant on, the UN which is its source.

[Pannonian]

The decisions of an illegitimate UN are necessarily illegitimate. This has practical consequences. Given the use of the pronoun 'you' in the questions, I assume I'm being asked what my actions would be if I were the US President with a legitimate UN. Under the guidelines I laid out and were we to use the Libyan scenario above, while any nation must retain the inherent right to act as it deems it must, I would be persuaded by the majority considered opinion of those I sat in council with for both practical reasons and in deference to the idea behind the Security Council.

Note: none of my posts are complaints. They simply point out reality. They also point out that fundamental principle is important for democracies which can not be dismissed as simply puritan.

I think I can live with a fundamentally illegitimate UN whose decisions are illegitimate and entirely unfounded on moral principles, as long as it successfully muddles its way through life and helps the big countries, one way or another, to avoid big arguments. My country wasn't founded on some great principled constitution, yet it did well enough, bumbling its way through history.

[Pannonian]

"in my opinion" is the key to this phrase, as in; I don't believe the SC derives its authority/force from its UN'iness.

the seriousness with which SC edicts are taken by the receiving party are directly proportionate the ability of the SC members to 'mess-them-up', and the likely hood that such force will be applied by SC members.

if the SC was composed of Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Canada, Indonesia, and China, do you think we would have had more or perhaps less co-operation from iran on the current nuclear stand-off?
personally, i believe iran would be laughing, but that's just me......

Your opinion would be wrong as authority is not sui generis. For the Security Council any authority claim is a product of, and dependant on, the UN which is its source.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Pindar, is your position based on ideological and moral, or practical considerations? Both?

I argued, with the example of the failure of the League of nations in mind, that practical considerations should override moral objections in this respect. There should indeed be a platform for discussion between all parties that have a fundamental commitment to popular sovereignty and liberty.
Since not all countries in this world share that outlook, including some powerful ones, there should also be a platform for discussion that includes these countries too.
It undermines the legitimacy of the UN in principle, yes. But strategically? The hope is, that in the long run, as long as the UN accepts its own democratic ideals and principles, the spread of liberal democracy will benefit from the UN's function and institutions. Meanwhile helping towards avoiding major conflict and upholding a basic rule of law in international relations.