| Submit your comments on this article | |
| International | |
| Kofi Wants More UN Security Council Members | |
| 2003-09-10 | |
| Slightly EFL Hoping to use the Iraq crisis to We're relevant, really! While more specific proposals will be unveiled in his speech to the General Assembly in two weeks, Mr. Annan indicated that he would favor expanding the number of permanent Council members, now five nations, each with veto power, and the elected membership, 10 countries serving staggered two-year terms. "Besides, I've got these worthless idiot cousins I keep promising a job...." In a report issued shortly before the news conference, Mr. Annan said the decisions of the Security Council increasingly "lack legitimacy in the eyes of For once, he said something hard to argue with.
I hope I got all of the Coalition of the Willing's names in the last paragraph. My apologies if I missed one of them. | |
| Posted by:Baba Yaga |
| #12 ...Of course the Council of Democracies won't solve the French Problem, but it will force far greater standards of responsibility upon members eligible to join. At present the UN is shot through with hypocrisy. Trying to argue the case for invading Iraq and overthrowing SH around a table with the likes of China and other dictatorships, whilst Libya heads a Human Rights commission down the corridor and starts criticising the US with a posse of third world dictatorships, is an absolutely ludicrous situation. And such a total lack of standards is what allows representatives of such countries as France (and, to a lesser extent, your own) to make such abominable and indefensible displays of cynicism, knowing they'll be supported by a large number of club members who are the 'bully boys' notionally representing entire countries but in fact representing only the interests of a few. There are enough democracies now to make such a global council possible. Something like the EU, but without the monstrous obssession with, and desire for, centralised control... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-9-11 7:01:11 AM |
| #11 Logical, TGA, but highly undesirable. US, Russia, China as the big three? Giving Russia and China such enhanced power makes things worse than before. Nah, let it remain as it is: discredited in concept and impotent. The French did the world a favour by showing how open to corruption the system of the security council is. What's really needed is a new council, of democracies. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2003-9-11 5:16:25 AM |
| #10 If the UNSC wants to be something like a reflection of power, it should have the countries which HAVE some power to do things. My suggestion: Expand to 20. USA, Russia and China veto powers, UK, France (you cant get rid of it), Germany, Japan and India are "half veto powers" (means, they need to combine 2 vetos to block something). These countries should be permanent members. The other ten should rotate, without veto powers. I might add that Germany is the second biggest money contributor to the UN (after the U.S.). With the current system it would have to leave at the end of next year (which might be just in time when we get a sane government again). |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2003-9-10 11:34:21 PM |
| #9 They want a seat at the table, they've got to ante up. Bigtime. In US $. In God We Trust, all others pay cash. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-9-10 10:54:55 PM |
| #8 Patrick: Actually, the UN was designed to be a world government. In 1941 Roosevelt and Churchill announced the Atlantic Charter calling for the "establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security" following the war. In 1943 the U.S. House of Representatives passes the Fulbright Resolution calling for the "creation of appropriate international machinery with power adequate to establish and to maintain a just and lasting peace, among the nations of the world." In the late stages of the War, when the United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union were debating the structure of a future global organization, several proposals for a regional approach to international peace and security were made. The most notable was the British proposal based around the creation of regional commissions for Asia, Europe and the Americas. These regional commissions, led by a Great Power, would in turn report to a world council made up of Great Powers. Roosevelt was, however, in favour of a universal organization. Claiming that the League of Nations was in effect a regional organization, Roosevelt feared that the Senate would reject regionalism out of fear that it would lead to further conflict. In addition, Roosevelt believed that a regional commission for the Americas was not needed. Beyond this, the decline of the stability of the alliance between the Great Powers led Roosevelt to conclude that a universal organization was the only way to ensure global stability. Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill eventually agreed to the more centralized Security Council, recognizing that each of the Great Powers would have the ability to block actions by using their veto. The U.N charter had envisaged a regular military force available to the Security Council and directed the creation of the Military Staff Committee to make appropriate plans. The committee—consisting of the chiefs of staff (or their deputies) of the Big Five—was unable to reach agreement, with the USSR and the other four states on opposing sides; thus no regular forces were established. |
| Posted by: . 2003-9-10 2:53:25 PM |
| #7 The only thing the United Nations has ever been good for is to siphon off money that could best be used to a better purpose. Not only is membership a major need for reform, so is fiscal responsibility. Today, that responsibility is non-existent. If that major problem isn't addressed, all the bandaids in the world won't fix the UN. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-10 2:29:22 PM |
| #6 Patrick - Bravo! 100% agreement! The UN is a grand idea - that has failed due to a flawed format. Something better, with features such as you listed, can be designed and formed... A UN of the Willing, so to speak... Melike. |
| Posted by: .com (a.k.a. Abu This!) 2003-9-10 12:35:01 PM |
| #5 Give me a round of Vetos for all my friends. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-10 11:53:25 AM |
| #4 The problem here was the U.N. was never designed to be a world government but people are attempting to use it as one. It has no checks and balances and has horrible representation. The Europeans are over represented (2 vetos alone), non-representative governments are over-represented (2 vetoes in Russia and China). There is no apparent "Requirements" to be a member other than not being Taiwan. Today countries are forming together and creating essentially political parties within the U.N. further eroding it. Has one asked if Europe is prepared to give up its multiple votes (including its dual vetoes) when the EU if formally created? If not then why doesn't the United States get more than one vote? Look at these numbers I compiled during the first U.N. vote U.S.... pop 280+million GDP 11+trillion U.K ... pop 60+million GDP Around 1.7 trillion France .pop 50+million.. GDP Around 1.5 trillion Germany pop 80+million... GDP Around 2.1 trillion As you can see the BIG three of europe do not even come close to the U.S. in populatation or GDP, while in the U.N. we get one lousy vote. Plus this helps highlight that the Europeans are really in no place to help us in Iraq, especially since their economies are in much worse shape than ours with Much higher social spending rates. If you truely want a workable organziation I believe you are going to have to scrap the U.N. and form something new, with better representation and some membership requirements. The current members that are over represented are never going to give up the power they currently have period. |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-9-10 11:51:21 AM |
| #3 The UNSC is irrelevant in part cause the Perm5 reflect the power balance of 1945(when France and UK had empires) , not 2003. Hard to kick current P5 off, (and would we really want UK off,or diluted into an EU seat?) So best bet would be to expand. Germany, Japan, and India belong. Which would make a Perm8. Paralysis would be a problem - at least for those of us who actually want the UNSC to be effective. One option would be to allow a UNSC res to pass unless TWO permanent members voted no - but this would presumably be unacceptable to US, Russia, and China. (UK and France would have to be thankful theyre kept as perm members) So possibly leave US, Russia, and China with an absolute veto? Thus recognizing two ranks of great powers? More realistic would be to give an absolute veto to the US alone, thus more realistically representing the real power situation - but Russian and Chinese support for reforms would be needed, especially when the muslims start complaining about absence of a muslim power. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-9-10 11:06:19 AM |
| #2 Short answer: Yes. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-9-10 2:10:07 AM |
| #1 For once I find myself 100% on Kofi's side. I think it would be swell if UNSC had twice or even 20 times as many veto-weilding members as it has now-- never mind if they rotate while weilding their vetoes-- they may even do somersaults while they rotate for all I care-- since the more members of UNSC, the more certain that it will become as irrelevant as UNGA where (I quote Kofi)"Decisions can often be reached only on a lower-common-denominator basis and, once reached, command little or no attention beyond the confines of the... chamber." Sounds good to me! But then, I am all for anything that reduces the prestige and influence of the U.N.... But Kofi? Is this guy really this stupid? |
| Posted by: TPF 2003-9-10 1:32:24 AM |