Article

2004-09-27 Europe

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 2004-09-27 12:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Um, am I missing something here. Can't any permanate member block this? France and Germany on the Security council? I don't think so. I hope Russia tells them all to piss off.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-27 12:06:08 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-27 12:06:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Let's give everyone a seat on the Security Council. It's what the UN deserves.

Posted by ed 2004-09-27 1:49:15 AM|| 2004-09-27 1:49:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 As I've said before, give them our seat. Throw in the building as a freebie. It's a win-win situation.

Posted by The Caucasus Nerd 2004-09-27 1:54:42 AM|| 2004-09-27 1:54:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 What a farce! pop-corn, please. I move that Germany be permanently barred from the Security Council!

The only countries deserving of veto power are the USA and Israel. The UK and Australia probably do too, although their local politics seem unfortunately unstable at the moment (and the British attitude towards Iran is puzzling).

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-09-27 8:13:48 AM|| [http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2004-09-27 8:13:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 France and Germany on the Security council? I don't think so.

Germany *is* in the Security council, just not one of the 5 permanent members thereof.

Abolish the veto altogether.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-27 9:02:14 AM|| 2004-09-27 9:02:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 1. Its absurd that Germany and Japan arent perm members of the UNSC. Really. The more you make the UNSC reflect world power reality, the more responsible you make it. Add them, you almost have to add India.
2. Yeah, that creates a problem if everyone gets a veto.
3. But, pace AK, you cant abolish the veto. See 1. If the UNSC passes things that great powers dont want, said great powers will ignore the UNSC. Abolishing the veto is a good idea only if you want to sink the UNSC.
4. The best way to reflect POWER REALITY would be to modify the veto as follows. It should take TWO vetos, not one to block a UNSC res. The US, OTOH, should get a double veto, to reflect its power and UN contributions. Thus a UNSC res would fail to pass IF any TWO permanent members opposed it, OR if the US opposed it. This would realign the UNSC with the actual real world power situation.

I dont expect it to happen any time soon though.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-27 9:22:02 AM|| 2004-09-27 9:22:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Aris--

Abolish the veto altogether.

You're too smart to write such nonsense.

Posted by BMN 2004-09-27 9:26:27 AM|| 2004-09-27 9:26:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Damn! This smells like Nationalism!

Posted by Shipman 2004-09-27 9:36:33 AM|| 2004-09-27 9:36:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 If the UNSC passes things that great powers dont want, said great powers will ignore the UNSC.

And now they're simply stopping everything that the UNSC would otherwise be able to do. How would the situation be worse if they just ignored the UNSC?

Abolishing the veto is a good idea only if you want to sink the UNSC

I've no particular interest in preserving the UNSC for the sake of UNSC alone. I've no particular interest in preserving a UN that can only do what Russia or China allows it to do.

Perhaps the "Great Powers" will ignore the UNSC. Or perhaps they'll throw a fit and huff their way out of it. Either way how will the situation be any worse than it currently is?

It'd still be a weak instrument that'd be facto impotent to oppose the great powers. It would at least not be *de jure* impotent.

Shipman> Competing imperialisms. Or colonialisms perhaps. Powerful countries needing to establish their inherent superiority in law. Getting veto powers to ensure that no uppity smaller nation will ever be able to push something they don't like.

Abolish the veto. If it's supposed to be a representation of influence in the world, then let the big countries use their influence by causing the other countries to vote in their favour.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-27 9:58:47 AM|| 2004-09-27 9:58:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 LH, your veto solution is very wise and its the one I have been promoting for some time (I think I published something about it here, too).

The major point here is: The UNSC is pointless if the nations that matter ignore it (which excludes your "solution", Kalle). Japan and Germany, the second and third largest economies in the world, are the second and third biggest financial contributors to the UN (Germany alone pays more than Russia and China together) and if I'm not mistaken no country has more blue helmets on the ground than Germany. Under the current system Germany will have to leave the UNSC at the end of the year, which will not promote Germany's willingness to take over more responsibilities worldwide.

The "split veto" would be a good thing. (Russia and China will of course never agree to have their veto split). The UK will not really suffer as it is extremely unlikely that the UK would ever vote against the U.S. AND a European veto power at the same time. The only thing that gets hurt will be French pride (so expect the French to boycot the whole thing). Yet the French have been so loud about a joint French-German presence so they will have problems to explain their move. And a joint French-German veto (which will not be the case all the time) is always better than a SINGLE French veto.

The truth that of course nobody wants to talk about it that the UNSC should not be enlarged. Its difficult enough to handle already. Replace 5 non permanent members with permanent ones and let only 5 non permanent members rotate. Of course everybody will yell out. But the UNSC should be a power instrument, not a place where nations that can't really contribute much to world peace and stability can feel special for 2 years. Let them talk in the General Assembly. Rogue states and brutal dictatorships should not be allowed at all in the UNSC (veto to keep them out).

Remember the panic that set in when the small nations where asked to tell us where they stand on Iraq?

Italy's protest has of course little to do with the UN... it's Berlusconi being possed that the "Big Three" shut him out again. I know Silvio gets a pass here because he supports Iraq but given his "stellar" performance when Italy presided the EU for six months I don't care too much about him.

The worst case scenario would be if the UNSC is enlarged and the U.S. vetoes Germany as a permanent member. This would really damage transatlantic relations.

Helmut Schmidt, who is still one of the wisest statesmen Germany has, does not promote Germany as a permanent member of the UN. I should add though that this probably applies to the current UNSC. An enlarged UNSC of say 25 members without Germany would not be understood here in Germany.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 10:06:42 AM|| 2004-09-27 10:06:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Aris, your "democratic solution" would work in a perfect world with 200 peaceful democracies. That's not what the UN represents.

What's the point if your beloved small nations want to "pass things". What the UNSC does is pass sanctions and enforce resolutions militarily if need to. And without the U.S. 99 percent of those resolutions are not worth the paper they're written on.

Realpolitik anyone?

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 10:13:22 AM|| 2004-09-27 10:13:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 saying the plan would boost the legitimacy of the UN

BWAHAHAHAHAHA...not possible, The UN has been a fraud for the past 30 years.
Americans must be masochists, if it wasn't for the US infusing that useless sack of shit with billions, it would have mercifully and rightly died long ago.
The EUroweenies think so highly of it it, let them have it.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-09-27 10:19:29 AM|| 2004-09-27 10:19:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 A better solution is for the UN to recognize the EU's new solidarity, remove France and Britain from the UNSC and replace them with a seat for the EU. Then let India and Japan finagle to see who gets the newly vacant seat.

Or, if the EU insists on still having multiple memberships, then the US should be given 49 more seats in the General Assembly, with the possibility that those reps could be on the UNSC.

Or, the most honest solution of all: Admit the UN is a criminal joke and just disband the damned thing.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-27 10:20:37 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-09-27 10:20:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 As I said I don't see any reason to enshrine de facto impotence into de jure impotence. The UN would either way be impotent of doing anything militarily without the "Great Powers". No reason to enshrine which countries are those in law however.

I'm also thinking of whether eventually the UN might be able to be transformed into a council of democracies. So far China and Russia would be able to block any insistence on human rights and any other internal issues. Would an abolition of the veto turn UN impotent, or simply cause tyrannies to leave it instead?

The "split-veto" is an improvement to the current system, but to allow USA a double veto when the other countries don't have one is even less likely to happen in real life than my own suggestion is.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-27 10:24:54 AM|| 2004-09-27 10:24:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Last comment was in response to TGA.

Robert, EU still has 25 foreign policies. If member states ever abolish their own individual foreign policies in favour of a European one, I'm guessing it will happen only the way that the Eurozone happened. A subset of the EU nations, letting others like Britain go their own way. And either way it's still far *far* in the future.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-27 10:29:07 AM|| 2004-09-27 10:29:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 another thread driven into the ether, thx Aris

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-27 10:41:50 AM|| 2004-09-27 10:41:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 No, thank *you*, Frank. Once again I had forgotten that in the good conformists' network only booing and cheering is allowed, not actual alternate suggestions.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-27 10:47:53 AM|| 2004-09-27 10:47:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Aris, you still haven't found your wits.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-09-27 10:50:32 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-09-27 10:50:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Aris--

I think you understand Europe a lot better than most Europeans (and most Rantburgers, obviously) and are more realistic than most of the ones I knew when I lived there (four years). You'll notice I don't make fun of the EU and indeed I try not to make generalizations about Europe. But Aris, you really don't understand the US. Without the veto, the US would absolutely leave the UN. No matter what John Kerry's personal feelings about the UN, he would withdraw--it's not just a George Bush thing.

Posted by BMN 2004-09-27 10:52:58 AM|| 2004-09-27 10:52:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 AK - weak though the UNSC is, it still sometimes gets things done.

A council of democracies - in theory i like it, but two problems. Excluding China would be dangerous to world peace. Its the number 2 power in the world, it needs to be kept in as long as possible. Second excluding China (and possibly Russia) gives too much weight to the US - I cant see France and Germany agreeing to that.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-27 11:04:26 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:04:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 BMN> Then let the UN die, and build the Global Council of Democracies in its place. No vetos but strict control of membership criteria.

Perhaps you are right and the UN *can't* exist without the veto. But the problem is that UN doesn't deserve (or have a point) to exist *with* the veto.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-27 11:04:40 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:04:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 *Sigh*

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 11:06:34 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:06:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Liberalhawk> "weak though the UNSC is, it still sometimes gets things done."

I'll have to take your word on that one.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-27 11:06:44 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:06:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris--

Then let the UN die, and build the Global Council of Democracies in its place

Would you put France in? France is of course a democracy, but it certainly isn't interested in building democracy anywhere else (and I don't just mean Iraq). Quite the opposite, actually.

Posted by BMN 2004-09-27 11:13:14 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:13:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 the beauty of the veto is that if France and Germany don't like it, they can kiss our behind.

The UN is a joke - we should stop footing the majority of the bill for it.

Posted by 2B 2004-09-27 11:16:24 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:16:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Should be a council not of democracies but of real powers with the ability and the willingness the step up to the plate when it comes to devoting real resources and political capital to the task of heading off collective security crises.

Call it the Council of the RealPowers, as in realistic and with real assets and really determined to arrive at solutions rather than posture for rhetorical effect. It should be limited to those RealPowers located along the arc of instability: SoK, Japan, China, Indonesia, Australia, India, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, Germany, Italy, France the UK and us. No need for anyone else from the Western Hemisphere or Africa.

Posted by lex 2004-09-27 11:17:00 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:17:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 Non-superpower representation by region = 7 Asian, 2 Eurasian, 3 EU powers.

A much more, shall we say, realistic allocation of seats than 2 EU - 1 Eurasian - 1 Asian.

Posted by lex 2004-09-27 11:21:41 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:21:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 BMN> Yeah. All countries rating as "Free" in the Freedom House system, and perhaps the highest rated of the "Partly Free" nations as well.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-27 11:23:43 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:23:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 Call them the "Free and Able"

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 11:25:18 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:25:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 "Free" is not synonymous with "serious". Canada brings next to zilch to these discussions. France and the UK bring nothing to the Korean issue. Straw's mission has retarded progress re Iran.

Time to dispense with the foolish notion that democracies will also perceive their interests to be aligned with ours, or will be willing to actually commit political and financial and military capital to solving grave problems.

And time to recognize that this is an Asian Century which, if it's to be at all stable, will require a major increase in constructive participation by China, Japan and India.

Posted by lex 2004-09-27 11:27:58 AM|| 2004-09-27 11:27:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 How about a contest? Any country ( and yes, I mean any country) who can successfully perform an underground nuclear blast of more than 1/2 megaton within six weeks gets a seat and a veto.

See ya, France. Write when you find work.

Posted by mojo 2004-09-27 1:45:22 PM|| 2004-09-27 1:45:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 mojo, France actually CAN do that.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 1:48:24 PM|| 2004-09-27 1:48:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Ok then : the U/G test AND a majority of your population showers on any given day?

Posted by Frank G 2004-09-27 1:52:49 PM|| 2004-09-27 1:52:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Frank G, I'd call it an urban legend that the French don't shower, at least in these times.

Try again :-)

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 1:55:55 PM|| 2004-09-27 1:55:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 the UNSC is NOT an alliance to deal with the WOT, or the arc of instability, as currently defined. Its where the worlds great powers, and representatives of the lesser powers, gather to do things that require the legitimacy of the world community. For those who think the world community has no legitimacy, theres no point to it, I understand. Might as well use other forums. But if it IS to have legitimacy, it must have SOME lesser power representation, or the rest of the world wont give it any legitimacy. OTOH it DOES have to represent real power. And that power CANT be too oriented to geographic positions - ie country A is important cause its near trouble spot X. That makes sense for ad hoc coalitions to deal with trouble spot X - thats NOT what the UNSC is.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-27 1:56:55 PM|| 2004-09-27 1:56:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Fine, of course we need legitimacy but look at the UNSC's recent track record: failed to prevent slaughter in Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq. Or if you think that reining in the hyperpower's key, the UNSC failed to prevent the US war to overthrow Saddam. Either way, the UNSC is more often irrelevant to great power behavior than not.

Posted by lex 2004-09-27 2:02:19 PM|| 2004-09-27 2:02:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Give Germany a seat, The one France has.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-27 2:04:40 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-27 2:04:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Please forgive me, but I believe the majority of you are mistaken w/ regards to the UN's role [cringing and ducking in anticipation of the backlash]. From the comments here, some see the UN as a great 'alliance' to throw weight around by decrees and military/economic influence to bitch-slap the rogue nations into line. Others see it as an intermediate step to legitimize 'internal law' and a 'world government'. IIUC it was only intended to be a big shared embassy designed to diplomatically avoid a crisis spiraling out of control and causing a conflict on the WWII scale. IMO, trying to make the UN into something else (by many differing motivations) has caused the UN to become the useless p.o.s. that it is today. Koffi is not the pres of a government. The position should be that of a referee and nothing else.

Posted by Psycho Hillbilly 2004-09-27 3:37:54 PM|| 2004-09-27 3:37:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Like it PH!
It's just like a big 'ole quilting bee for the poor girls, who make sure the new teacher don't git too funky with the boombox of love.

Posted by Festus 2004-09-27 4:50:07 PM|| 2004-09-27 4:50:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq.

Bosnia - the big powers were divided. ANY mechanism of uniting the big powers to act would have failed. With no UNSC, you would have had no UN forces there at all. Would that have avoided the massacre at Srebinica? I dont know, but I dont think there would have been a better overall result in Bosnia.

Rwanda - ditto - the French opposed action, and the US was not eager to act. The structure of the UNSC was not particularly the problem so much as lack of will and the US anxiety over another Somalia.

Iraq - youre not referring to 1991, are you? That worked out, and the UNSC was useful. THe subsequent resolutions, including 1441, are important as well. And despite the UNSC failure to pass a second res (which we probably should not have gone back for - Powell misjudged Chirac) the UNSC has been useful in passing resolutions on the postwar situation, which have enabled us to go forward.

Darfur - the UN has moved painfully slowly, but its moving. Again, I dont see any alternative structure that would do any better.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-27 5:01:28 PM|| 2004-09-27 5:01:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Make Clinton the General Secretary, he'd feel the pain of the third world and give the illusion of caring without the annoying problems associated with actually doing something about said problem.

Having said that the chances of enlarging the number of permenant seats is 0 because it requires a unanimous vote of the permenent members. France would never allow Germany or anyone else to take a seat because it would dillute their own power.

Knowing it cannot happen the US should champion the idea. Become the benefactor of those that want permenent seats and at the same time villify the French in the process. Consider this the reverse Kyoto, Europe knew the US wouldn't sign so they were all safe and had the moral high ground and could bash the US.

Oh, and if by some miracle it passes then it dillutes the power of the UN which is also a benefit. Win-win.

Posted by rjschwarz 2004-09-27 5:26:22 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-09-27 5:26:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 rjschwarz, both France and the UK have voiced their support for Germany, Russia and China seem to agree as well. The U.S. seems less inclined at the moment.

The French want their veto but they very much prefer not to use it alone.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 5:37:39 PM|| 2004-09-27 5:37:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Why does the EU need SC 3 votes? Again I say Germany gets Frances SC seat.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-09-27 5:44:19 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-09-27 5:44:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Rather than adding Germany to the UNSC, it would be better to remove France and the UK and replace them with the EU and Japan. Perhaps at some point in the future, India could be added. Having Germany, France and the UK all on the Security Council would be akin to the old USSR having three votes in the general assembly (Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia). Not a good idea then, not a good idea now.

Posted by RWV 2004-09-27 5:48:46 PM|| 2004-09-27 5:48:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Actually, stepping back a little, remember the purpose of the Security Council was to provide a stable framework for the world to live in peace. France and Germany are incapable of projecting any significant amount of military power. Further, none of the proposed new members can pony up anything resembling an expeditionary force. Therefore, in the spirit of the founders of the UN, the Security Council should be comprised only of those with enough deployable military to enforce the framework, notably the US, UK, Russia and China. Sorry France.

Posted by RWV 2004-09-27 5:53:59 PM|| 2004-09-27 5:53:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 RVW's comments certainly make sense. No teeth = pointless debating society.

I suggest that the UN, as was the case with the League of Nations and due to the veto being in the hands of those who have been party to its demise as a rational and effective body, should be replaced with something that actually makes sense. This current collection of the entire spectrum, from mullahcracy to thugocracy to monarchy to democracy, all with membership, makes no sense - and just won't ever work.

Design a new entity, taking the hard-won lessons of the UN into account. The purpose should be an entity which defends and promotes freedom. Freedom, for me, covers most of the other topics that people hold near and dear. It can sponsor outside entities, such as WHO, which provide valuable services to the world.

The freedom aspect is the key. Membership, voting rights, the whole lot should be reserved for free nations which have and keep their noses clean. No one else need apply or ever be admitted. Surely we can do better than the UN and having such absurdities as Libya holding the Human Right Commision chair becoming commonplace, no?

Perhaps, after a dozen more 9/11 events, it will become obvious enough and appealing enough for it to happen. I would certainly welcome Germany and even France - it's their elected leaders who've made a mockery of the UN and cooperation. If designed well, being caught in something such as the Food for Oil scam would be sufficient for suspending the voting rights of a nation until those involved were thrown out of Govt. There must be way, a design, a set of operating rules which can keep such an entity on-track and doing useful work.

If not, well, such is the state of the world. No organization is required, it's just desirable - if it works.

Posted by .com 2004-09-27 6:13:18 PM|| 2004-09-27 6:13:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 Two world Wars, the Holocaust and now Berlin wants additional world influence & power through the U.N. Security Council ..NO!

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-09-27 7:12:42 PM|| 2004-09-27 7:12:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Mark Espinola, I don't know what personal reasons you have for your passionate hate of Germany (which everything you comment on this country transpires), but sorry... reality changes.

Expecting Germany to be the third biggest financial contributor of the UN, expecting it to have more Blue Helmets serving in Afghanistan, Kosovo and other places and then denying it to have a say is not a strategy that is going to work.
This is a different Germany than 60 years ago. Are you going to deny Japan the same rights?
I have forgiven (and I may have more reasaons than you not to). Why can't you?

I'm not against a EU seat. But the EU doesn't have a common foreign policy it can agree upon (yet), nor are the UK and France willing to give up their seats.

OK you can leave things as they are. But an expanded UNSC of 25 seats without Germany (and Japan) would be rather absurd.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-27 9:31:14 PM|| 2004-09-27 9:31:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 TGA:

France claims to be able to do that...

Posted by mojo 2004-09-27 9:56:40 PM|| 2004-09-27 9:56:40 PM|| Front Page Top

20:56 Anonymous6693
06:35 Anonymous6334
06:29 Anonymous6334
06:26 Anonymous6334
06:20 Anonymous6334
06:17 Anonymous6334
18:46 Anonymous6334
18:35 Anonymous6334
15:35 Anonymous6334
15:26 Anonymous6334
15:22 Anonymous6334
19:47 Anonymous6334
19:37 Anonymous6334
18:23 Anonymous6334
14:32 Anonymous6334
08:14 Anonymous6334
17:37 Anonymous6334
16:16 Anonymous6334
23:34 Zenster
23:13 smn
23:11 .com
23:06 Anonymous6694
23:05 badanov
23:03 Lone Ranger