Remake the U.N. Security Council
The U.N.Security Council's inability to pass a resolution condemning Syria is the latest failure of the institution at preventing mass violence. In 1994, the council voted to pull peacekeepers out of Rwanda shortly before its genocide. The same body declared safe havens for Bosnian Muslims in 1993, only to stand by as Serbs slaughtered thousands of them.
The tragedies above underscore the urgent need to reform the council, whose permanent membership — the United States, U.K., France, Russia and China — still reflects the postwar realities of 1945, not those of today. President Obama made waves in 2010 after promising India a permanent seat, but there has been radio silence from the White House since then. Here's a simple plan his administration should get behind:
Expand the permanent five to include five more members with veto powers — presumably Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa— but require that a resolution can be blocked only by two vetoes rather than one. This plan, which Yale historian Paul Kennedy describes as "both desperate and ingenious" in his book The Parliament of Man, would make the council more representative of the actual balance of power, enhance its legitimacy and require greater coalition-building. Sure, there will be hackles raised — why Brazil and not Mexico? — but given these states' size, location and economic output, they are the logical candidates. Plus, there would remain rotating members to give other states a vote.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Truman National Security Project or Educational Institute.
