Posted on 06/25/2005 11:06:04 AM PDT by quidnunc
The German foreign minister was the first to bear the brunt of rejection for his country. Just over a week ago, with Joschka Fischer standing at her side at the US State Department building in Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that the Americans had discussed "at length" Germany's wish for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. However, she added, "the only country that we clearly support is Japan."
A week later it was German Chancellor Schroeder's security and foreign affairs adviser Bernd Muetzelburg's turn. While touring the United States to promote Germany's cause at the UN, he opened up the paper in New York last Thursday morning to read that next to Japan the best the US government could do would be to support "a developing nation's" bid for a permanent seat. It was, as the New York Times wrote, "a harsh setback for Germany."
When German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder sits down with US President George W. Bush for lunch at the White House on Monday, he'll experience first-hand just how little support Germany can expect from its major ally in its efforts to land a permanent seat. US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns has already clarified the Bush administration's position on the matter, noting that more than two new permanent members "could be damaging."
The Americans' clear signaling of their plans to block Germany's nomination is the most serious consequence to date in a typically behind-the-scenes diplomatic battle. The group of G4 nations — a newly formed alliance between India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for the purpose of supporting each other's bids for permanent seats in the UN — intends to force an expansion of the UN Security Council, which currently numbers 15 members, to include 6 new permanent and four non-permanent members. The so-called "Coffee Club," which includes countries like Italy, Pakistan, Argentina and South Korea, is clearly opposed to the G4 move.
The two camps have been forging new, discrete alliances, recruiting partners and threatening opponents for months. The G4 nations need a two-thirds majority in the UN General Assembly, or at least 128 of the 191 member states, to amend the United Nations Charter to allow for the expansion.
-snip-
Either the EU should get a single seat or the US should get 50.
And that would be India!
Must be a b*tch for Germany to lose to India. LOL!
France gives Germany an inferiority complex. Schroeder is Chirac's poodle. What does that say about the Germans?
No one should be on the Security Council who is not able and ready to take action on the world scene. That would refer to countries who are prepared to deploy troops and money in the face of an international crisis.
If the Security Council is to mean anything at all, it should be limited to "countries that matter". That is a pretty short list.
Agree about the EU... No way they should have more then one
As it is right now three seats belong to the Europe block: UK, France, Russia (Of course Russia is technically a Eurasian country)
One to Asia: China
And one to North America: US
I can see the logic of a seat for India, and Japan and Brazil.....but not Germany...let there EU buddy France share with them
So in other words, they're stiring up China and the United States against themselves. Doesn't sound like a very good strategy to me- the "Third World" v US of A and China?
Good point.
The german troops deployed to the ISAF in Afghanistan
(more than 2.000) are the largest non-US contingent there
for years now.
And sending troops to Iraq ... well a majority of your
own countrymen now believe it was a mistake to go there the
way you did. And questions asked by Germany and
others back then (proof of WMD, proof of acute threat by
Saddam, post war planning) were not answered at all.
Answer me this: In the decade prior to our invasion of Iraq, did Germany or did Germany not agree with the UN, France, Russia, UK, USA, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and most of the rest of the world that Iraq had WMDs?
Listening to and believing leftist propaganda and Main Stream media is no excuse. The majority of Americans KNOW that taking IRaq was not a mistake and staying there is the best thing we could ever do for western civilization.
Whatever source of "truth" you listen to is a lie. Don't spread your progaganda here.
Tell the Germans they can conquer france again and have the Vichy seat.
Saddam did have WMDs and used them, no doubt about that.
But. When the invasion of Iraq was imminent, Germany and
others asked for proof that the allegations made by president
Bush that Saddam had WMDs and actually tried to use them
could be substantiated.
We know the answers your intelligence services came up with,
among them a formidable 19 page report by the British of
which 16 pages where an exact copy of a postgraduate thesis
from the early 1990s.
Germany is ready and willing to lend support, money and
troops in case of an international crisis and has proven
that in Afghanistan, and in the (real) war on terror as
well.
The German ambassador to the UN is a real nasty anti-American. The German ambassador to the US is a good guy.
The German mission to the UN is loaded with America haters and the US views their 2 year term as a rotating member to the UNSC as a disaster. Not only did they collude with France on Iraq, but they were the leaders in the successful attempt last year to deny US peacekeepers immunity from the ICC.
The Germans at the UN were gleeful, not now though.
The majority of our country believes no such thing. Only the majority of halfwit socialist stooges believe that tripe, Which means democrats and the media.
Germany, france and the rest of old europe are worthless "allies" and incompetent enemies.
Go piss up a rope.
I was referring to a poll conducted by Ipsos-Public
Affairs June 20-22, 2005. The margin of error was 3.1%
and it was used by fox news, among others.
If you feel entitled to label it propaganda do so.
I beg to differ, i fear.
In the years prior to 911 and then the invasion, the world agreed that Saddam had WMDs. He had used them on Iraq and on his own people. He refused to prove that he had destroyed them. He thwarted attempts to inspect and prove that he had. He lied, manipulated, obfuscated and danced around the whole effort to prove that he had. It strains credulity to believe he had destroyed them. Because the efforts to make him comply with the 17th (or was it 18th?) UN resolution "final warning" were stalled by countries such as Germany and France, he had plenty of time to destroy, hide and/or ship out of the country what he had.
I, for one, will never believe that he did not have any WMDs on the eve of our invasion. I believe he destroyed some (dumped some into the Tigris, destroyed others) during the weeks leading up to the invasion and the rest he shipped to Syria. I still believe they will be found one day - hopefully not by their use on innocents.
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.