Obama's Gift Of Gaffe

From AEI:

Obama's Gift of Gaffe By John R. Bolton

Wall Street Journal

Friday, November 19, 2010













Barack Obama made news last week by endorsing India for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. But with his careful qualifications about timing ("In the years ahead, I look forward"), circumstances ("to a reformed U.N. Security Council"), and other possible changes to council membership ("that includes India as a permanent member"), the testimonial was less than met the eye.



U.S. officials later explained that although the president intended to recognize India as a "rising player," its Security Council status would have to be "hashed out" at the U.N. So, once again, Mr. Obama offered a grand rhetorical gesture, then left his minions to address the difficult reality.



The vagueness of Mr. Obama's statement risks undercutting the desired political boost in the U.S.-Indian relationship. India should remember that President Nixon first endorsed Japan as a permanent member of the Security Council four decades ago. President Clinton backed Germany in 1993. Both are still waiting.



Immediately after Mr. Obama's endorsement in New Delhi, Pakistan officially rejected the idea of a permanent seat for India, and China adopted a noncommittal posture. Many in Japan doubtless gritted their teeth.



For well over 20 years, there has simply been no international consensus about changing Security Council membership. Reformers argue that the council would have greater legitimacy if it reflected current international reality rather than the world of 1945. But the council falls short today not primarily on legitimacy but on efficacy. Adding additional permanent members to the existing cacophony will further weaken its effectiveness on responding to terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and other issues.



Membership politics are completely gridlocked. Germany believes it deserves a permanent seat if Japan succeeds, which simply emboldens Italy's candidacy. But "Europe" will never receive another permanent seat, since it already has three of the current five. No one in London or Paris is rushing to give up their slot to a representative of the European Union. Brazil's campaign for another Western Hemisphere seat founders on its Portuguese, rather than Spanish, language and history, with multiple Latin American countries eyeing the same spot.



Africa demands a permanent seat or two (ask Nigeria and South Africa), and many Arab states think Egypt would both represent their interests and qualify as African, just as Boutros Boutros-Ghali did as U.N. secretary-general. And what about Pakistan to balance India, or Indonesia as another "rising player"? Adding permanent seats to the Security Council is more fun than, and almost as cheap as, buying properties in "Monopoly."



The United States should support a Security Council that performs its U.N. Charter functions effectively. Almost certainly, however, the larger the council becomes, the more difficult it would be to achieve that objective. The pulling and tugging among 10 permanent members would mean even fewer decisive council actions than at present.

Although few will openly say so at Turtle Bay, many U.N. diplomats understand this dilemma perfectly well and hope that Mr. Obama's pronouncement will not provoke another counterproductive round of contentious but ultimately failed negotiations.



Accordingly, the optimal American position is to insist that whatever changes are made to the council protect what limited utility it currently has. A country doesn't qualify for permanent membership simply because it has a large population, represents an under-represented continent or region, or is a rising power.

Japan's economy and contributions to the U.N. system uniquely qualify it to become the next permanent member, as Mr. Obama belatedly reaffirmed in Tokyo. All of the other aspirants, although not without their own merits, don't sufficiently stand out from the other wannabees.

What we still lack is a formula that admits a few new members without everyone else bellying up to the bar. Until that formula emerges, there may be no changes to the council's membership. So be it. Our first rule should be "do no harm."



John R. Bolton is a senior fellow at AEI.