Written by: Anonymous

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/16/un.security.council/index.html

So the U.S. has come out for two additional seats on the Security Council, pending U.N. reforms. The U.S.'s preferred additions would be Japan and one other nation.

Japan sounds good to me. Unlike Europe, Japan seems to realize how dependent it is upon our protection, so it would tend to support our goals. It is also the second largest economy in the world (for now). As far as the other seat goes, who would fill it?

The most likely candidate would seem to be India. India's economy is rising, it's a democracy, and it possesses a large chunk of the world's population. But is it in America's interests to support Indian membership at this time?

I need to put some more thought into this, but I can think of a couple reasons it would be helpful to American interests and a couple reasons it might not be.

On the plus side, India is a natural U.S. ally, as it is an English speaking democracy, also faces a Muslim terrorism problem, and will likely become a rival to China in Asia. Supporting India's membership now also might be a good way of building a future U.S.-Indian alliance.

On the negative side, I think we might be getting ahead of ourselves. India still possesses a fair amount of anti-Americanism, and we really can't predict which strategic path they will take into the future. For all we know, thirty years from now, Indian may have sunk back into a Socialist backwater. Or alternatively, thirty years from now, we might be allying with China to hold back the growing Indian threat. Yes, this seems far fetched, but what do we really know at this point?

And what about Pakistan? Is supporting permanent Indian Security Council membership worth the cost of alienating Pakistan?

On balance, I'd say the best bet is supporting Indian membership. But my mind is by no means made up.

Your thoughts?