Initially published on 9th December 2004 in Buzzle Excerpt: Practically speaking, there is no reason for anyone to discuss Germany's possible acceptance into the UN Veto Club, if the eventual conclusion is not accompanied by a similar decision to extend the same right to Italy, founding member of the G-8. The main opposition against Italy's adhesion to the UN Veto Council comes only from France, because Paris ponders on the impact that such a decision would have on the decision making process within the European Union itself! This proves clearly the malignant ways of the French diplomacy, and the vicious character of the French opposition to Italy’s entrance in the Veto Club. The only parallel among the already discussed cases can be found in the Chinese skepticism about Japan, but this is rather relevant of regional balance of power, which is a natural consideration among powers. Contrarily, in the case of France, one country's manipulations and machinations within a regional international body (European Union) are being transposed within the context of deliberations taking place within the international body par excellence, affecting thus the clarity of the purpose and the transparence of the decision making within the UN. This consists in an unbearable political bias, and an absolutely reactionary attitude against the rest of the world. France’s intrigues within the European Union encompass the formation of a bogus tripartite directory (France – Germany – England) in which an anti-British majority is pre-arranged; the same intrigues enable the later use of this scheme by Paris in order to impose disreputable and undignified policies to all the other member states of the European Union. This affair does indeed concern the rest of the world, and more particularly Africa and the Middle East where various administrations and numerous oppressed nations hold France as directly responsible for the calamities fallen upon them ever since the French started expanding outside their borders. It must therefore be made known to the perfidious and criminal authorities of Quai d’ Orsay that perpetuation of their attitude cannot be tolerated, even if it takes the form of a seemingly serious argumentation. As a matter of fact, within the body of a democratically organized international community, France's time is over.

1. Avoid the French Trap in Reforming
the UN
Avoid the French Trap in Reforming the UN. Part I
Yes to Veto Right for India, Japan, Germany, and Italy.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Long awaited proposals about reforming the United Nations have been
recently unveiled. Reforming the UN will not be an easy task. We cannot be
sure whether it is going to be on the right track or not; we can only have the
hope that the charter's universal values will apply to all the decision making
procedures and approaches in an unbiased way. It is therefore time now to
unmask the hidden dangers and to denounce the all-committed, French
sponsorship of the Islamic terrorism, before it reaches the top level of the
international community.
The High-LevelPanelto Study GlobalSecurity Threatsand
Recommend Necessary Changes
For every project, a preparatory committee, or a high-level panel – to follow
UN terminology – matters a lot. Its representativeness matters a lot in terms
of unbiased suggestions and groundbreaking approaches. In this regard, we
have no reason to be happy with the way Secretary-General Kofi Annan
thought possible to perform his duties and responsibilities by setting up a 16-
member "High-Level Panel to Study Global Security Threats and Recommend
Necessary Changes".
We do not refer here to the notorious "oil-for-food" scandal where the
unfortunate Secretary-General found himself embroiled, but who can accept
in the year 2004 that Egypt and Thailand can truly represent our global
world? Yet, to deal with important issues involved and to deliver a verdict,
the panel included among others Anand Panyarachum, former prime
minister of Thailand, and Egypt's relic Amr Moussa.
Of course, one should immediately question what Thailand and Egypt can
possibly represent in a panel meant to deal with UN. Certainly not much
more than South Africa and Argentina! Either speaking in terms of economic
development, scientific development and educational development or talking
about Human Rights, Democracy, Minority Rights, Multiculturalism, and
Freedom of Religion, we cannot afford to take respectable but marginal
(except for the Tourism industry) Thailand and underdeveloped,
undemocratic and obscurantist Egypt as the correct choice in this regard.
Perhaps Kofi Annan should have first consulted some Coptic Associations,

2. established in America since they are not allowed in Egypt, in order to make a
pertinent choice. Most probably, UN Secretary-General was not properly
advised in this regard by his predecessor, the inimitable French – Egyptian
Boutros Ghali, who was ousted by former Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright. It is unbelievable how much a significant position and an amount of
money (: bribe) can alter the mind of people, and this is mostly true for
Boutros Ghali, "the Copt who forgot the Copts", as his Coptic compatriots call
him! As a consequence, the irrelevant Annan 'panel' came up with the wrong
proposals.
A common point: the UN unreliability and obsoleteness
Most of the countries – member states agree that the recent UN crisis, when
America – along with its allies – had to embark on the Iraq war circumventing
the Security Council, proved the UN unreliability and obsoleteness in the
most spectacular way. This is only normal for an organization that was
conceived during the WW II and materialized at the aftermath of that period
of upheaval. As political conception and as diplomatic manifestation, the UN
represented a completely different international landscape.
At the moment of its inception, the UN was the seal of the Allied victory over
Germany, Italy and Japan. Necessarily, these three countries had to be
obliterated!
On the other hand, as continuation and extension of the colonial policies of
France and England, Turkey and Iran could not be accepted within the elite of
the elite, i.e. the Security Council. These two countries had been for centuries
the main political institutions of the Islamic World, but at the same time, the
Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire of Iran were the main targets of the
European colonial powers' aggression. As a matter of fact, France and
England, the main European colonial states, pushed Russia to numerous wars
against the Ottoman Empire and Iran and, in addition, they machinated
fratricidal wars between the Sunni Ottomans and the Shia Iranians.
Following their colonial policies and spreading blood throughout Africa, the
Middle East, Caucasus, Central Asia, and Southern – Southeastern Asia,
France and England managed to drive their two enemies to collapse and
quasi-insignificance at the aftermath of WW I. Iran was kicked out of India,
Afghanistan, Central Asia and Caucasus, whereas Turkey was pushed out of
Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Algeria and
Mecca. All the territories abducted by France, England and Russia by 1920
were either annexed land or colonial property and mandate. Within this
context, England, Soviet Union and France insisted in order not to extend an
important status either to Turkey or to Iran in 1945, although both countries
had not cooperated with Nazi Germany, remaining neutral.
To make things worse, colonized India was not even a state by 1945,

3. following almost two (2) centuries of British colonialism. The magnificence of
the Mughal Empire was only a matter of great past.
Dictatorial and friendly to Nazi Germany – although neutral – Spain and
Portugal could not have been offered veto privileges notwithstanding their
great colonial past. Furthermore, the Latin American states did not constitute
a real dimension of the world politics or economy at the time. So, the
Hispanophone and the Lusophone worlds were left out of the Security
Council of the then newly born institution, and by referring to these sizeable
communities, we herewith mean basically Mexico and Brazil.
Last but not least, France had already difficulty to be accepted in the
privileged Veto Club! We know for sure that Stalin was rather opposite,
whereas Roosevelt never took the French seriously. Verbally pompous, but
militarily irrelevant, France collapsed easily in 1940 and was occupied for four
(4) long years, presenting an unpleasant reality to the Allied armies because of
its double-faceted, Janus-like, political existence.
The Vichy government collaborated openly with Hitler and the German
occupying forces, whereas the imaginative Charles de Gaulle, an eventual
replica of Joanne d’ Arc or rather a Latter Day Don Quichotte, expressed the
French anti-Nazi commitment that was quite meager, if compared to that of
England, let alone the Soviet Union and the US! Why accept such a country at
the same level as Soviet Union, a country that sacrificed in WW II no less than
20 million people? At the end, France owes its position to Churchill, who
certainly regretted many times for having supported a sheer madness like
that!
Today'sUN Profile in Striking Contrastwith OurGlobalWorld
Today, the Soviet Union disappeared, and along with it all the world of the
Cold War that followed WW II. Furthermore, the colonial structures have
collapsed and the old colonial powers, France and England, have been
reduced to second class economic powers. In terms of GDP, they currently
rank 5th and 6th in the world! They still exercise colonial power but very
limited of scale, if compared to that they enjoyed 65 years ago.
Before proceeding through some striking examples of comparison, we should
stress the historical argument, which is not less convincing! A period of 65
years is a very long period of time anytime anywhere, especially after the
Renaissance times.
A. Compare Europe 1930 and 1865: Austria – Hungary, Ottoman Empire and
Tsarist Russia, the paragons of Central and Eastern Europe in 1865 had
disappeared by 1930, whereas the German superpower had risen meanwhile.
B. Compare Europe 1875 and 1810: the French in the suburbs of Moscow, and

4. the Germans in Versailles make a very striking example in this regard.
C. Compare Europe 1800 and 1735: the monarchies had been replaced by
revolutionaries!
D. Compare the Middle East 1518 and 1453: from a regional Anatolian –
Balkan power the Ottomans unified the entire Middle East!
If we transpose the issue on the technological – scientific field on which the
social lifestyle and rhythm rely, we understand more easily that 65 years
signify a very long period of time, especially if we refer to times after the
Industrial Revolution!
In the same way one cannot live in 1860 with the rhythm of the daily life of
1785 and keep moving by diligence stagecoach at the time of the railway, we
cannot afford to pretend today that nothing changed since the times of WW II.
In the same way one cannot afford to live today as people lived in 1940, i.e.
without a television set, without a washing machine, without a refrigerator,
without a video set and without a computer, we cannot allow ourselves to
daydream that France represents one fifth (1/5) of our world’s elite!
Visible differencesbetween UN 1945and UN 2005
1. China
China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council as Beijing already
was in 1945. Although China is the world’s most populous country, and its
economy is currently booming, there is a great gap between that vast country
and the developed world. China is not a member state of the G-8, where
belong countries like Canada with less than 3% of China’s population. In
1945, China’s importance hinged exclusively on its sizeable population and on
its vast territory. Nowadays China’s significance depends also on its
important share of the World economy. It is quite indicative that China’s GDP
ranks second only to that of the US, totaling no less than US $ 6.5 trillion (est.
for 2004 – all the economic figures mentioned herewith are taken from CIA’s
World Factbook, as of December 8th 2004).
If we limit the comparison within the Security Council permanent members'
circle, China’s share of contribution to the world economy is more than
double the GDP of France and England counted together! China dwarfs
Russia, England and France, three out of the rest four UN Security Council
permanent members, since the combined three countries' GDP accounts for
just two thirds (2/3) of China’s GDP! With the US GDP reaching US $10.6
trillion, one gets the impression that – economically speaking – the world is
divided in two halves, with America being one, and all the rest making the
other! Then, in the second half China represents 60% of the total, whereas
meager and pale France, England and Russia account for what is left. The

5. very simple conclusion is that we are very wrong indeed, if we make an
equation among the five permanent member states by giving the veto right
equally to every one of them!
2. Japan
Certainly, there are many other ways to view the present situation of the
international community – and to view it correctly. The world is not limited to
just five countries, after all! Japan has risen to status of great economic
importance! Humiliated in 1945 after the explosion of the two atomic bombs,
the emperor Hirohito looked impotent next to Mac Arthur in that old picture,
but he survived to see Japan becoming the 'free world's 2nd economy'. With
the collapse of the Soviet bloc, and with the Chinese way to liberalization of
the economy, Japan retained its importance despite ten (10) years of economic
depression that seem now to take an end. Japan is still kept outside the Veto
Club, although its population (120 million people) equals that of France and
England combined (60 million people each), whereas Japan’s GDP (US $ 3.5
trillion) is larger than that of the two European veto 'powers' combined (US $
1.6 trillion each). In today’s world, if Japan is left outside the Veto Club, then
both France and England have no real right to be there either!
3. India
Once upon a time, England could not match the riches and the wealth of the
Muslim Mogul Empire of India. Shah Akbar’s (1556 – 1605) contemporary
was Queen Elizabeth I (1558 – 1603), but even in her wildest dreams could the
'Virgin Queen' (what a laugh for a Freemasonic whore!) not imagine of having
possessions similar to those of her Muslim counterpart. Two hundred years
later, risen colonial power England occupied most of India’s territory, and so
it was when in 1945 the UN came to existence, thanks to the San Francisco 50-
nation conference. However, India has crossed most of the way ever since.
Today, the world's second most populated country is usually called 'the
world's largest democracy', and so it will be until China's government
implements democratic multipartite elections and respects rights of minorities
in Turkistan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia. Despite its large GDP, India is not a
member state of the G-8. It is clear that the GDP may be one but not the sole
criterion for acceptance in the G-8, and that per capita GDP is also taken into
account.
In the same way China intends to become the world’s sole factory, India
attempts to be the world’s sole IT atelier; the remarkable achievements of the
Indian IT specialists may help India's strong upper middle class exploit
politically the subcontinent's great economic progress. India's GDP (US $ 3
trillion) is the fourth largest in the world, and if the growth's pace is kept at
the same level (8.4% est. for 2004), India's GDP will be larger than that of
England and France combined in the year 2006! It is therefore only normal to
question why 120 million Europeans of the two colonial relics, who produce
as much as 1.1 billion Indians, are granted a right that is not yet ascribed to a

6. 10-fold population.
How aboutreplacing France & England with India & Japan as
veto powers?
The representativeness problem within the UN would be immediately solved
by a single shot: replacing France and England with India and Japan as veto
powers – permanent member states of the Security Council.
Combined altogether, China, USA, Russia, India and Japan total 3 billion
people, which means almost half the planet’s population, whereas the present
scheme (China, USA, Russia, England and France) accounts for less than 2
billion people, leaving therefore the UN without any sort of credibility.
If we apply the same comparative approach at the economic level, we find out
that there is a marked difference between the current situation and that
ensuing from the suggested change / replacement. Combined altogether, the
GDP of the five countries (China, USA, Russia, India and Japan) totals US $ 25
trillion. On the other hand, presently the GDP of the combined five
permanent member–states of the Security Council does not exceed US $ 22
trillion. This means that the present situation is not acceptable anymore.
If we consider the herewith suggested changes' consequences and impact on
the diplomatic – political level, and if we place them within the Iraq 2003
crisis context, we may easily realize that the suggested change / replacement
would lead to an overall transformation of the world’s international
landscape. The major opponent to the US effort of ridding Iraq of Saddam
Hussein’s tyrannical aberration, i.e. France, would not be there, whereas US-
ally England would be substituted by Japan. However, the US would not find
a staunch opposition from the part of the combined delegations of India,
China and Russia, and most probably with one or two abstention votes the
just and fair cause of Iraq’s liberation would have been endorsed by the UN.
The international body’s credibility would not have fallen that low.
We have reasons to believe that, if the world does not encompass other
important countries (and significant or representative nations) than the
aforementioned seven nations, the suggested solution / replacement will be
the best. Yet, there are several other countries in this world that are far more
important than, or at least as significant as, France, England and Russia, so the
overall reform of the UN has definitely to take them into consideration.
Germany and Italy
In 1945, the two countries were the two main European losers. They were left
completely out of the UN project. Yet, a decade later, they were two of the six
constituent members of the embryonic form of the European Union. For
decades the Western part of Germany was the European economy’s real
locomotive, but the cost of the reunification proved to be a real challenge.

7. Despite all this, Germany remains European Union’s largest country, and
strongest economy. Germany’s economic parameters and indicators testify to
a sheer superiority if compared those of France and England: GDP (US $ 2.3
trillion compared to France’s US $ 1.6 trillion and to England’s US $ 1.6
trillion), per capita GDP (US $ 27600 compared to US $ 27.600 and US $ 27700
respectively), gross fixed investment as part of the GDP (17.7% compared to
19.2% and 16.2%), budget revenues and expenditures (US $ 1.07 trillion/1.1
trillion compared to France’s US $ 883 billion/955 billion and to England’s US
$ 689 billion/746 billion), exports (US $ 697 billion compared to US $ 346
billion and US $ 305 billion respectively), imports (US $ 585 billion compared
to US $ 340 billion and US $ 364 billion respectively), foreign exchange and
gold reserves (US $ 96.84 billion compared to France’s US $ 70.7 billion and to
England’s US $ 46 billion). With larger population and stronger economy than
France, Germany should be viewed as another plausible candidate for the UN
Veto Club, raising the number of the Veto aspirants to 3 until now.
All that counts in favor of Germany does the same for Italy. The country
shifted from the Axis forces to the WW II allies in the course of the war, and it
was well said in 1945 that, contrarily to the extreme cases (victorious UK,
USA, USSR and China / defeated Germany and Japan), France and Italy were
half-victorious and half-defeated respectively. Today, Italy represents the
same absolutely background as France in terms of population (58 million
people) and economic power (GDP: US $ 1.55 trillion / per capita GDP: US $
26700 / gross fixed investment as part of the GDP: 19.1% / budget revenues
and expenditures: US $ 668 billion and US $ 703 billion / exports: US $ 278
billion / imports: US $ 271 billion / foreign exchange and gold reserves: US $
63 billion).
Practically speaking, there is no reason for anyone to discuss Germany's
possible acceptance into the UN Veto Club, if the eventual conclusion is not
accompanied by a similar decision to extend the same right to Italy, founding
member of the G-8. The main opposition against Italy's adhesion to the UN
Veto Council comes only from France, because Paris ponders on the impact
that such a decision would have on the decision making process within the
European Union itself! This proves clearly the malignant ways of the French
diplomacy, and the vicious character of the French opposition to Italy’s
entrance in the Veto Club. The only parallel among the already discussed
cases can be found in the Chinese skepticism about Japan, but this is rather
relevant of regional balance of power, which is a natural consideration among
powers.
Contrarily, in the case of France, one country's manipulations and
machinations within a regional international body (European Union) are
being transposed within the context of deliberations taking place within the
international body par excellence, affecting thus the clarity of the purpose and

8. the transparence of the decision making within the UN. This consists in an
unbearable political bias, and an absolutely reactionary attitude against the
rest of the world.
France’s intrigues within the European Union encompass the formation of a
bogus tripartite directory (France – Germany – England) in which an anti-
British majority is pre-arranged; the same intrigues enable the later use of this
scheme by Paris in order to impose disreputable and undignified policies to
all the other member states of the European Union. This affair does indeed
concern the rest of the world, and more particularly Africa and the Middle
East where various administrations and numerous oppressed nations hold
France as directly responsible for the calamities fallen upon them ever since
the French started expanding outside their borders. It must therefore be made
known to the perfidious and criminal authorities of Quai d’ Orsay that
perpetuation of their attitude cannot be tolerated, even if it takes the form of a
seemingly serious argumentation. As a matter of fact, within the body of a
democratically organized international community, France's time is over.
After all, it is quite interesting that with just 42% of Russia’s population, Italy
generates a GDP larger (by more than 20%) than that of Russia, the other
postcolonial and post-Stalinist relic of the UN Security Council. Certainly here
we have to deal with the territory dimension, namely the vast Russian
territory (80% larger than that of the US). However, although vast surface
may be a criterion, nobody should undermine today the importance of
democratic credentials in reshaping the UN.
After drawing the conclusion that population, surface, and economic
development are not the only criteria, one may wonder whether 26 million
Russian citizens – belonging to various ethnic, linguistic, cultural and
religious minorities that are currently oppressed by the Russian crypto-
totalitarian regime – have the same rights as the Sicilians, the Padanians, the
Sardinians, and the other minorities of the Italian democratic paradise. What
can be the bottom line in this regard is that reshaping the UN should be a
matter directly linked to propagating the most advanced concepts of
Democracy, Human Rights and unbiased representativeness at the
international community level. If undemocratic Russia persists in a neo-tsarist
/ neo-Stalinist approach to the economic, social and political affairs, Russia
should rather be replaced by Italy within the UN Veto Club. What we may
miss in such a case will be the solitude of Siberia, the immense but mostly
empty space of the Russian territory. But should we accord that much of
importance to an empty territory as large as almost Antarctica?
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Published: 12/9/2004