Nations lobby for Council seats

therecklessone

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/21/un.reforms.reut/

Surprised there's been no talk of this story that appeared midweek.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- Japan, Brazil, Germany and India formed a lobbying group on Tuesday to help one another get permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council and head off proposals that might work against them...

Africa was not at the meeting because the region has not decided to support one contender, with South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt competing for seats.

"Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, based on the firmly shared recognition that they are legitimate candidates for permanent membership in an expanded Security Council, support each other's candidature," the statement said, adding an African nation must also get a permanent seat.

While I accept the UN needs to be reformed to adapt to 21st century international relations, I do not want to see a carve-up of positions of responsibility between a few cosy allies.

Unless Egypt gets nominated as an African representative, none of the permanent members of an expanded SC would be Islamic. Why should Germany be nominated when the EU already has 2 permanent members?

arcadegame2004

While I agree that the UN is desperately in need of reform, adding more veto-wielding Permanent Members is NOT the way to go. All it will do is make it even harder to do something about future Bosnias/Kosovos/Darfurs etc. Having an absolute-veto over everything can cause a country to oppose something simply because a traditional rival is supporting it, in a manner detrimental to human-rights and natural justice. One of the most despicable examples of this in the last decade was Russian intransigence over the war in Bosnia. That war was only ended because of NATO intervention, which came after a UN Security Council resolution authorising "all necessary means" to stop the war. Russia disagreed that this resolution authorised NATO air-strikes, and since then refused to allow that phrase in any later UN resolutions. And even this resolution wasn't accepted by Russia until Screbrenica was shamefully sacrified with 8,000 innocent men and boys massacred.

Look now at what is going on at the UN. Richard Pearl described the UN as a "chatterbox on the Hudson". I must confess that I agree with him at times like the above, such as what we are seeing now in relation to Darfur. Pakistan and China are blocking UN sanctions on the evil Sudanese regime because of their oil-contracts with Sudan. I understand that Pakistan wants a permanent-seat at the UN (am I correct on this I am not sure). I would oppose this for the reason explained earlier in this paragraph. I would favour a change in the voting-system whererby a weighted vote of 90% would pass a resolution on the UN Security Council.

It is unacceptable that one UN member-state should be the final arbitar of what is and isn't "legal" under international-law, as is the case at present.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Look now at what is going on at the UN. Richard Pearl described the UN as a "chatterbox on the Hudson".

And it is his own country that has done more than any other to make it so.

I was taking it as a given AG that the five current permanent members were not going to yield their positions of power, regardless of the morality or lack thereof. While I agree that majority decisions should replace the current system, I have to say it will never get off the ground.

As for the suggested four (plus one African nation), I'd rather not have any more permanent representatives please and thank you, especially in the case of Germany. The EU would wield enough influence in an expanded SC with its current two members (thats if they can ever get their act together and agree on something)

Sparks

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Richard Pearl described the UN as a "chatterbox on the Hudson".

It is unacceptable that one UN member-state should be the final arbitar of what is and isn't "legal" under international-law, as is the case at present.

Assuming you meant Richard Perle, I'd point out that the prince's statement belies the fact that the US, not Russia or anyone else, is the biggest problem in the SC when it comes to abusing veto powers...

Sand

If theyre going to expand the Security Council then they need to do away with the veto or at least ensure it takes 2 or 3 votes to veto something. Otherwise it will kill any decision making process stone dead.

Unless Egypt gets nominated as an African representative, none of the permanent members of an expanded SC would be Islamic. Why should Germany be nominated when the EU already has 2 permanent members?

South Africa would be a far better option for the African seat of any expanded permament council as its far closer to the ideals of the U.N. than Egypt. Germany should be nominated for the same reason, it is a better defender of human rights than say, China.

The Permament Council should be made up with an eye to who does most to both practise and defend human rights -and of course an eye to power and influence so the decisions of the council can be backed up, not with an eye to pleasing geographic or cultural symmetry.

As it is Id have concerns about India and the treatment of their muslim minority - the authorities standing by as massacres occured not so long ago for one thing.