Here we go. Thanks to Eddie for helping me as I decided which topic that I wanted to cover in this latest edition of the Babblings. I’ve decided to let the relevancy and power of the United Nations Security Council be the latest topic that gets the brief looking over from the eyes of the Balrog and his lair.
Let’s see what we have here, folks. The UN Security Council (UNSC) is composed of 15 members, of which there are 5 constant mainstays. These are the 5 that I would like to take a slight look at, but to be more honest – I’d like to look at one in particular before commenting on the relevancy of the UNSC. Let’s take a look at our friends, The French.
French President Jacques Chirac has gone on record numerous times telling the world that he will not agree to go into a military agreement to disarm Iraq and that creating a war isn’t the answer to this situation. Now, regardless of whether you’re a by-the-book conservative or a bleeding-heart liberal, there are some points here that we should be able to agree upon. First and foremost, the French have a skewed view of the reality of the situation. I don’t know if many of you know this, but France is the largest importer of Iraqi oil in the world. In the world folks! They don’t get a small percent of their oil from Iraq like we do or like England does – Iraq is their number one buyer. Second, France has a large economic plan with the Iraqi government that is worth billions and billions of dollars.
With these two facts, I think that we should all be able to agree that the French might have a slightly different outlook on this situation then say…Australia. That’s just a result of the facts.
Now that that has been established, let’s briefly go over how the UNSC works. Of the fifteen members on this council, 5 have a clause called the veto. This works just like our Presidential veto and most gubernatorial vetoes in that if they don’t like the decision of the council, they can simply say “no” and the council is not allowed to move forward with their plan.
Does anyone else see the flaw in the logistics of this setup? Yes, I realize that for something as drastic as war to be declared, it would be best for what is basically the world’s governing war body (the UNSC) to agree 110%, but look at the situation here, folks. Of the five main members of the UNSC, one is definitely not going to vote for war no matter what evidence is shown. If every country in the world agreed that Saddam Hussein is committing acts of disgust against humanity and amassing weapons of mass destruction, but the French still do not agree, then they can use this veto power and prevent a regime change (happy term for war) with Iraq. Is this not asinine?
Yes, I know that if the entire world actually agreed and France didn’t, we’d still go to war, but it’s the logistics of the situation. I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be a 5 country permanent member base on the UNSC, but I AM saying that maybe the French aren’t deserving of a place on that elite board. It’s no surprise to the world that France has lost much of its world power in the past 60 – 100 years. This is to be expected. You see after all of the conquests into the New World and the chartering of colonies in Africa and what not, I think it would be safe to say (and the evidence shows) that Europe was exhausted! So now that World Wars are becoming a thing of the past (one good part of the UN), the old world powers are no longer such. Today’s power is defined as technological advances, monetary power, and political bipartisanship. Today’s power is defined as America, Britain, the emerging Democratic Russia, and I’ll even go so far as to say the technological mastery of the Germans and the computer-based brilliance of the Japanese.
Today’s power is not defined with the French anymore.
So let’s look at the relevancy of the UNSC for a quick moment. Here you have a group with awesome intentions – to unite the world in a peaceful manner and remove tyrants from positions of power. How great of a plan is that?!? But, the framers of the UN Charter didn’t seem to take into account the fact that there might have been a member of the UNSC that would sway against obvious facts. So I ask you, good people out there – is the UNSC a relevant organization in today’s world if one member of the group would stand against a war to remove a tyrant for their own economic goals? Think about it.
Don’t take into account what the other UNSC members think. As a matter of fact, you can even forget all of the stuff that I put out there against the French with their economy relying heavily on Iraq. And you can even forget about what the latest news reports tell us (that Iraq is busy working on shredding old invoices from French chemical companies). Just think about this: Is the decision of a single country enough to allow a tyrant to stay in power? For those of you who are against the removal of Saddam, I would try to ask you the opposite question, but it has to be reworded to reflect fact. So I ask you: Is the decision of the United Nations Security Council enough to allow a regime change in Iraq?
My thoughts are simple – 1) France needs to be re-evaluated as a country with a permanent place on the security council due to its irrelevance as a world power in today’s society, 2) if France disagrees and successfully averts a regime change with their economic partner, Iraq, while the facts show a different story, the United Nations has rendered themselves irrelevant.
Send me some feedback. You know I get more e-mails from these political articles than anything else I’ve ever written on TBL! I LOVE hearing your varying opinions on these issues. So take care folks and remember that YOUR opinion DOES matter!
(Originally published as a Balrog Babblings article)
