Aussie PM wants to demote the French in the U.N. Security Council - Page 2

Spiffor · April 19, 2003, 02:36

I think there is one underlying good idea behind this. The SC must be reformed, badly. It is not representative of the power balance of today. Even though France is one of the strongest players on the diplomatic/military scene, the veto system is completely outdated.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:38

It would work out to a loss of the UK's seat, not France's, Drake...

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This is a good idea; Europe doesn't warrant two permanent seats on the Security Council. They should get rid of France's seat, make the UK's seat an EU-appointed one and add India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and possibly a seat chosen by the Arab League. The Security Council needs to be more representative of the world's population; the loss of France is just a nice side-effect of this noble goal.

What about when Europe appoints a Frenchman?

Drake Tungsten · April 19, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

It would work out to a loss of the UK's seat, not France's, Drake...

Not necessarily. It would depend greatly on how the EU decides to appoint the seat. If they allow every state in the EU to have an equal vote, I can certainly see New Europe voting the UK into the seat over France or Germany.

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:41

It appears that the clean air in the North leads to clearer heads and more foresight.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:41

Or a German? The UK would never get a turn, for sure. Only Italy and Spain would have a chance.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

It would work out to a loss of the UK's seat, not France's, Drake...

Not necessarily. It would depend greatly on how the EU decides to appoint the seat. If they allow every state in the EU to have an equal vote, I can certainly see New Europe voting the UK into the seat over France or Germany.

"New Europe" isn't in the EU yet.

Drake Tungsten · April 19, 2003, 02:45

Quote:

Or a German? The UK would never get a turn, for sure. Only Italy and Spain would have a chance.

Why does it matter? My point is that Europe doesn't deserve two seats; I don't really care who they appoint as long as they only get one.

You might be able to make a case for keeping the UK seat around to represent the Commonwealth nations, but I think that they would be adequately represented under my scheme.

Quote:

"New Europe" isn't in the EU yet.

They will be by the time any serious reform of the Security Council takes place.

Jaguar · April 19, 2003, 02:45

Brazil and South Africa shouldn't be on the council just because they are the strongest country on their continent. France has more influence in Africa than South Africa does. And France isn't that powerful. Brazil could be a permanent non-veto member. (Although if they were given a veto I doubt they'd use it.)

I like the idea of permanent members with no veto. It would end up somewhat like this:

Veto:
UK
USA
Russia
China

Permanent:
Japan
France
Germany
India
Brazil

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 02:46

Excuse me, but the Brits already have a veto.

But the real question is, if this is a true democratic regime, why should anyone have a veto?

And if we don't, why should we join?

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:46

I don't like your scheme.

One Flag. One Fleet. One Empire!

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:47

By who?

If we're going to democratise it, we should give the North American free trade countries one seat, to be elected by a one-country, one-vote system.

Wanna bet we'd win every time?

Drake Tungsten · April 19, 2003, 02:48

Quote:

Brazil and South Africa shouldn't be on the council just because they are the strongest country on their continent.

They aren't going to be on the SC because of their strength; they'll be on it because they are the best voice for Latin American and sub-Saharan African views.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:48

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't like your scheme.

One Flag. One Fleet. One Empire!

*sniff

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:49

*sniff*

cinch · April 19, 2003, 02:49

Quote:

Why does it matter? My point is that Europe doesn't deserve two seats; I don't really care who they appoint as long as they only get one.

Why doesn't Europe deserve two spots? There is a lot of power concentrated there.

If you want to go by strictly by representing the world's population, then India and China should have at least twice as much as the U.S. in SC decisions.

Quote:

You might be able to make a case for keeping the UK seat around to represent the Commonwealth nations, but I think that they would be adequately represented under my scheme.

Adequately represented by who? South Africa? Even the U.K. doesn't represent the wishes of a lot of commonwealth nations these days.

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 02:49

Damn right!! And move the building to Ottowa!

Drake Tungsten · April 19, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Wanna bet we'd win every time?

Sure. We actually have sticks and carrots to pressure the Mexicans with. What the hell is Canada going to do to get Mexico on their side?

cinch · April 19, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Damn right!! And move the building to Ottowa!

Yes! Let's make Jean Chretien Prime Minister Of Earth!

Who's with me?!

(ducks tomatoes)

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Brazil and South Africa shouldn't be on the council just because they are the strongest country on their continent. France has more influence in Africa than South Africa does. And France isn't that powerful. Brazil could be a permanent non-veto member. (Although if they were given a veto I doubt they'd use it.)

I like the idea of permanent members with no veto. It would end up somewhat like this:

Veto:
UK
USA
Russia
China

Permanent:
Japan
France
Germany
India
Brazil

Same stupid idea. You've managed to exclude all of continental europe from veto power, but have included the UK. "Gee, that ain't fair" is exactly what europe would think. And they'd be right. The UK is just about the black sheep of europe and you've chosen it to represent them?

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:52

Not Ottawa! Nooooooooooo!

Montreal would be good. Winnipeg definitely not. Might get the different levels confused. Vancouver? All of them would be too busy enjoying the scenery to get up to too much mischief then.

Calgary if you want them to go to hell.

Jaguar · April 19, 2003, 02:52

We should not give any new nations vetoes. Even India. If anything we should lose the veto system. When there were talks of a second resolution on Iraq (and yes, I know its really 19th or whatever, but you know what I mean) France said it would veto, so the US and company just went to war without the resolution. No matter what your opinion on the war, I'm sure you all can agree that wasn't a good effect. That's directly caused by the veto system. I'd prefer we revoked everyone's vetos.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Wanna bet we'd win every time?

Sure. We actually have sticks and carrots to pressure the Mexicans with. What the hell is Canada going to do to get Mexico on their side?

You've got nothing left after the way the Bush has been treating the poor mexicans...

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 02:53

Quote:

Originally posted by cinch

Yes! Let's make Jean Chretien Prime Minister Of Earth!

Who's with me?!

(ducks tomatoes)

Cool with me, as long as we withdraw!

cinch · April 19, 2003, 02:54

Quote:

Calgary if you want them to go to hell.

These boards need more Anti-Calgary humour!

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:55

That was for Asher.

Drake Tungsten · April 19, 2003, 02:56

Quote:

Why doesn't Europe deserve two spots? There is a lot of power concentrated there.

If you give out seats based on power, then the US deserves at least two. That's not going to happen, so why should Europe get two?

Quote:

Adequately represented by who? South Africa? Even the U.K. doesn't represent the wishes of a lot of commonwealth nations these days.

The US and the EU seats would represent Canada and Australia. South Africa would cover the African members. India would represent itself. Singapore has China. Malaysia and Pakistan are left out, but we can't get everyone.

On second thought, Pakistan or Malaysia would be a good representative of the Muslim world. Maybe they should give a seat to the pan-Muslim organization (forget what it's called) instead of the Arab League.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
We should not give any new nations vetoes. Even India. If anything we should lose the veto system. When there were talks of a second resolution on Iraq (and yes, I know its really 19th or whatever, but you know what I mean) France said it would veto, so the US and company just went to war without the resolution. No matter what your opinion on the war, I'm sure you all can agree that wasn't a good effect. That's directly caused by the veto system. I'd prefer we revoked everyone's vetos.

The French are a distant 4th in vetoes used since the institution of the SC. The Russians and the Americans take the cake on that one. You'd see a hell of a lot more SC resolutions telling Israel to **** off without vetoes.

Read the link I gave earlier...IIRC something like half of US vetoes deal with Israel, and most were solo vetoes.

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 02:57

Hey now, I've been to Calgary, its beautiful. Well, only because of it's surroundings, but anyway.

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Adequately represented by who? South Africa? Even the U.K. doesn't represent the wishes of a lot of commonwealth nations these days.

The US and the EU seats would represent Canada and Australia.

Speak for yourself Yankee.

Rule Britannia...