Putin calls for more U.N. veto power

Bakersfield Californian ^ | 12/4/04 | Neelesh Misra - AP

[NormsRevenge]

NEW DELHI (AP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected a key recommendation of a United Nations panel on expanding the Security Council, saying Saturday that any reform would be one-sided if new members did not have veto power.

Putin also backed India's aims to become a permanent member. A high-level U.N. panel called Wednesday for expanding the 15-nation Security Council as part of a sweeping revamp of the world body. The panel presented two options: adding six new permanent members or creating a new tier of eight semi-permanent members - two each from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas.

However, panel members agreed that only the current five permanent members - the post-World War II powers the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - should retain veto power.

Putin disagreed.

"If we go to the enlargement of the permanent seats of the Security Council, I am convinced that they should have the veto power," Putin was quoted as saying by Associated Press Television News. "Otherwise, it will be a one-sided reform of the United Nations."

The panel was commissioned by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan after last year's bitter divisions over the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The United States had to abandon an attempt to get U.N. approval because of sharp opposition from France, Germany, Russia and other council members.

A possible council expansion has been on the U.N. agenda for more than a decade. But expansion faces major obstacles, including decisions on how large it should be, which countries should be permanent and which countries should have veto power.

Putin said if there was no veto for the new members, all vetoes would have to go.

"If we agree that future permanent members should not have veto power, the next step would be the abolition of veto power," he said. "But the veto power is an efficient instrument of international relations."

Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have joined forces to lobby for permanent seats.

In meetings with Indian officials, Putin "felt that India as a new member should have the full rights of permanent membership, including the right of veto," India's foreign ministry said in a statement. "If India achieves a permanent seat in the Security Council, it cannot be a permanent member of a second rank."

[Constantine XIII]

Great idea, Pootie Poot!

How about we let Ukraine in? :D

[DTogo]

They can have our empty seat, and host the UN elsewhere after we leave and boot them all out!

[inquest]

Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected a key recommendation of a United Nations panel on expanding the Security Council, saying Saturday that any reform would be one-sided if new members did not have veto power.

I'm up for giving new members veto power. Anything that jams the works in the UN has my vote.

[RtWngr]

I think their new headquarters should be in a double wide that moves from genocide to genocide.

[bannie]

I've said it before--just before:

Putin: World's largest producer of gall

:) worth repeating?

[ProfoundMan]

Does veto power extend to the election of a new Secretary General? Can the US stop Bubba from taking that office. Like you, I'm all for making the UN as ineffectual as possible but if Putin's FOR the new member veto I'm skeptical that it'll be advantageous for the US. And if Bubba's on his way in then the UN should be castrated before he can do his handywork

[inquest]

Personally, I think it would be a riot if Clinton took over the SG slot. Each year the "American Sovereignty Restoration Act" is introduced to the House of Representatives, and each year it gets more votes than the year before. Having Sink in charge of it would cause that number to spike considerably, I'd wager.

[DTogo]

LOL!!

With a white flag on top, courtesy of the French!

[geedee]

Russia . . .

U.S. . . .

UN . . .

Any questions, Monsieur Putin?

[F.J. Mitchell]

They will only jam moves to the right-while greasing any moves to the left.

Too many sonovabitches have veto power already.

[SaveTheChief]

Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have joined forces to lobby for permanent seats.

Soon to be followed by Mexico, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and "Palestine"

[inquest]

France, Russia, and China have veto power. Any one of them could block a "move to the right" (as if such a thing were possible at the UN anyway). Adding more vetoing members will only frustrate their ambitions.

[meema]

I'm with you. We don't need our seat anymore. And tell them to not let the door hit them on the clymer.
We'll be making townhouses or something out of the old building.

[DTogo]

My thoughts exactly - some nice townhouses and/or office space!

[Bon mots]

Don't trust the weasel.
Seeking to strengthen the Axis of Weasels.

[SunkenCiv]

Putin also backed India's aims to become a permanent member.

If India goes in, there will doubtless be turmoil about Pakistan's being let in. Other than that, and a veto power, having India as a permanent member would be a good idea IMHO.

The United States had to abandon an attempt to get U.N. approval because of sharp opposition from France, Germany, Russia and other council members.

If all the members of the UNSC had a veto power, the UNSC would cease to have any function. That's probably what Putin has in mind.

Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have joined forces to lobby for permanent seats.

Brazil goes in, then what about the rest of South America, which for the most part speaks something other than Portugeuse. As with India/Pakistan, there would be turmoil.

Perhaps the veto power should go, and simultaneously the UNSC should be reduced in size to the five permanent members. However, the veto power was put in there in order to mollify Stalin, and it has served to prevent creeping loss of sovereignty. Molotov demanded the right to veto debate (not just resolutions), something Stalin upbraided him for, saying, "Molotov, was is this madness? It is a small right."