You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
US backs Japan to join security council
2005-06-17
The US threw its weight behind an expansion of the UN security council that would take in Japan as a permanent member yesterday but not the other prime contender from the developed world, Germany. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said Washington backed a limited expansion from 15 members to about 20, with "two or so" new permanent ones, including Japan.

The secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, confirmed American support for Japan's permanent council seat in a telephone call to the country's foreign minister.

Mr Burns said the new permanent members should have the same veto powers as the existing five - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China. He did not specify which other country should take a new permanent seat, but US officials have been quoted as suggesting that the candidate come from the developing world.
That's a bad idea. SC countries with a veto have to have the economic, political and diplomatic power to make things happen. Only developing country that could meet those criteria would be India. Otherwise just expand to include Japann and be done.
He said the US hoped the restructuring of the security council would be part of a comprehensive reform of the organisation to be discussed at a summit in September.

Washington's strong backing of Japan, and its failure to mention other contenders by name, was a blow to Germany, which has been campaigning for a permanent seat.
And not the least bit unexpected, especially here at Rantburg.
The structure of the security council has not changed for more than three decades, since China joined the main victors of the second world war as a permanent member. Along side the permanent five, there are 10 other seats which are rotated every two years.

Mr Burns said the US accepted that the time for change had come: "The United States recognises that the security council needs to look more like the world of 2005 than the world of 1945." Germany, Brazil and India had lobbied for a bigger expansion, with six extra permanent seats and four rotating ones bringing membership to 25. Mr Burns said that would make the council unwieldy.

He said the US would propose new criteria for choosing security council members next week. Geographical balance would play a role but other criteria would include the size of a country's economy, population and armed forces as well as its ability to contribute to peacekeeping missions. He said the candidate country's record on democracy, human rights, UN contributions, counterterrorism and non-proliferation should also be taken into account.

Ms Rice said the restructuring should not take precedence over the other reforms the US is seeking. "We will not let the security council reform sprint out ahead," she said.

The Bush administration believes the UN should operate under stricter financial and management controls, and has secured the appointment of a state department financial officer, Chris Burnham, as the UN's newly-created under secretary for management.
There's a score.
Washington is also backing reforms suggested by the secretary general, Kofi Annan, in cluding the replacement of the human rights commission, in which dictatorships often sat in judgment on democracies, by a smaller council that would exclude all countries that lack personal liberty and the rule of law countries under sanction for abuses.
Posted by:Steve White

#7  remember how, when you were a kid, you sat at the kids' table and decisions were something you got on a rare basis? Remember how later, you got to sit atth eadults' table but didn't get all teh adult privileges? Like how Mom got Jack Daniels in a water glass....


oh, wait, nevermind
Posted by: Frank G   2005-06-17 20:31  

#6  Maybe we oughta clean up what's there before making any changes?

Just a thought...
Posted by: mojo   2005-06-17 20:30  

#5  Whilst I agree the UN is unreformable, it doenst mean the US shouldn't play the game. The US is saying 'if we are going to reform the UNSC, this is how we would do it using our criteria.' I think the un-named second country is India. The 'reforms' can now progress towards their inevitable failure, without the US being seen to obstruct the process. Otherwise I think the new members should have vetos, not least because it dilutes the French/China/Russia vetos.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-06-17 19:30  

#4  RJS - I would agree if I thought it could be / should be reformed - and was thus attempting to rally support. But I don't think that at all. I think it's a dead rat on the kitchen floor. :-)
Posted by: .com   2005-06-17 19:08  

#3  .Com, if the Chinese will never allow the addition of Japan then the US has nothing to lose and everything to gain by championing the Japanese seat. We can look good to the Japanese while showing the world how impossible the UN really is when the number 2 economy in the world doesn't qualify.
Posted by: RJSchwarz   2005-06-17 19:01  

#2  hear that noise? that was history jibbing
Posted by: Half   2005-06-17 14:07  

#1  Oh yeah, the ChiComs will sit still for this, lol!

I cannot see anything that all five perm UNSC members agree on and would all vote "Yes" on. This expansion thing, unless somebody seriously screws up or pulls a massive under the table deal, just won't happen - especially if a veto is attached.

Tear it up and start over. What we have just won't work - it's fatally flawed. It's worse than worthless, it's expensive and divisive over everything, from trivia to genocide. *flush*

Start over or put the whole freakin' idea on ice.
Posted by: .com   2005-06-17 00:44  

00:00