Bangladesh deserves a voice

My son attends a school where one of the unique classes in his program is a model UN. Children have the opportunity to study and represent a particular nation. In March, he will travel to Washington DC to participate in a mock session of the United Nations. The teacher who runs the program is precisely the type of instructor a parent hopes for: energetic, enthusiastic. As she described the ideals of the United Nations, my very altruistic youngest son felt inspired by the ideals that the UN promotes.

That's why I should have kept my mouth shut. Instead, I proceeded to engage in rant number 634. All of my rants are numbered, and since I mostly communicate in rants. Upon my demise, a voice-activated recorded version of all my rants will be programmed into a computer, and no one will ever realise I'm gone. All the user will have to do is mention the word United Nations, and the program  will automatically spew out phrases such as "oligarchy", "busywork for embarrassing relatives of rich world leaders", and "the place where nothing gets done".

Rant #634, listed under the subheading of "useless diplomats" includes a lengthy condemnation of the UN Security Council whose five members include the nations that won World War II (or four, depending on your opinions about France (see rant #41)). The arbitrary choice of these countries as the powerbrokers makes absolutely no sense, represents no reflection of current day reality.

The United Nations is not a democratic organisation. No population on earth elects a national representative to the council. The interests of the people of the nations involved are not truly heard. The decision to place certain nations on the permanent Security Council was also not a democratic decision. If the United Nations hopes to be relevant, it must reorganise its governance so that representatives of the nationals who have the lose or gain from its decisions have a seat on the permanent Security Council.

And which countries are those? Bangladesh ranks first on this list. Bangladesh is right first in terms of committing personnel to UN peacekeeping operations worldwide. Even amongst UN-ophobes like myself, we do recognise not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of excellence in performance, that the value of Bangladesh's brave and disciplined soldiers to the cause of peacekeeping throughout the world is unsurpassed. In fact, Bangladesh's presence, in terms of numbers of troops risking their lives daily in UN operations throughout the world, is more than double the amount of troops sent by the COMBINED membership of the permanent Security Council.

If United Nations were to consider representation of the Security

Council simply by "blood investment", the number of citizens a nation is willing to put in harms way for the cause of peacekeeping, then the permanent Security Council would consist of Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, and Nepal. (Incidentally, a trait that all of these nations share is love for cricket. Perhaps the passion to run back and forth defending wickets psychologically prepares young men and women to travel the world repelling bowlers of all stripes. Perhaps the fact that matches can last days inculcate the need for patience in victory.)

If the structure of the permanent Security Council were based solely upon military representation, the "developed" nations of the world would cry foul. The Asian subcontinent, they would claim, is grossly overrepresented. However, on the current Security Council, three of the five nations are less than 750 miles apart, four of the five belong to the same Indo-European linguistic group, and are predominantly Christian nations. In my humble opinion, this is disproportionate representation. The one exception to the Eurocentric rule of thumb is China.

With the military-based Security Council (and really, when we speak about security, aren't we speaking in military terms?) there would be more diversity of language, and religious representation.

Geographically, the distance between San Francisco and Shanghai is only about 300 kilometres less than the distance between Lagos and Chittagong.

Another principal difference between the Security Council I propose and the current one is that none of these nations are former colonial powers, who may ostensibly use their position on the Security Council to maintain some vestige of colonial hegemony by asserting cultural and political control. For instance, consider how differently the Palestinian question would have played out if our new Security Council would have cast the votes. Whatever the outcome, with the possible exception of the Pakistani vote, neither side could argue bias.

Arguably, the only interests served by the United Nations that benefit the current permanent Security Council are those which foster and maintain a mentality of colonialism. At best, the attitude is condescending: "we rich, educated, stable countries will help those poor backward countries out of the goodness of our heart." At worst, it represents a fear that better ideas, more equitable solutions, and the new energy of discovery and invention may force the former colonial powers into a competition with the more resilient, more enterprising, hungrier nations of the world.

I confess that I subscribe to a belief in American patriotism. I jealously guard the sovereignty of my nation and its wonderful Constitution. However, I also understand that beliefs such as mine make the United States the worst possible candidate for a permanent Security Council seat, or for UN membership at all. Few Americans, myself included, would shed many tears were the United States to withdraw from membership. Many of the UN's founding precepts directly oppose American ideas of sovereignty and freedom.

However, I understand my son's enthusiasm and the appeal of a worldwide organisation that promotes peace, disaster relief and global solutions to worldwide environmental and political problems. The UN could do so much more to solve these problems were it not impeded by the interests of nations that have no business leading the organization. Here in the New York metropolitan area, two subjects dominated the news this week. One was the imminent crash of a large satellite. And as world leaders converged on New York this week, the other was the Palestinian appeal for recognition.

I couldn't help thinking of one story as a metaphor for the other. I couldn't help reflecting on the failure of satellites to stay in orbit. Chinese satellites, American satellites, Russian satellites, British and French. Orbiting bodies, both political and astrophysical, must eventually succumb to the laws of gravity. The world paradigm has long ago shifted from the reality of World War II. The permanent Security Council, a hobbled vestige of the bygone Allied triumph, will inevitably face re-entry, somewhere over the Pacific. I predict that the pieces will fall harmlessly on the Asian subcontinent and Africa. From there, with God's help they will be refashioned into plowshares.

The purpose of the United Nations, as stated in its charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." It is not unreasonable to entrust the guardianship of such principles to the nations who are willing to risk the emotional and political fallout necessary to send their citizens to die for that cause. Bangladesh has proven itself to be one such nation, in fact, the nation with the greatest human commitment to UN ideals.

If the United Nations ever expects this writer to take it seriously, then it must, in turn, recognise those nations which take it seriously, and allow them the most important voices in the decision-making process. Objectively, the most worthy of these nations is your own. In the meantime, I'm heavily campaigning for my son's school to choose to represent Bangladesh. This American would not willingly put his son in harm's way to promote the causes of the Security Council. The fact that Bangladeshi fathers are willing is the ultimate gift for all humanity and it must be recognised with something more than admiration and gratitude.

Every parent who sends a child to war must have the option to vote for peace.

—————————-
Frank Domenico Cipriani writes a weekly column in the Riverside Signal called "You Think What You Think And I'll Think What I Know." He is also the founder and CEO of The Gatherer Institute — a not-for-profit public charity dedicated to promoting respect for the promoting respect for the environment and empowering individuals to become self-taught and self-sufficient. His most recent book, "Learning Little Hawk's Way of Storytelling", teaches the native art of oral tradition storytelling.