| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Germany playing Iraq card in bid for permanent UNSC seat |
| 2004-07-25 |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #18 Are we still trying to reconcile this preposterous bid of Herr Schroeder? Duhhh. The seat warmed by France's butt should be rotated each year through the EU nation membership. All for one & one for all...pip,pip.. China should gets its disgusting giant useless butt kicked off the Security Council. End of story. It's embaressing to have China have any say in global affairs considering it's a corrupt communist theocracy and it offers zero peacekeeping troops to any global conflict and it probably offers next to zero financial support to the UN parasites. Throw China out on its ear and put Japan in the Security Council in China's place. That is, if anyone thinks the UN should continue to breathe in yen and US $. P.S. It's amazing what clarity of vision a bottle of Cakebread Cellars Chardonnay will give a person! |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-26 2:18:20 AM |
| #17 "..if the EU is a political and economic association of states..something like a United States of Europe then why should this entity two or three seats? " Being a "political and economic association" isn't enough to turn a simple organization into a federal nation. Or else not only the EU, but also the CIS, and perhaps even ASEAN or the African Union or a number of other "political and economic associations" would have to have only one member seat each in international organizations. Unlike the United States, and unlike all other federal nations, foreign policy isn't in the sole authority of the central EU government. *That's* the defining criterion -- whether the constituent parts have common or separate foreign policies. EU member states still have separate foreign policies. If it ever becomes that, if sovereignty in this area passes fully to the EU structure (same as e.g. fisheries policy or monetary policy in the Eurozone has passed), you are ofcourse correct that individual members wouldn't have any individual seats, the same way that they wouldn't have individual foreign policies. But up to now coordination of member-state foreign policies is something that can only be encouraged by the EU, not something that is enforced by treaty. It's voluntary on the part of the member states. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-26 1:52:59 AM |
| #16 Germany has no right to a seat as it stands today..if the EU is a polictical and ecomomic association of states..something like a United States of Europe then why should this entity two or three seats? Give the EU one seat and give one to india or brazil and japan... better yet pull out and the euros have all the fun |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-07-26 1:16:51 AM |
| #15 Let's give EU the US seat on the UNSC, that solution will bring happiness to the greatest number. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-25 7:31:09 PM |
| #14 Thanks. I was going by old estimates, it seems. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-25 11:54:43 AM |
| #13 India Population: 1,065,070,607 (July 2004 est.) CIA Factbook. Free on the web. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-07-25 11:40:47 AM |
| #12 India has over a billion people, as does China. So what? India doesn't yet have more than a billion people AFAIK, and the answer to "so what" concerns the basic democratic principle that a democratically elected government serves to *represent* that people. China isn't democratic. Germany has no more right to a seat on the UNSC than does France, because they're both now "sh*tty little countries" on the world scene with very little influence. And once again you confuse rights with realities, and claiming that because a country doesn't *have* influence it also doesn't have the *right* of influence. Do you know the difference between things-as-they-are and things-as-they-should-be? And as a sidenote, I doubt that a EU common foreign policy will include the UK (in the next couple centuries atleast). UK gets the rabies by the mere idea of the *rest* of the EU having a common foreign policy without UK herself being affected one bit, so I very much doubt it would consider actually *partaking* in one. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-25 11:30:49 AM |
| #11 The UN isn't the EU and even the EU has had lots of trouble with that population standard, viz. "new EUrope" and "old EUrope." India has over a billion people, as does China. So what? Germany has no more right to a seat on the UNSC than does France, because they're both now "sh*tty little countries" on the world scene with very little influence. Give it to Japan. (And if the EU could get it's stuff together, they should have one seat for all of them and as much as I hate to say it, that would include the UK as long as they're so EUrocentric). The UN is over. |
| Posted by: GreatestJeneration 2004-07-25 11:14:38 AM |
| #10 I say scap the UN then no one can argue about a veto. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2004-07-25 11:02:53 AM |
| #9 No country should have a veto. Arguments like "this country matters, this country doesn't matter, this country has nukes, this country has bases, this one is economically powerful, this one is weak" are all efforts to confuse the *reality* of power with the *moral right* to power. Or perhaps efforts to turn power de facto into power de jure. In which case I'd simply say: "Why should I support something like that?" It's like a dictator proclaiming himself king and claiming a divine mandate proven by the evidence of his strength. It's like a mobster calling himself mayor. If a country is so super-duper powerful by itself, then there's *less* need of it *also* having a veto, therefore increasing its power even more. Right now German has more right to have veto than UK or France, NOT because of its economic power, but because of its greater population. And that's the same reason Japan has in turn a greater right to a veto than Germany, and that's the same reason that a unified EU would have a greater right than Japan. The relative sizes of the populations involved. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-25 10:56:26 AM |
| #8 ...we don't accept embassies from Alberta and Quebec". That's not true in the case of Quebec. Quebec maintains shadow embassies around the world. (New York is the principal representative office in the US). Most folks aren't aware that Quebec maintains it's own immigration system separate from the Canadian Federal system. They've got a deal with Ottawa that allows them to run their own admission process and set their own criteria for entry. Quebec immigration recruiting offices are standing by to receive your application. If you are in the middle east, you will find the office in Damascus. (Need I say anymore?) |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2004-07-25 3:47:51 AM |
| #7 France has nukes, bases around the world, nukes, some projection capability and did I mention nukes? Gemany has neither. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-07-25 3:28:29 AM |
| #6 France should not have a veto - they do not matter militarily or economically, and would not matter at all in the world had they no UNSC veto. France should leave the permanent Security Council. Germany should not be there as a permanent member either unless they are willing to greatly increase their UN contributions, including troops. India, the worlds largest democracy should be there. And there is a good argument for Japan, the largest economy in Asia. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-07-25 1:55:07 AM |
| #5 I would say when EU has a Foreign Minister who sets EU foreign policy tent the EU gets a seat on Security council,but France and Britain lose theirs,with India getting the spare seat.I would also close all US embassies to constituent members of EU,as well as ask for closing of all such embassies in US.The same for UN,Eu gets member status,the constituent members lose theirs.After all,Florida,Idaho don't have embassies around world,and we don't accept emmbassies from Alberta and Quebec. If the EU sets foreign policy,what would be point in negotiating w/part of it?Russia doesn't negotiate w/Nebraska. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-07-25 1:37:26 AM |
| #4 This is a desparate move by a Schroeder government in crisis. An attempt to legitimize their opposition to the Iraq War and conjure up German nationalism in favor of Schroeder, who is going down. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-07-25 1:20:22 AM |
| #3 Germany? LOL. I don't think so, Herr Schroeder. If any country deserves a permanent UNSC seat, it's Japan. Japan is the largest donor to the UN. Japan's share even exceeds the USA's. And what prestige/power has Japan been given in return for its financial generosity? Nada, zero. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-07-25 1:12:58 AM |
| #2 This makes no sense. Fischer must've broken his brain coming up with this idea. The "profile" of Germany was never in doubt, just the sanity of their politics and politicians. Sorry, TGA, this buries Fischer, IMO, as being beyond recovery. I have only slight animus toward the German people for their anti-Bush frenzy pre-Iraq, but for their politicans who are in lock-step with Shroeder, I say fuck 'em. Yo Fischer, can you say UNSC veto? I knew you could. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-25 1:09:23 AM |
| #1 Great idea - they can replace France! |
| Posted by: A Jackson 2004-07-25 12:52:09 AM |