Two days ago, in a Financial Times column that was bullish on the long-term potential of the Indian economy, Martin Wolf said something very sensible:
“Exhausted by the burden of its pretensions, the U.K. should soon offer its seat on the Security Council of the United Nations to its former colony. Its condition would be that France does the same in favor of the European Union.”
Yes, indeed. Too bad that Mr. Wolf and myself are in agreement that it won’t happen. But still. What does Britain get out of its seat on the Security Council? Countries with rotating seats, like Mexico, have often found it more of a pain than a benefit. (It makes neutrality difficult.) Small countries get a monetary benefit as the U.S. bought their votes (joined in the old days by the USSR, and probably the PRC in future ones.) And I can imagine that France likes the insurance policy of a veto; after all, it does have a penchant for randomly invading African countries. But the U.K.? Why bother? Sell it to India.
Nice buildings in London, I must say. Even the new ones.
I get into the office this morning, ready to do some reading (on Chinese and Russian energy policy) and writing (on American intervention in the Dominican Republic) when I spot two new hits from India, both for "
Recent Comments