Today on Blogcritics
Home » And We’re Off: UN Security Council Expansion

And We’re Off: UN Security Council Expansion

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
The race to see who secures further permanent seats on the UN Security Council has begun. The G-4, a group made up of Japan, Germany, Brazil, and India, has submitted a plan that would insert a representative from South America’s leading economy, a nation that also is home to more Catholics than any other. Shirin Tahir-Kheli the US Ambassador to the UN is at loggerheads with the Secretary General Annan, among others. While opposing the current expansion of the UN security council, the US has not ruled out the possibility of it being done in the future and has backed Japan to be among that number. Tahir-Kheli made plain the US position by stating the following positions:
Tahir-Kheli presented four reasons for the U.S. position:
  • – A vote would be divisive at this time;
  • – Locking in a particular mode of council expansion now would interfere with the ability to shape a proposal later that would stand a reasonable chance of securing the requisite ratifications to amend the U.N. Charter;
  • – Those nations accorded permanent seats should meet appropriate criteria for the tremendous duties and responsibilities they will assume; and
  • – Expansion should not affect the council’s efficiency.
The first is a moot point as it will always be divisive to vote among ones selves who gets to be elevated to the top of the heap, the last is moot as the UNSC is only slightly more efficient than fighting fires with a thimble full of water at a time, the others are very valid points though.
With the potential advent of the EU’s coherent foreign policy, it seems redundant to add any more members from that body, which should leave Germany out in the cold. Japan really should be a gimmie for inclusion as they have one of the worlds top economies and the third largest navy. Brazil while vital in terms of regional comparison is still in need of serious work on its overall economic and military might, likewise for India.
The African Union has submitted their own resolution, and I find myself wondering how they managed this trick of willful gross exaggeration of their own importance.

Cross posted here:

REF:Aaman

Powered by

About TheCO

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    And adding more bureaucracy is going to help the fact that the UN has become more about self-enrichment of crooks than humanitarian aid how?

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com TheCO

    I don’t recall saying it was going to help anywhere in there…

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Amazon link please

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Japan and Germany, yes.

    Brazil? Maybe.

    India? Yes.

    Pakistan could make a case as well, with some reforms…

    And what about Australia or Canada? Or Italy or Spain or Poland?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Or even Nigeria or Bangladesh?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Why not put everyone on the security council, or just get rid of the damned thing. The UN isn’t a representative body and the security council is part of the problem. The structure should be completely changed to assign seats based on population and GDP of the countries so that each country has representation proportional to its population and economic power. Then you wouldn’t need a security council.

    dave

  • http://iwt.blogspot.com TheCO

    In this case i have to agree with the official policy. If a country doesn’t have the economic and military clout to be intimidating, and to contribute to any UN actions they don’t need to be there. Germany may have the economy, but the military commitment is lacking.