Author
|
Topic: U.N. security council. Who's idea was that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 03 August 2006 12:03 PM
Yes, it's pretty boring to have people try to undercut the UN when their only purpose is to give free rein to George Bush and his allies.Again, compared to the scandals in Washington, the stripping of the defence budget through non-competitive contracts, etc, any corruption in the UN is small in comparison. Imagine if someone had used the Sponsorship Scandal to argue that Canada is a bad idea. That makes no sense. If there is scandalous behaviour, you remove the guilty ones from office.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 03 August 2006 02:09 PM
There seem to be 2 issues here which some postures are obscuring.The UN -- which probably no babbler will take up as a worthless cause... and the Security Council -- the 5 permanent members of the Council are France, Russia, China, the UK and the US. Any one of these members can veto any resolution before them, stymieing the UN voice. Most recently the Security Council proposed an immediate ceasefire for all in the current Lebanon/Israel/Palestine crisis. The US vetoed. So yes, I think there are some clear problems with the Security Council of the UN.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 03 August 2006 02:28 PM
Well, Siren, the suggestion was that the Security Council be ABOLISHED. Your complaint is about the exercise of the veto power, which is a far less drastic proposal. That said, the great powers will not give up their veto power. At present, the US would probably use it as an excuse to leave the UN entirely if their veto were removed. All of us can find vetos which we think are wrong in principle. But the system which forces the members to come together and consult still has huge benefits. Even in the Iraq case, where Bush ignored the Security Council, his position was weakened, worldwide, as a result. It would be more democratic if UN decisions were taken more democratically. But that won't happen, not in this century.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 03 August 2006 02:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: Well, Siren, the suggestion was that the Security Council be ABOLISHED.
Hmm. I didn't get that from the original post. But for the rest of your post, I certainly agree. The question of whose idea was the security council -- perhaps someone has a better source than Wikipedia, but here goes: quote: The Council seated five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:The French Republic The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland The United States of America The Republic of China Two of the original members, the Republic of China and Soviet Union, were later replaced by recognized successor states, even though Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations has not been accordingly amended: The People's Republic of China The Russian Federation ......................... The current five permanent members of the Security Council are the only nations recognised as possessing nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although it lacks universal validity, as some nuclear nations have not signed the treaty. This nuclear status is not the result of their Security Council membership, though it is sometimes used as a modern-day justification for their continued presence on the body. India, Pakistan, possibly North Korea and Israel (though Israel has never itself admitted to nuclear weapons possession) possess nuclear weapons outside of the anti-proliferation framework established by the Treaty. As of 2004, four of the five permanent members are also the world's top four weapons exporters when measured by arms value; China is 7th. Each permanent member state has veto powers, which can be used to void any resolution. A single veto from a permanent member outweighs any majority. This is not technically a veto, rather just a "nay" vote; however any "nay" vote from a permanent member would block the passage of the resolution in question.
To the victor continue to go the spoils of war. I wonder if there might be more appropriate values on which to base membership in the Security Council.
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 03 August 2006 02:44 PM
Obviously, there has to be movement over who is a great power. It cannot be forever based on WWII.Probably Germany is a stronger power than France. But France has nuclear weapons. And maybe India belongs in there. Or Brazil? But these are maybe's to me. I am unsure how India's GNP compares to that of France, say. So, maybe some day there will be changes to the composition of the Security Council. I don't see it as a crucial or immediate question, though.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John K
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3407
|
posted 03 August 2006 03:06 PM
quote: Technically speaking what would the general assembly need to do in order to change the nature of the security council?
Amendments to the UN Charter are governed by Article 108 which reads as follows: "Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council." http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html This gives each of the permanent members veto power on changes to the Security Council. This makes reform difficult though not impossible. Back in the 1960s, Security Council membership was expanded from eleven to fifteen members. A current reform proposal is to add emerging regional powers (India and Brazil are most frequently mentioned) as permanent Security Council members though without a veto.
From: Edmonton | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 04 August 2006 08:52 AM
quote: Originally posted by astrocreep2000: just a few examples of what the global despots at the UN have been up to.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Those are examples of "opinions" and nothing more. The FreeReuplic now that is worth a: LMAO The World Net daily is worth a double: LMAO LMAO And the rest are just too pathetic to even waste a laugh,
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 04 August 2006 09:18 AM
quote: Period China* France Britain US USSR/ Russia Total Total 4-5 18 32 81 122 258 2006 - - - 1 - 1 2005 - - - - - - 2004 - - - 2 1 3
2003 - - - 2 - 2 2002 - - - 2 - 2 2001 - - - 2 - 2 2000 - - - - - 0 1999 1 - - - - 1 1998 - - - - - 0 1997 1 - - 2 - 3 1996 - - - - - 0
1986-95 - 3 8 24 2 37 1976-85 - 9 11 34 6 60 1966-75 2 2 10 12 7 33 1956-65 - 2 3 - 26 31 1946-55 (1*) 2 - - 80 83
Table compiled by Global Policy Forum from UN information
While Spector's analysis is not factually correct,his intent is. The US uses its veto whenever SC decisions are not aligned with American foreign policy objectives. The UN does need reform.Reform to mitigate the skew in power and control that the US currently enjoys.
Law of the Sea,ICC,Landmine Ban etc,who is the holdout that refuses to join the rest of the world?
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006
|
posted 04 August 2006 04:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by remind:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Those are examples of "opinions" and nothing more. The FreeReuplic now that is worth a: LMAO The World Net daily is worth a double: LMAO LMAO And the rest are just too pathetic to even waste a laugh,
If they are Laughable prove them wrong!Some people get their news from sources other than the Communist Brainwashing Corporation.
From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006
|
posted 04 August 2006 08:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed: Not our job to prove every unsubstantiated premise wrong, it's yours to show there's something to em beyond consistently skewed rightwing sources. Logic, accepted facts, consistent reasoning helps. And no, most of us aren't 'communists' either. Doesn't help your case to act like anything to the left of Fox News affiliates is Stalinist propoganda.
Fox news does not hide the fact it presents right wing bias.Unlike the MSM here in Canada which employs blatant subterfuge to promote Leftist ideals,as do many much of the media and around the world. Here is but one example of the medias ongoing crusade to demonize Israel. [Long url edited out by moderator to reduce sidescroll.] [ 13 August 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006
|
posted 04 August 2006 09:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by siren: astrocreep2000, would you please edit your url -- it is too long and causing sidescroll.Try this format: photo . Hit reply with quote to see the formatting. Thanks.
Sorry
From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
astrocreep2000
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13006
|
posted 04 August 2006 09:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by astrocreep2000:
Fox news does not hide the fact it presents right wing bias.Unlike the MSM here in Canada which employs blatant subterfuge to promote Leftist ideals,as do much of the media and around the world. Here is but one example of the medias ongoing crusade to demonize Israel. Long url edited by moderator to reduce sidescroll
[ 13 August 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: North of 45 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|