Exclusivity

Yesterday, between epically pushing back the frontiers of science, I found myself talking to a French co-worker. Between thickly Franco-English exclamations, our conversation turned unwittingly to the Eurovision Song Contest. The contest (of the song variety, as the name suggests) has been running annually since 1956, and began with just 7 entrants (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland). This has swelled to 49 (who have been in it at least once) and includes countries as diverse (and non-European) as Israel and Morocco. According to old mate, it was originally designed to bury the WWII hatchet – and get the French and Germans to start talking to each other again. To make a long story short, he complained that Eurovision had changed; back in the day it had class and spirit – and above all exclusivity. C'est la vie.

While I’m not passionate about Eurovision, there are obvious parallels to other post-WWII institutions now crippled by their growing memberships. I’ve never been a fan of the United Nations, (though supportive of its initial ideals) primarily for this reason. Its original 50 member ranks (and 5 veto-ers) has swelled to a staggering 192 – with the recent inclusion of Montenegro – meaning that basically all independent states are onboard. While that’s heart warming, the practical upshot is that discussion amongst all these diverse constituents effectively makes agreement (and therefore action) impossible. Having Russia, China and the US as permanent veto-holders does a pretty good job of this in itself.

The European Union is no better. The original 6 founding states have now become 27 – with a legion of others clamoring to be part of the growing European family. In 2004, 10 new nations were added to the party, including Estonia, Dublin, and (the mother country) Malta. Here in 2008, the Europeans are left with a nominal group of countries with competing economic interests, clashing cultures and staggeringly different security outlooks. In reality, calling it a Union is a bit of a stretch…

While the jungles of red tape and intrinsic paralysis characterising the EU and UN make me angry, the similar problems with NATO are the most pressing at the moment. The founding 12 members have been joined by 15 others in the alliance designed to prevent WWII from recurring (the members agree to jointly defend any invaded ally). In short, NATO has become the proxy security force in the world, filling the void created by the UN and is currently responsible for leading the fight for Afghanistan. Unfortunately, political wrangling has hobbled the efficacy of a once forceful organsiation – with some members refusing to deploy troops or to use them in high combat areas. Iceland (who has no standing army) has 10 ‘soldiers’ deployed, Luxembourg 9, and Greece 130. Australia, not even remotely in the alliance has contributed 1100.

In general, all of these post-WWII institutions are bloated and inefficient – and we should be starting afresh. Scrap the UN, disband NATO and dissolve the EU. The whole point of having a club is exclusivity. Exclusivity is only achieved by discerningly admitting new members, who share the ideals of the organisation. NATO is a fighting alliance. You shouldn’t be able to join if you don’t have an army, or don’t want to deploy it. It should be made up of nations who share strategic goals – that way, we might actually achieve some security goals. I’ve grown tired of the indiscriminate inclusion-ism that is crippling the globe and have found another reason to come to power.