UN Security Council Seats - Germany or the EU

gom

[ARTICLE] Germany one step close to permanent UN Security Council Seat

I'm completely against Germany getting a permanent seat on the UN Security Council or any other EU member getting a permanent seat. With the EU Constitution and a Foreign Minister for the EU as it proposes surely having 3 EU members seating on the UN security council permanently would undermine the EU foreign minister.
With any reform of the Security Council I would like to see the 5 permanent seats remain but have to rotate between countries in the respective 5 continents.
(America/Mexico/Canada)
(EU countries/Norway/Switzerland/etc)
(Russia/India/Israel/Palastine/Turkey/China/Pakistan/Japan/Australia)
(Sudan/S Africa/Ghana/Liberia/Eygpt)
(Argentina/Brazil/Cuba/Bolivia/Columbia)

Basically this system would do one of two things. It would force regional powers to cooperate with each other to solve international problems. It would remove the current imbalance on the UN security council that is a relic form WW2. By retaining the veto powers in those 5 seats it may result in a better level of censenus through out the globe. Currently this does not happen as you have various powers seating at the table who can ultamitely prevent any decisions from happening that are unfavourible to its selfinterest. With rotating veto seats vested in the continents you will have alot of disputes being solved with diplomacy away from the table by its regional neighbours as they must cooperate on the international stage.

I can see India and Pakastan benefiting from this arrangement greatly.
China will be able to work with its SE Asian neighbours more with more friendship and sincereity.
The USA will have to develop a equal partnership with Canada and Mexico on the world stage and will only suffer if it attempts to act as it currently does with such arragance.
Africa has most to benefit from this arrangement. Presently there is little engagement between the countries of west africa and this will avoid the conflict of neighbours which is brought about by the lack of communication in the region.
The Middle East and Israel might have to patch up some of their problems and I think the Wall would be down in a flash.
Russia would be forced to stop ignoring human rights violations in Checina as it might not be at the table when a decision could be made about it.

Let me know what you all think about a radical change to the system of the UN Security Council

Also, Whether you think Germany getting a seat at the UN securoty council is really a good idea seen as we are all ment to the EU citizens. Why can't the EU take a seat at the table instead. Even if it means France and the UK keep their seats.

Victor

gom wrote:

(America/Mexico/Canada)
(EU countries/Norway/Switzerland/etc)
(Russia/India/Israel/Palastine/Turkey/China/Pakistan/Japan/Australia)
(Sudan/S Africa/Ghana/Liberia/Eygpt)
(Argentina/Brazil/Cuba/Bolivia/Columbia)

Why do the Americas get two, Antartica none and Oceania lumped in with Asia?

arcadegame2004

I don't feel that the US would ever agree to rotate it's permanent seat on the Security Council with anyone! The UN needs US funding and rightwing Republicans leap on any excuse to question funding for the UN. And having the Security Council dominated by US-critical countries that would win all the votes virtually would only give the Republicans another excuse to withold funding.

Despite the criticisms many of us (sometimes including me) have of US foreign-policy, the US simply cannot be compared to Russia, China and the other countries with dreadful human-rights records, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay notwithstanding. International-law has very little real bite without the US on side, in terms of its enforcibility.

I agree, however, with the idea of a single EU seat on the Security Council. Hopefully, this would end the shameful divisiveness in EU foreign-policy which prevented anything being done about the Bosnia genocide for FOUR years. Screbrenica is a scar on the conscience of the West as far as I am concerned. We need an end to the cynical real-politik that causes certain EU countries putting so-called reasons-of-interest before the protection of democratic values and human-rights, e.g. EU silence on Chechnya, trade-concessions to tyrannical China, French and German calls for the end of the EU arms-embargo on China.

Victor

arcadegame2004 wrote:

International-law has very little real bite without the US on side, in terms of its enforcibility.

Because if the Americans don't agree to it, they oppose it, much like the bank robber thinking robbery laws are unfair.

gom

Victor wrote:

Why do the Americas get two, Antartica none and Oceania lumped in with Asia?

Americas = 2 continents. North America and Latin America

Antartica is a UN protectorite(or something similar in legal terms)... Antartica is definded as a non-nation and for all nations. Exploits of Antartica technically must be shared by all man kind. Much like the Moon and INtergalactic Commons. Therefore Antartica can never have a seat on any international table as it is solely international and has no nation or society other than whaling stations, international science missions and tourist trips.

Oceana is never really clearly defined other than Australia and New Zealand and in my opinion the idea of an Oceania continent was created to allow 'Whiteies' to differenciate themselfs from Asians in the region. For that reason I have lumped Oceania in with Asia.


ArcadeGame.
While I find it puzzling that you are in part agreement with me(a first as far as I can remember). I also agree that I can never see America agreeing to the change of the security council arrangements or any permanent member for that matter. There is a way forward. Abolish the security council
The UN General Assembly has the power to disolve the security council AFAIK. It could then form a similar body with a continental balance as I have described above. Maybe with no vetos at all and a trible majority system(based on GDP and Population and No. of Countries) like the EU Constituion proposes perhaps. This would give more power to poor countries but ensure that the status quo had to be envolved in any decision for it to pass.

Either way if Germany gets a seat the UN is doomed in my opinion. NOt that I have anything against the German Foreign policy, in fact I admire it. Its just that it will lead to a sustainment of the UN as it currently stands. Its CRAP!!! Of the 3 countries mentioned for permanent seats(Brazil, India, Germany). India would be the most diserving. It a tested Space program, nuclear weapons, the worlds lfastest growing (soon to be largest) population, a booming GDP and stable macro policy that will make it a world leader even more accepted in the world than China as India is the worlds largest democracy. At the same time I think that Latin America needs more representation on the international stage as Russia and CHina have permanent seats as it stands..


The Security Council is far from what the French call it. It is not a Multi-polar international body but a oligopoly of Global power. To make the UN a fully multi-polar body the security council must go!!!

SkepticOne

With any reform of the Security Council I would like to see the 5 permanent seats remain but have to rotate between countries in the respective 5 continents.
(America/Mexico/Canada)
(EU countries/Norway/Switzerland/etc)
(Russia/India/Israel/Palastine/Turkey/China/Pakistan/Japan/Australia)
(Sudan/S Africa/Ghana/Liberia/Eygpt)
(Argentina/Brazil/Cuba/Bolivia/Columbia)

So would tiny countries like Luxemburg get to make decisions on behalf of the rest of the EU? Would Nicaragua negotiate on behalf of Brazil and Agentina?

Apart from that, what is the main advantage of realigning the world along geographical lines?

The current set up works (at leased used to work) because those with large military strength (in particular nuclear strength), regardless of where they were in the world, were represented on the SC. It is better to have them around the table discussing world issues than fighting each other which is a slightly increased possibility without this diplomatic channel. It works because goes with the power that is already there rather than against it.

mike65

Can't let Germany have a seat as they'll invade Poland..er sorry I seem to have an old script!

The whole ineffectual shooting match needs reform but as that wont happen
then India should get the nod at the expense of UK and France. The latter two would be represeted by a EU seat (watch the sparks fly).

Mike.

Victor

gom wrote:

Of the 3 countries mentioned for permanent seats(Brazil, India, Germany).

Separately, Japan has been mentioned / mentions itself.

Captain Trips

Victor wrote:

Separately, Japan has been mentioned / mentions itself.

Can anyone explain this relatively recent anti-UN vibe I am getting, even on the radio the other day.

If it wasn't here in the morning, what would be there instead? A return to closed door talks and a more divisive world?

If anything, people are blaming the UN for the ills of Darfur, etc., and lack of action yet chiefly the UN was born out of a need to form a collective between the anglo-saxon/european countries to stop them kicking each other's asses, and Japan. Now right or wrong, it's done that and the EU is quite harmonious (given the rest of the world) which is massive progress (and no it wasn't because the US "saved it").

Quite obviously, new international unions are undermined IMHO because they are born not from common interest in humanity and war but of trade and money - and these without a doubt conflict with the humanitarian ambitions of the UN. Does this not explain why the US ignores it? Because they have too many other trade/money/capital agreements and the UN/humanitarian issue would undermine those?

Sorry abotu off topic, but this anti-UN is something I've been picking up on recently and some Israeli foreign policy something proposing some new collection of civlisations thing? I can't find it on the net, I read it sometime last week.