Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. backs expanding U.N. Security Council (by "two or so")
Monterey Herald ^ | 6/16/05 | Barry Schweid - AP

Posted on 06/16/2005 9:58:32 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Thursday backed a measured expansion of the U.N. Security Council, saying it likely would support the addition of "two or so" permanent members including Japan.

A wider expansion could be "possibly injurious" to the Council's effectiveness, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said.

With several nations clamoring for seats in what would be the first major revision of the Council in 40 years, Burns said the administration also might back adding two or three nonpermanent seats.

Currently, there are five permanent members of the Council - the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - all of whom have the power to block any resolution with a veto. Additionally, there are now 10 nonpermanent seats, rotating for two-year terms on a staggered, regional basis.

Burns said none of the new members, permanent or otherwise, should be armed with veto powers in the view of the administration.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed U.S. support for a permanent Council seat for Japan in a telephone call to Foreign Minister Yuriko Kawaguchi.

On a related front, the White House urged Congress to oppose legislation that would withhold up to 50 percent of U.S. dues if the United Nations failed to enact certain reforms.

"We have serious concerns and ... we hope very much that that bill would not be passed in its present form," Burns said of legislation sponsored by Rep. Henry Hye, R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee.

Despite administration opposition, however, President Bush was not threatening to veto the bill if it is passed.

"Now, the Congress is absolutely right to take a hard-nosed attitude toward the need for reform, and we support Chairman Hyde and other members of the House who believe that the time has come for fundamental reform," Burns said.

Reassuring Congress, Burns said Bush and Rice have reform of the United Nations "at the forefront of their agenda."

In New York, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was encouraged that the United States had joined with other nations to support reform of the United Nations.

In a statement, Annan proposed the United States "engage with the other member states and come up with a reform package" hopefully in time for a heads of state meeting in September in New York.

At the White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said the administration was issuing a document later Thursday that would ask legislators to reconsider the bill.

The largest financial contributor to the United Nations, the United States finances about 22 percent of the organization's annual $2 billion general budget.

Japan ranks second, behind only the United States, and is a leading contributor of military supplies for peacekeeping operations, Burns said.

India, Brazil and Germany also seek permament seats on the Council.

The Council was last revised in 1965 when the number of nonpermament members was increased from 6 to 10. In 1971, China's communist government took over the country's permanent seat from the Nationalists.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 109th; backs; expanding; securitycouncil; unitednations; unitedstates; unsecuritycouncil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
A wider expansion could be "possibly injurious" to the Council's effectiveness, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said.

---

This guy has got to go... and so does the UN. It's time has passed.

What effectiveness? At fleecing its mian memer states of their money so they can piss it away on corruption, hookers and drugs?

1 posted on 06/16/2005 9:58:32 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

main member


2 posted on 06/16/2005 9:58:56 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... The War on Terrorism is the ultimate 'faith-based' initiative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Israel and Japan, perhaps?


3 posted on 06/16/2005 10:09:48 AM PDT by Ingtar (Understanding is a three-edged sword : your side, my side, and the truth in between ." -- Kosh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

Isn't Israel the only country banned from sitting on the Security Council?


4 posted on 06/16/2005 10:14:04 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
Israel and Japan, perhaps?

INDIA and perhaps Japan or Brasil.

5 posted on 06/16/2005 10:15:11 AM PDT by A. Pole (Gov.Gumpas:"But that would be putting the clock back, have you no idea of progress, of development?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This guy [Nicholas Burns] has got to go

As if changing a mouthpiece would make any difference? You know who's really doing the talking, don't you?

6 posted on 06/16/2005 10:16:06 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
I assume you're making a prediction, rather than saying what you would advocate, right?
7 posted on 06/16/2005 10:17:31 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
If we can't get rid of the UN then what.

Get rid of France since their no longer viable as a world power.

Get rid of the corruption by replacing Koffee Anus and most of the UN brass.
8 posted on 06/16/2005 10:29:38 AM PDT by OKIEDOC (LL THE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

They're talking about Japan and India.

France should get booted. Perhaps Russia too.

The UN needs to write a Constitution like our Constitution.


9 posted on 06/16/2005 10:29:53 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I assume you're making a prediction, rather than saying what you would advocate, right?

Both, I advocate what is most practical and I expect that the decision will be made on practical grounds.

10 posted on 06/16/2005 10:30:20 AM PDT by A. Pole (Gov.Gumpas:"But that would be putting the clock back, have you no idea of progress, of development?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
The UN needs to write a Constitution like our Constitution.

Uh, how about NO? Say goodbye to U.S. sovereignty if that happens.

11 posted on 06/16/2005 10:36:54 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OKIEDOC
No, let the corruption stay. Nobody should get comfortable with the UN. The longer the corruption stays, the more reluctant countries will be to give more power to the UN.
12 posted on 06/16/2005 10:38:20 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
"The UN needs to write a Constitution like our Constitution."

The Soviets had a constitution much like our's. It's not what you write on paper, but what you do that means the difference.
13 posted on 06/16/2005 10:39:29 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Giving broad international status to a communist government like Brasil's is "practical"? How?

Don't misunderstand me - I'm all in favor of giving veto power to as many countries as possible, but I can't see why Brasil would be more deserving of it than Israel.

14 posted on 06/16/2005 10:40:50 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Giving broad international status to a communist government like Brasil's is "practical"? How?

Brasil is a democracy and the fact that at this term they have elected left wing government does not mean much. Would you propose to remove USA from the UN Security Council when liberal Democracts get into power?

The main reason why Brasil would be a proper choice is that it is the largest Latin American country and it would be fair if their continent were represented.

Nigeria could qualify for similiar reason. So I would add India - the second most populous country in the world and the largest, most free democracy (although not rich), Brasil and Nigeria as permanent memebers without veto power.

15 posted on 06/16/2005 10:49:05 AM PDT by A. Pole (Gov.Gumpas:"But that would be putting the clock back, have you no idea of progress, of development?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

If you contribute to world security in a major way you should be on the security council, if not, you have no business being there. France should not be on the security council at all. Europe has too many seats to even consider Germany.


16 posted on 06/16/2005 10:51:22 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I vote for Australia and Poland.


17 posted on 06/16/2005 10:51:58 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Some of the smaller countries like France should be relieved of permanent status.


18 posted on 06/16/2005 10:55:08 AM PDT by bert (Rename Times Square......... Rudy Square. Just in.... rename the Washington Post March??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Brasil is a democracy and the fact that at this term they have elected left wing government does not mean much.

It means plenty.

Would you propose to remove USA from the UN Security Council when liberal Democracts get into power?

As bad as the Democrats are, they can't hold a candle to someone as radically leftist as Lula.

The main reason why Brasil would be a proper choice is that it is the largest Latin American country and it would be fair if their continent were represented.

That doesn't explain how it's practical, which is what you earlier said it was. And I don't have much qualms about "fairness" when it comes to giving status to Castro-aligned communists.

19 posted on 06/16/2005 11:00:49 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: inquest; NJ_gent

Uh, how about NO? Say goodbye to U.S. sovereignty if that happens.
---

Since they obviously aren't going to do it I'm in favor of pulling out of the UN.

However, I do think there is a need for a world organization with a Conservative/libertarian ideology. I'd be in favor of the UN if it prevented our government from infringing on our liberty.

For more on this, see a comparison between the formation of Federal states in the EU and the US.

http://www.neoperspectives.com/constitutionalissues.htm

A UN with negative power would be appropriate (in my view).

In the meantime, let's get out.


20 posted on 06/16/2005 11:22:48 AM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/canadahealthcare.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson