Posted on 03/21/2008 11:27:09 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
UNITED NATIONS - An interim proposal to tackle the divisive issue of Security Council reform would expand the U.N.'s most powerful body from 15 to 22 members but leave it up to the 192 U.N. member states to decide which countries should fill them.
The proposal, obtained Friday by The Associated Press, also leaves it up to U.N. members to decide how long the new seats should be held — with suggestions of two years, five years and permanently offered as possible options. It leaves the contentious issue of veto power to future negotiations.
There is strong support for enlarging the Security Council to reflect the world today rather than the global power structure after World War II when the United Nations was created. But all previous attempts, starting in 1979, have failed because national and regional rivalries blocked agreement on the size and composition of an expanded council.
The deep divisions forced the General Assembly to shelve three rival resolutions to expand the council in 2005.
The so-called Group of Four — Germany, Japan, Brazil and India — aspire to permanent seats without veto rights on a 25-member council.
A group of middle-ranking countries, including Italy and Pakistan, who call themselves Uniting for Consensus, want a 25-member council with 10 new non-permanent seats.
The African Union, whose 53 members argue that their continent is the only one without a permanent seat on the council, wants to add 11 new seats — six permanent seats including two for Africa with veto power, and five non-permanent seats.
The new proposal says these groups maintain their positions, but the impossibility of achieving them now "has pointed to an apparent willingness to negotiate on the basis of achieving intermediate reform, through the identification of the highest common denominator at this stage."
More than 50 ambassadors representing all the major groups with a stake in reforming the council attended a meeting Tuesday hosted by Germany's U.N. Ambassador Thomas Matussek to discuss the new proposal.
He told reporters afterwards that all the groups were represented, many had ideas on how to improve the proposal, and "for the first time the Africans engaged in meaningful discussion."
The proposal was submitted to General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim on Thursday, Germany's U.N. Mission said. He is expected to study it and have members of his task force on council reform consult groups with differing views.
Kerim also received separate letters from Italy and the African Group.
"My ambition would be — and I don't know how realistic that is — that we by the end of this (General) Assembly (session) will have a text that can be voted on," Matussek said. The current session ends in September.
Of the seven new council seats in the proposal, two would be allocated to African countries, two to Asian countries, one to Latin America and the Caribbean, one to Western Europe and one to Eastern Europe.
The proposal also calls for a mandatory review of the reforms after a fixed period and sets out new working methods for the council, many to promote better communications and openness on its operations.
One proposal appeals to the five veto-wielding council members — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — to ensure that a veto would not be used to continue the commission of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.
The proposal was drafted by the ambassadors from the Netherlands, Romania, Malaysia, Britain, Cyprus and Germany, with support from the Bahamas and strong input from Italy, Matussek said.
Can I offer you the democratic republic of tdscpa? It has a nice ring to it. I believe the Zimbabwe slot will be vacant is just a few weeks.
Hu Jintao, Bob Mugabe (and his ilk in Africa), the Kazakh dictator, the fellow in Belarus and the faceless Burmese generals would love that. Contrary to popular opinion, most dictators like to go about their business quietly (unlike Chavez and Castro)- without wearing military fatigues and giving fancy speeches in New York.
Let's get serious, the UN may be flawed but it's the only forum available to discuss a wide range of issues like human rights, nuclear proliferation etc. It is bad, but it is preferable to chaos.
FDR did not create the present international system because he was stupid. If we think we can just tear down the system and all will be well, we are in for a rude shock.
My municipality could use the infusion of several billion $ per year of economic support. That could help our tax base immensely. I could use some tax relief.
Would be funny watching all those “dignitaries” esconcing themselves in our 12-room motel, commuting the 300 miles from Kansas City or Denver, or landing their jumbo jets at Hill City International Airport. But, it might screw up my golf game if 747’s kept buzzing fairway #8 of my golf course, all stacked up with aerial spray planes in the traffic pattern.
Let's be serious. The UN failed it's mandate as with its predecessor. The USA was right not to be attached to the cancer that was the League of Doom. As for global discussions, try a phone.
Let’s really get serious.
What the hell has the UN ever done, other than provide a platform for communist dictators to get worldwide exposure for their stupid rants against the US?
Do not forget that the UN was the forum used to diffuse quite a number of Cold War tensions. (like the Cuban missile crisis).
The UN may have had significant failures in peacekeeping (i.e Rwanda) but there have been successes (e.g. Liberia, East Timor). What other platform would enable Indian troops to be involved in peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone?
The UNDP (UN development programme) may not have much use for citizens of Western Europe and America, but it has done a great deal in the developing world.
The UN was the vehicle through which sanctions were imposed on South Africa, Zimbabwe and Burma.
Our relationship with the world is not limited to China, Western Europe and the Middle East. We cannot fulfil our foreign policy objectives for the rest of the World apart from the UN. It will be a cold day in hell before American troops get involved in any intervention in Africa. So we need the UN there.
Now I may not sound very popular in conservative circles but I don’t care.
The only problem I have with the US exiting the UN, is that “global tests” now rest with the “international community” that remain. Newbie, I don’t know what to say. The UN is contrary to what our Founders envisioned for our country. Utopian internationalist dreamers got there wish.
The World the founding fathers lived in no longer exists. The founding fathers could stay safe and secure seperated from the Old World and its troubles by the Atlantic Ocean.
The founding fathers did not depend on the Middle East for energy or on China for manufactured goods or on East Asia and the Middle East to finance debts.
The founding fathers did not live in an extremely interdependent world.
I am a foreign policy realist. The international order might be bad, but the only alternative to it is chaos or empire. The British and French tried Empire, got badly burned, and will never try it again. We don’t do empire, so we have to work with what we have.
You don’t win friends in Delhi, Botswana, Pretoria, Morocco or Brasilia by constantly saying ‘to hell with the UN’. You don’t win friends by implying that all the other good guys (yes good guys exist outside the US of A) that they are stupid for having faith in the UN.
I'll flatter you by calling you a bloviating State Department wannabe with a pic of Zbigniew Brzezinski close by.
I smelled your other postings. You keep a pimpin' the bleeding hearts and the Viking Kitties are gonna make a call.
Tough talk never solved any problems. For all our tough talk we ain’t leaving the UN. Deal with that.
Neither idealism nor tough talk makes the World go round. Realism does.
But could your town hall handle the millions in unpaid parking tickets? ^^;
And I have no idea where Japan got the idea that it belonged on the Security Council. This is a country where police can hold innocent people in jails for 23 days while they gather evidence, before bringing charges. A model for police work, they are not.
(fill in the blank)
“The World for ----” is a platform for the global community to connect through a shared commitment to support the presidential campaign of ----------. This global community sees the 2008 US presidential election as an important time to stand behind a candidate who will strengthen international relations and improve the standard of living for US and international citizens. In our interconnected and interdependent world, no country operates in autonomy. The values and vision of one nation’s elected officials have great impact on the rest of the world. We invite you to share your thoughts, support and encouragement and engage in a collective effort to give ------- leadership and vision the highest authority in the government of the United States. The decision to support ------ candidacy is not only a positive choice for America, it is a beneficial choice for the world."
ROBERT WRIGHT is that you?
I passed right over that gem, LOL! Just imagine (sing it with me) that the IRS just vanished *POOF* where in the world (Don't say Africa) would we send our taxes? Say yes to the IRS!
So what did FDR expect the UN to accompolish? If I remember FDR was heavily influenced by Socialism and the proponents of the UN were FDR appointees that turned out to be Soviet moles....the UN is the biggest failure for freedom in the History of mankind and FDR was either complicit or duped. Time is coming to destroy the UN!
The aim of the United Nations was to develop a framework for international peace and security. After the second world war, FDR understood the need for peace and security.
One of the first triumphs of the International System that FDR setup was the decolonization of Africa and Asia in the sixties. The US intervention in Korea was under a United Nations mandate. The UN peacekeeping force ensured stability in Suez after the crisis.
I have never implied that the UN is perfect nor have I implied that it has never derailed from its original purpose. The best way to deal with it is not to leave it, but to fight for reforms.
You think that if we simply leave the UN that our foreign policy would be enhanced, that our clout in the world will increase? No way, sir.
On what basis would we deal with North Korea apart from the UN? You think we can simply drop an atomic bomb there and all will be well? Do you think we can invade North Korea and expect China to sit idly by?
If we are outside the international system, on what basis would we deal with China and Russia?
We can discuss issues like reducing our contribution to the United Nations, these are valid issues. Leaving the UN entirely is not.
DO NOT forget the chicoms. They have to go.
LLS
AMEN AND AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LLS
LLS
LLS
There is nothing elitist about Interdependency. It is a fact of life, get used to it. (Read ‘The World is Flat’ by Friedman).
The computer (or laptop) you use was probably made in China. Half the goods in your local Walmart are from China.Your health records, insurance records and taxes are probably done by a back office in Bangalore (Ghana if you are from NY). The gas that fuels your car is probably from Angola, Venezuela, Nigeria or Saudi. The coffee you drink comes from Brazil. A good part of the software on your computer (assuming you use Windows) was written in Bangalore and Beijing. Your Ipod was made in Shenzhen.
The financial stimulus checks (which are to be mailed in May/June) are likely going to be spent on goods produced in the good ol’ Peoples Republic.
Irrespective of who is elected McCain, Obama, Clinton, Limbaugh or Michael Savage - interdependence will continue and EXPAND.
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.