Who deserves a Security Council seat?

Hamdija Custovic of the Congress of North American Bosniaks is livid that I suggested Bosnia is not a worthy U.N. Security Council member:

It was therefore to our shock and dismay that a reputable magazine such as Foreign Policy would publish David Bosco’s patronizing comments which criticize the decision to elect Bosnia to the presidency over the Security Council citing that Bosnia’s membership on the council is largely "symbolic" and that "the General Assembly needs to stop carping about Council reform and start consistently electing states that can contribute to peace and security, not those barely able to govern themselves."

Mr. Bosco spent a couple of years in postwar Bosnia and should therefore understand that the best way to rebuild is through the process of inclusion not exclusion. Also, his comments are disturbing because they are elitist and arrogant. It has long been the criticism of the Security Council that it does not adequately represent the smaller countries which have a lot to offer in terms of unbiased diplomacy and leadership that is often not the case with the big powers. Bosnia and Herzegovina is fully able to govern itself but it is still vulnerable, and needs more, not less, international support to ensure that it remains on the path of peace and stability. After all, Bosnia and Herzegovina can draw from its horrible experience of war and genocide to lead the world in seeking peace and stability. The most pressing issue at the UN Security Council is that of the Ivory Coast and the threat of violence following the presidential elections. It is imperative that we have leaders who understand the implications of genocide and can do what it takes to avoid such atrocities.

I consider myself a friend of Bosnia and argued often for more assertive outside intervention during the war and for effective implementation of the Dayton peace agreement in the conflict’s aftermath. I agree that the international community — and particularly the European Union — needs to devote more attention to the country’s very fragile return to normalcy. But I don’t see why any of this implies that Bosnia should have a Council seat. Yes, small states should always have a voice on the Council, but there are plenty of small states better able to contribute to Council diplomacy than Bosnia, whose government struggles to speak with one voice (and whose members sometimes have trouble speaking to each other. Update: for a recent report on Bosnia’s current political problems, see here).

The argument that Bosnia’s history lends it valuable perspective that it can share with the rest of the Council is an attractive one. But I remember another country making that argument: When Rwanda joined the Council in January 1994 it also claimed that its recent history of conflict made it a particularly valuable member. After all, who better to think about peacekeeping than a country hosting a mission? Instead, Rwanda’s presence complicated Council diplomacy when the genocide erupted in April of that year.