Avoid the French Trap in Reforming the UN

Avoid the French Trap in Reforming the UN. Part I
Yes to Veto Right for India, Japan, Germany, and Italy.

By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Long awaited proposals on reforming the United Nations have been recently unveiled. Reforming the UN will not be an easy task. We cannot be sure whether it is going to be on the right track or not; we can only have the hope that the charter's universal values will apply to all the decision making procedures and approaches in an unbiased way. It is therefore time now to unmask the hidden dangers and to denounce the all-committed, French sponsorship of the Islamic terrorism, before it reaches the top level of the international community.

The High-Level Panel to Study Global Security Threats and Recommend Necessary Changes
For every project a preparatory committee, or a high-level panel – to follow UN terminology – matters a lot. Its representativeness matters a lot in terms of unbiased suggestions and groundbreaking approaches. In this regard, we have no reason to be happy with the way Secretary-General Kofi Annan thought possible to perform his duties and responsibilities by setting up a 16-member "High-Level Panel to Study Global Security Threats and Recommend Necessary Changes".

We do not refer here to the notorious "oil-for-food" scandal where the unfortunate Secretary-General found himself embroiled, but who can accept in the year 2004 that Egypt and Thailand can truly represent our global world? Yet, to deal with important issues involved and to deliver a verdict, the panel included among others Anand Panyarachum, former prime minister of Thailand, and Egypt's relic Amr Moussa.

Of course one should immediately question what Thailand and Egypt can possibly represent in a panel meant to deal with UN. Certainly not much more than South Africa and Argentina. Either we speak in terms of economic development, scientific development and educational development or we talk Human Rights, Democracy, Minority Rights, Multiculturalism, and Freedom of Religion, we cannot afford to take respectable but marginal Thailand and underdeveloped, undemocratic and obscurantist Egypt as the correct choice in this regard.

Perhaps Kofi Annan should have first consulted some Coptic Associations, established in America since they are not allowed in Egypt, in order to make a pertinent choice. Most probably, UN Secretary-General was not properly advised in this regard by his predecessor, the inimitable French – Egyptian Boutros Ghali who was ousted by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. It is unbelievable how position and money alter the mind of people, and this is mostly true for Boutros Ghali, ‘the Copt who forgot the Copts’ as his Coptic compatriots call him! As a consequence, the irrelevant Annan ‘panel’ came up with the wrong proposals.

A common point: the UN unreliability and obsoleteness
Most of the countries – member states agree that the recent UN crisis, when America – along with its allies – had to embark on the Iraq war circumventing the Security Council, proved the UN unreliability and obsoleteness in the most spectacular way. This is only normal for an organization that was conceived during the WW II and materialized at the aftermath of that period of upheaval. As political conception and as diplomatic manifestation, the UN represented a completely different international landscape.

At the moment of its inception, the UN was the seal of the Allied victory over Germany, Italy and Japan. Necessarily, these three countries had to be obliterated!

On the other hand, as continuation and extension of the colonial policies of France and England, Turkey and Iran could not be accepted within the elite of the elite, the Security Council. These two countries had been for centuries the main political institutions of the Islamic World, but at the same time the Ottoman Empire and the Safevid Empire of Persia were the main target of the aggression of the European Christian and colonial powers, France and England. It was France and England that pushed Russia to numerous wars against the Ottoman Empire and Persia or even machinated fratricidal wars between the Sunni Ottomans and the Shia Persians. Following their colonial policies and spreading blood throughout the Middle East, Caucasus and Central Asia, France and England had driven their two enemies to quasi-insignificance at the aftermath of WW I. Persia was kicked out of India, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Caucasus, whereas Turkey was pushed out of Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Algeria and Mecca. All the territories abducted by France, England and Russia by 1920 were either annexed land or colonial property and mandate. Within this context, England, Soviet Union and France insisted in order not to extend an important status to Turkey and Iran in 1945, although both countries had not cooperated with Nazi Germany, remaining neutral.

Even worse, colonized India was not even a state by 1945, following almost two (2) centuries of British colonialism. The magnificence of the Mogul empire was a matter of great past.

Dictatorial and friendly to Nazi Germany – although neutral – Spain and Portugal could not have been offered veto privileges notwithstanding their great colonial past, and the Latin American states did not constitute a real dimension of the world politics or economy, even if we refer to Mexico and Brazil. So, the Hispanophone and the Lusophone worlds were left out of the Security Council of the then newly born institution.

Last but not least, France had already difficulty to be accepted in the privileged Veto Club! We know for sure that Stalin was rather opposite, whereas Roosevelt never took the French seriously. Verbally pompous, but militarily irrelevant, France collapsed easily in 1940 and was occupied for four (4) long years, presenting an unpleasant reality to the Allied armies because of its double-faceted, Janus-like, political existence. The Vichy government collaborated openly with Hitler and the German occupying forces, whereas the imaginative Charles de Gaulle, an eventual replica of Joanne d’ Arc or rather Don Quichotte, expressed the French anti-Nazi commitment that was so poor if compared to that of England, let alone the Soviet Union and the US! Why accept such a country at the same level as Soviet Union, a country that sacrificed in WW II no less than 20 million people? At the end, France owes its position to Churchill, who certainly regretted many times for having supported a sheer madness like that!

The UN Profile in Striking Contrast with Our Global World
Today, the Soviet Union disappeared, and along with it all the world of the Cold War that followed WW II. Furthermore, the colonial structures have collapsed and the old colonial powers, France and England, have been reduced to second class economic powers. In terms of GDP they currently rank 5th and 6th in the world! They still exercise colonial power but very limited of scale, if compared to that they enjoyed 65 years ago.

Before proceeding through some striking examples of comparison, we should stress the historical argument, which is not less convincing! A period of 65 years is a very long period of time anytime anywhere, especially after the Renaissance times.

A. Compare Europe 1930 and 1865: Austria – Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia, the paragons of Central and Eastern Europe in 1865 had disappeared by 1930, whereas the German superpower had risen meanwhile.

B. Compare Europe 1875 and 1810: the French in the suburbs of Moscow, and the Germans in Versailles make a very striking example in this regard.

C. Compare Europe 1800 and 1735: the monarchies had been replaced by revolutionaries!

D. Compare the Middle East 1518 and 1453: from a regional Anatolian – Balkan power the Ottomans unified the entire Middle East!

If we transpose the issue on the technological – scientific field on which the social lifestyle and rhythm rely, we understand more easily that 65 years signify a very long period of time, especially if we refer to times after the Industrial Revolution!
In the same way one cannot live in 1860 with the rhythm of the daily life of 1785 and keep moving by diligence stagecoach at the time of the railway, we cannot afford to pretend that nothing changed since the times of WW II.

In the same way one cannot afford to live today without a television set, without a washing machine, without a refrigerator, without a video set and without a computer, as people lived in 1940, we cannot allow ourselves to dream that France represents one fifth (1/5) of our world’s elite!

Visible differences between UN 1945 and UN 2005

China
China is permanent member of the Security Council as in 1945. Although China is the world’s most populous country, and its economy is currently booming, there is a great gap between that vast country and the developed world. China is not a member state of the G-8, where belong countries like Canada with less than 3% of China’s population. In 1945 China’s importance hinged exclusively on its sizeable population and its vast territory. Nowadays China’s significance depends also on its important share of the World economy. It is quite indicative that China’s GDP ranks second only to that of the US, totaling no less than US $ 6.5 trillion (est. for 2004 – all the economic figures mentioned herewith are taken from CIA’s World Factbook, as of December 8th 2004).

If we limit the comparison within the Security Council permanent members’ circle, China’s share of contribution to the world economy is more than double than the GDP of France and England counted together! China dwarfs Russia, England and France, three out of the rest four UN Security Council permanent members, since the combined three countries’ GDP accounts for just two thirds (2/3) of China’s GDP! With the US GDP reaching US $10.6 trillion, one gets the impression that – economically speaking – the world is divided in two halves, with America being one, and all the rest making the other! Then, in the second half China represents 60% of the total, whereas meager and pale France, England and Russia account for what is left. The simple conclusion is that we are very wrong indeed, if we make an equation among the five permanent member states giving equal right of veto to each one!

Japan
There are certainly other ways to view the situation. The world is not limited to just five countries, after all! Japan has risen to great economic importance! Humiliated in 1945 after the explosion of the two atomic bombs, the emperor Hirohito looked impotent next to Mac Arthur in that old picture, but he survived to see Japan becoming the ‘free worlds’ 2nd economy’. With the collapse of the Soviet block, and with the Chinese way to liberalization, Japan retained its importance despite ten (10) years of economic depression that seem now to take an end. Japan is still kept outside the Veto Club although its population (120 million people) equals that of France and England combined (60 million people each), whereas Japan’s GDP (US $ 3.5 trillion) is larger than that of the two European veto ‘powers’ combined (US $ 1.6 trillion each). In today’s world, if Japan is left outside the Veto Club, then both France and England have no real right to be there either!

India
Once upon a time, England could not match the riches and the wealth of the Muslim Mogul Empire of India. Shah Akbar’s (1556 – 1605) contemporary was Queen Elizabeth I (1558 – 1603), but even in her wildest dreams could the ‘Virgin Queen’ not imagine of having possessions similar to those of her Muslim counterpart. Two hundred years later, risen colonial power England occupied most of India’s territory, and so it was when in 1945 the UN came to existence thanks to the San Francisco 50-nation conference. However, India has crossed most of the way ever since. Today, the world’s second most populated country is usually called ‘the world’s largest democracy’, and so it will be until China implements democratic multipartite elections, and respects rights of minorities in Turkistan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia. Despite its large GDP, India is not a member state of the G-8. It is obvious that the GDP may be one but is not the sole criterion for acceptance in the G-8, and that per capita GDP is also taken into account.

In the same way China intends to become the world’s sole factory, India attempts to be the world’s sole IT atelier, and the remarkable achievements of the Indian IT specialists may help India’s strong upper middle class exploit politically the subcontinent’s great economic progress. India’s GDP (US $ 3 trillion) is the fourth largest in the world, and if the growth’s pace is kept at the same level (8.4% est. for 2004), India’s GDP will be larger than that of England and France combined in the year 2006! It is therefore only normal to question why 120 million Europeans of the two colonial relics that produce as much as 1.1 billion Indians are granted a right that is still not ascribed to a 10-fold population.

The representativity problem within the UN would be immediately solved by a single shot: replacing France and England by India and Japan as veto powers – permanent member states of the Security Council.

Combined altogether, China, USA, Russia, India and Japan total 3 billion people, which means almost half the planet’s population, whereas the present scheme (China, USA, Russia, England and France) accounts for less than 2 billion people, leaving therefore the UN without any sort of credibility.

If we apply the same comparative approach at the economic level, we find out that there is a marked difference between the current situation and that ensuing from the suggested change / replacement. Combined altogether, the GDP of China, USA, Russia, India and Japan amounts to US $ 25 trillion. On the other hand, presently the GDP of the combined five permanent member – states of the Security Council does not exceed US $ 22 trillion. All this means that the present situation is not acceptable anymore.

If we consider the herewith suggested change’s consequences and impact on the diplomatic – political level, and if we place them within the Iraq 2003 crisis context, we may easily realize that the suggested change / replacement would lead to an overall transformation of the world’s international landscape. The major opponent to the US effort of ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical aberration, France, would not be there, whereas US-ally England would be substituted by Japan. However, the US would not find a staunch opposition from the part of the combined delegations of India, China and Russia, and most probably with one or two abstention votes the just and fair cause of Iraq’s liberation would have been endorsed by the UN. The international body’s credibility would not have fallen that low.

We have reasons to believe that, if the world did not encompass other important countries and significant or representative powers than the aforementioned seven nations, the suggested solution / replacement would be the best. Yet, there are several other countries in this world that are more important than or as significant as France, England and Russia, so the overall reform of the UN has to take them into consideration.

Germany and Italy
In 1945, the two countries were the two main European losers. They were left completely out of the UN project. Yet, a decade later, they were two of the six constituent members of the embryonic form of the European Union. For decades the Western part of Germany was the European economy’s real locomotive, but the cost of the reunification proved to be a real challenge. Despite all this, Germany remains European Union’s largest country, and strongest economy. Germany’s economic parameters and indicators testify to a sheer superiority if compared those of France and England: GDP (US $ 2.3 trillion compared to France’s US $ 1.6 trillion and to England’s US $ 1.6 trillion), per capita GDP (US $ 27600 compared to US $ 27.600 and US $ 27700 respectively), gross fixed investment as part of the GDP (17.7% compared to 19.2% and 16.2%), budget revenues and expenditures (US $ 1.07 trillion/1.1 trillion compared to France’s US $ 883 billion/955 billion and to England’s US $ 689 billion/746 billion), exports (US $ 697 billion compared to US $ 346 billion and US $ 305 billion respectively), imports (US $ 585 billion compared to US $ 340 billion and US $ 364 billion respectively), foreign exchange and gold reserves (US $ 96.84 billion compared to France’s US $ 70.7 billion and to England’s US $ 46 billion). With larger population and stronger economy than France, Germany should be viewed as another plausible candidate for the UN Veto Club, raising the number of the Veto aspirants to 3 until now.

All that counts in favor of Germany does the same for Italy. The country shifted from the Axis forces to the WW II allies in the course of the war, and it was well said in 1945 that, contrarily to the extreme cases (victorious UK, USA, USSR and China / defeated Germany and Japan), France and Italy were half-victorious and half-defeated respectively. Today, Italy represents the same absolutely background as France in terms of population (58 million people) and economic power (GDP: US $ 1.55 trillion / per capita GDP: US $ 26700 / gross fixed investment as part of the GDP: 19.1% / budget revenues and expenditures: US $ 668 billion and US $ 703 billion / exports: US $ 278 billion / imports: US $ 271 billion / foreign exchange and gold reserves: US $ 63 billion).

Practically speaking, there is no reason for anyone to discuss Germany’s possible acceptance into the UN Veto Club, if the eventual conclusion is not accompanied by a similar decision to extend the same right to Italy, founding member of the G-8. The main opposition against Italy’s adhesion to the UN Veto Council comes only from France that ponders on the impact such a decision would have on the decision making process within the European Union itself! This proves clearly the malignant ways of the French diplomacy, and the vicious character of the French opposition to Italy’s entrance in the Veto Club. The only parallel among the already discussed cases can be found in the Chinese skepticism about Japan, but this is rather relevant of regional balance of power, a natural consideration among powers. Contrarily, in the case of France, one country’s manipulations and machinations within a regional international body (European Union) are being transported to the context of deliberations taking place within the international body par excellence, affecting thus the clarity of the purpose and the transparence of the decision making within the un. This consists in an unbearable political bias, and an absolutely reactive attitude against the rest of the world.

France’s intrigues within the European Union encompass the formation of a bogus tripartite directory (France – Germany – England) in which an anti-British majority is pre-arranged, as well as the later use of this scheme in order to impose disreputable and undignified policies to all the other member states of the European Union. This affair does not concern the rest of the world, and more particularly in Africa and the Middle East where various administrations and numerous oppressed peoples hold France as responsible for the calamities fallen upon them ever since the French started expanding outside their borders. It must therefore be made know to the disreputable authorities of Quai d’ Orsay that perpetuation of their attitude cannot be tolerated - even if it takes the form of a seemingly serious argumentation - within the body of a democratically organized international community. France’s time is over.

After all, it is quite interesting that with just 42% of Russia’s population, Italy generates a GDP larger (by more than 20%) than that of Russia, the other postcolonial and post-Stalinist relic of the UN Security Council. Certainly here we have to deal with the territory dimension, namely the vast Russian territory (80% larger than that of the US). However, although vast surface may be a criterion, nobody should undermine today the importance of democratic credentials in reshaping the UN.

After drawing the conclusion that population, surface, and economic development are not the only criteria, one may wonder whether 26 million Russian citizens – belonging to various ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious minorities that are currently oppressed by the Russian crypto-totalitarian regime – have the same rights as the Sicilians, the Padanians, the Sardinians, and the other minorities of the Italian democratic paradise. What can be the bottom line in this regard is that reshaping the UN should be a matter directly linked to propagating the most advanced concepts of Democracy, Human Rights and unbiased representativity at the international community level. If undemocratic Russia persists in a neo-tsarist / neo-Stalinist approach to the economic, social and political affairs, Russia should rather be replaced by Italy within the UN Veto Club. What we may miss in such a case will be the solitude of Siberia, the immense but mostly empty space of the Russian territory. But should we accord that much of importance to an empty territory as large as almost Antarctica?