So says Jorge Castaneda, Mexico’s former foreign Minister:
The argument for admitting Brazil, China, India, and South Africa to the helm rests on the general principle that the world’s leadership councils should be broadened to include emerging powers. But unlike the case for Germany and Japan, this one raises some delicate questions…
Brazil, China, India, and South Africa are not just weak supporters of the notion that a strong international regime should govern human rights, democracy, nonproliferation, trade liberalization, the environment, international criminal justice, and global health. They oppose it more or less explicitly, and more or less actively — even though at one time most of them joined the struggle for these values
I don’t dispute the point. These nations joining the security council may very well undermine important international agendas.
Nevertheless, I’m not sure that “four countries representing half the world’s population can’t co-govern with us because they don’t share our values” is a valid argument if you do believe in human rights, democracy, and international justice. A paradox, no?
What happened to “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”?