Should Britain be allowed to keep it's seat on UN security council?

Realistically, Britain is and has been in decline since the end of World War II. In fairness to them, they figured this out at Suez and decided to reinvent themselves as the "Wise Greeks" to America's "Bumptious Romans" and this alliance has propped them up ever since. France did the opposite and as a result was less able to hide her own decline.

Militarily they are one of the most powerful nations in the World, but that does not mean a lot. Her last conflict without overwhelming US support (more correctly where she was not support to the US) was the Falklands war, and that was a close run thing in many respects, won more through Argentine military cock-ups than British military success.

Economically, Britain has been up and down like a yo-yo, often rating bottom of the old G7 league and consistently behind countries such as Germany and Japan (who were fortunate enough to be relieved of the burden of being a superpower).

This is not to detract from the UK's strengths. She remains one of the more powerful economic, cultural and military nations in the World. However, all that differentiates her from France, Germany or (to a lesser extent) Italy or Spain, is 'the special relationship'.

Problem with Britain's over-reliance on the US is that increasingly the UK needs it more than the US. Donald Rumsfeld's suggestion that the UK was militarily almost irrelevant to the Iraq war was hugely damaging to the UK's reputation, and if anything it highlighted that the 'special relationship' had moved on, to the point that is was no longer something that the UK could rely upon to prop herself up internationally.

Without the 'special relationship' though, the UK becomes no more special than France or Germany - less so, because after Suez, the French decided to build up their power base in Europe, something that has finally only begun to pay dividends for the French in the last ten to fifteen years.

As the the article posted by the OP points out, the UK has to find her place in the post-'special relationship' World. She's been out-maneuvered in Europe, and even if she became ardently pro-EU, she would never supplant the French or Germans. Meanwhile while the trans-Atlantic alliance remains, but it is a shadow of what it used to be and everyone knows it.

Either way, the UK is no longer the World power she once was - at least, she is no more important than many other nations out there. And with the realization that she no longer enjoys the tight bond to the new Rome, her opinion will become increasingly irrelevant to the rest of the World regardless of how important she thinks herself - unless, that is, she can reinvent herself again.

getz wrote: »

britain is NATOs protector,21.500 troops in germany,nato HQ gibraltar,over 41,000 troops located around the world,can call on 100,000s commonwealth and allied troops, if needed,oh yes brittain is still a very big player and a important member of the UN security council ,

It couldnt even kit the small number of soldiers it had in Afghanisatn properly. The US marines had to take over some British areas of responsibility as they were doing such a poor job.

Really?

No.

It is the 6th largest economy in the world, but it has a relatively large population ( in GDP per capita it is not really at the races).

creeper1 wrote: »

Blah blah blah anti british stuff here

I assume you would take the same line with the French?

getz wrote: »

name them, russia and china out side their own countris have no quick reaction forces,significant navies to matter[the main russian navy is blocked in the back sea ports],and both china and russia are still using old and often not working weapons,

Sorry, but I was responding to your assertion that "the US has the same trust as the UK in world trust,certainly not china or Russia", not that they have a state-of-the-art military.

sceptre wrote: »

The biggest opposition to the Annan proposal comes from the Uniting for Consensus grouping (often referred to as the Coffee Club). It's made up of about 40 countries, almost all of whom have a common aim to keep one of their neighbours from getting a permanent seat. Every one of the G4 nations has a neighbour or few who doesn't want them to get a permanent seat. They've found common ground with each other in blocking their mutual neighbours.

Of course tiddlers with their 'beggar thy neighbour' attitude will only be happy with the Late Late Show solution and that would render the Secuity Council even less useful than it already is.