Article

2005-08-08 International-UN-NGOs

China vows to veto enlarged UN council plan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2005-08-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Well when you bully your way on to the security council in the first place you have to be expected to throw your weight around

Posted by Cheaderhead 2005-08-08 00:31|| 2005-08-08 00:31|| Front Page Top

#2 Maybe I missed something, how would expanding the council be bad? Doesn't china always stymie anything we want to do? Doesn't India have a population aproaching china's? Is brazil not considered a formidable first-world economy now? Someone help me out here, I must not be getting it.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2005-08-08 01:38|| 2005-08-08 01:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Other than South Africa and Egypt, every other nation in Africa in incapable of exerting military power abroad in the name of peace or a diversified coalition - There's a reason why its called the Security Council. A helluva lot of pragmatic considerations/presumptions are going to have to be made and SACRIFICED iff this current proposal is going to work - at best, the current proposal is asking for trouble and its not even accepted or implemented yet.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2005-08-08 02:06|| 2005-08-08 02:06|| Front Page Top

#4 The guys who want on the Sec Council include Brazil (notably anti-american in just about ALL their UN dealings), Germany (I can see the heebee jeebees being raised by Europeans in general here), the Japanese (as much as they're our allies, just about every asian/southeast asian country is gonna have heebee jeebees of the sort the europeans are having about germany on a permanent security council), and finally india which tends to be liberal socialists in there government workings.

Of the G-4 nations we can pretty much be sure of only Japan often siding with us but this also adds an element of a veto cropping up more often, not because of them having the power to veto which they wont have but rather because of the possible proposals or negatory views they might issue via resolutions, thereby negating any binding resolutions effectively. The Permanent seats for Africa is also another no go for the same reasons.

Watching this play out though is quite fun.

Posted by Valentine 2005-08-08 04:13|| 2005-08-08 04:13|| Front Page Top

#5 I'm sure there must be a bookmaker somewhere giving odds. I'll see what I can find.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-08 04:16|| 2005-08-08 04:16|| Front Page Top

#6 No betting I could find on UNSC, but the money sez Bin Laden or Zaqawi won't be captured any time soon.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-08 04:42|| 2005-08-08 04:42|| Front Page Top

#7 Sounds pre-emptive, to me. India and Japan, as mentioned, are obvious candidates - neither of which would be acceptable to the ChiComs. This way they haven't named names aloud ("face" is such an interesting game), yet everyone knows who they would object to.

The UN is D.E.A.D. Assuming it ever really did, it long ago it ceased to function in the manner envisioned. Given the way things shape up today, I no longer believe it's better to try to kill it and work to get anyone to go along. No, now, we should just withdraw our excessive funding, keep our UNSC seat, and veto everything that comes down the pike that isn't in our absolute best interests.

I think I almost have enough fingers to count all of the nations that would go along with formally killing it. And the same is true of how many nations I would believe should be involved as founders of a replacement. Those two lists would likely be the same, anyway.

Seems to me that we should reduce US funding to 191th of the budget and stick to bilateral agreements for dealing with the real world... and let this disaster suffocate, scream its bloody head off, go fishing, whatever.

IMHO, about 180 of the 191 (still accurate?) "member states" should have little or no say in the running of a global forum. And I count China in that group, of course.

Posted by .com 2005-08-08 05:19|| 2005-08-08 05:19|| Front Page Top

#8 India deserves this veto from China. Stupidity deserves insults like this.
It is Karma.

The USA consulted with the USSR in 1955 and offered a permanent seat with veto to India.

India's then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru responded with

"The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place, and then the question of India might be discussed separately,"

He was full of love for his commie chinese brethern. He wanted them on the UNSC.

When the Chinese attakced India in 1962 and delivered a serious butt whipping (they still occupy a huge chunk of Kashmir), it sped Nehru to an early grave. He was heartbroken over the end of Hindi-Chini-bhai-bhai ("indians and chinese are brothers").

In another bit of stupidity, Nehru handed over the cocos islands to Burma, as a token of brotherly love.

The Chinese have leased the island from Burma and built a surveilance station and military base there.

Nehru signed the Indus waters treaty with Pakistan, handing over the output of three Indian rivers to Pakistan and giving it more water, even though it was a smaller country. He hoped it would lead to brotherly love with pakistan.

The paks attacked in 1965 and launched a Jihadi terror campaign in 1988 that continues unabated.

Karma.

Vajpayee in 2000, signed an agreement with China where India recognized Chinese control of Tibet.
In response China simply changed a map where it showed Sikkim as non-Indian.
China did not officially acknowledge Sikkim as Indian. It also claims an entire Indian state as Chinese territory.

Karma

It is building all weather roads on its borders with India that can carry heavy armor.
It has stationed SRBMs in Tibet.

Karma.

Posted by john 2005-08-08 11:29|| 2005-08-08 11:29|| Front Page Top

#9 The icing on the cake was of course the Chinese arming of Pakistan with both nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Compared to that the chinese veto is nothing..

Posted by john 2005-08-08 15:37|| 2005-08-08 15:37|| Front Page Top

#10 Good summary, John.

Posted by phil_b 2005-08-08 17:10|| 2005-08-08 17:10|| Front Page Top

#11 Ima think this John fellow has long memory.

Posted by Walter Mondale 2005-08-08 17:12|| 2005-08-08 17:12|| Front Page Top

#12 Was that John.....Bolton?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-08-08 18:10|| 2005-08-08 18:10|| Front Page Top

#13 You can scrap the army

"We don't need a defence plan. Our policy is non-violence. We foresee no military threats. You can scrap the army. The police are good enough to meet our security needs." - Jawaharlal Nehru - 1947

"I remember many a time when our senior generals came to us, and wrote to the defence ministry saying that they wanted certain things... If we had had foresight, known exactly what would happen, we would have done something else... what India has learnt from the Chinese invasion is that in the world of today there is no place for weak nations... We have been living in an unreal world of our own creation."
Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajya Sabha, 1963

Posted by john 2005-08-08 21:20|| 2005-08-08 21:20|| Front Page Top

23:54 JosephMendiola
23:40 smn
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:25 Sherry
23:24 Jackal
23:17 bigjim-ky
23:11 bigjim-ky
23:11 Poison Reverse
22:59 Art
22:58 Jan
22:45 3dc
22:37 macofromoc
22:27 CrazyFool
22:26 Glenmore
22:25 CrazyFool
22:25 Frank G
22:24 Frank G
22:24 mmurray821
22:22 Sherry
22:18 mmurray821
22:11 CrazyFool
22:06 Poison Reverse
21:51 rkb