Comment by ben_w | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben_w | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Europe has 1, 2 or 3* of the UN permanent security council seats; but it's not yet a country in its own right.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so: China and the USA currently still make sense, but Russia shouldn't have taken over the USSR seat when the USSR ceased to exist; likewise neither the UK nor France can really justify that position since approximately the Suez crisis, and the vacuums they left behind with the end of Empire means nobody's really representing Africa, the Middle East, nor the Indian subcontinent at that level.

I think South America is also somewhat unenthusiastic about being considered the USA's back yard in this context.

* depending on if this is shorthand for "the EU" like the article (1, France), "western Europe" (2, +UK), or "continental" (3, +Russia).

>I'm increasingly of the opinion that the permanent seats are stupid and shouldn't be so

>a whole bunch of reasons why the permanent seats aren't representative

You're spot on that they aren't representative of the world's interests, but that's because this isn't what the security council is really for.

Taught in geopolitical terms, the UN is the latest iteration of a number of bodies that seek to protect a small alliance's interests in the long term.

The UN was founded by the winners of WWII, in the brief moment of time they could credibly claim that they represented the broader world's interests. Since then, the WWII allies - US/UK/France/Russia/China - have maintained their disproportionate positions to protect their own interests.

The Security council exists for them - it is the only body that can pass legally binding resolutions, it gatekeeps access to the general assembly, and those 5 golden keyholders can individually veto any other UN action.

These kind of bodies (UN, League of Nations, Peace of Westphalia) etc are often couched in ideals and often do have sub-bodies who do excellent work, as the UN does, but in reality, at the highest levels, are actually consider the spoils of war: the right to dictate your position as a lasting member of extraterritorial governance and protect your doctrinal and national interests.

This is some good insight, but what would the alternative(s) be, realistically?

Ah, thanks for the insight; I don't think that cynically by default, but what you say rings true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com