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

Skip to comments.

Proposal would expand Security Council
AP on Yahoo ^ | 3/21/08 | Edith M. Lederer - ap

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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: expand; proposal; securitycouncil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: LibLieSlayer

I am a CONSERVATIVE in the tradition of William Buckley. If conservatives call each another ‘liberals’ in lieu of actual debate, it is sad.


41 posted on 03/22/2008 5:16:37 AM PDT by KingJaja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: KingJaja
Conservatives do not elevate the Father of American Socialism (FDR) and Conservatives do not embrace and promote the un... an evil organization with connections directly to satan himself!

LLS

42 posted on 03/22/2008 6:00:30 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Could I ever vote for mcstain? osamabama hussein may convince me yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Hell no! We need to keep an eye on them. Move the UN to Montana.


43 posted on 03/22/2008 6:08:10 AM PDT by GAB-1955 (Kicking and Screaming into the Kingdom of Heaven!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

LLS,

That kind of thinking gives consevatism a very bad name. FDR was a man who led America during the greatest war in history and planned for the peace following war. He might have been naive about the Soviet Union but to suggest that he was in the same league as Marx and Engels is patently false.

When FDR became president, Milton Friedman was still in school and the most prominent economist was Keynes. No prominent Western government (Britain or France) dealt with the great depression using conservative economics, because the theoretical principles of conservative supply-side economics had not yet been fully developed. (Von Hayek wrote ‘the road to serfdom’ between 1940 - 43).

In fact, the modern Conservative movement did not gather steam until the 1950’s (led by William Buckley).

You cannot prove (from the Bible) that the UN has direct links to satan the same way you cannot prove whether the Fed has direct links to satan. However, you need to deal with both the Fed and the UN.

I am all for a conservatism based on logic and commonsense, not one based on gut feelings, fear and superstition.


44 posted on 03/22/2008 6:31:08 AM PDT by KingJaja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: KingJaja

Then to Hell with Delhi, Botswana, Pretoria, Morocco and Brasilia. Feel free to join them on their trip.


45 posted on 03/22/2008 9:08:36 AM PDT by Mountain Troll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: KingJaja

Sorry King, I’m in the FLUSH the UN camp, it is unredeemable...FDR’s (rip) ideal was poisoned from the beginning. All that it would take to destroy the UN is total de-funding from the US...no other UN member country gives a crap about anything except their skim.
The UN is NEST of Hate America and enabling our enemies.
Almost all Wars or Programs the UN is heavily involved in results in abject failure or worse. Can you name any UN sucesses?


46 posted on 03/22/2008 9:52:08 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: KingJaja
Your last post confirms my opinion. You speak like a liberal... you think like a liberal... ergo...

LLS

47 posted on 03/22/2008 10:08:39 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Could I ever vote for mcstain? osamabama hussein may convince me yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: KingJaja

I’d prefer us to get out to as to end any globalization hopes a future President might have. America is a sovereign nation, and very, very many of her sons and daughters will die before they let her fall.

And I’m not talking about the military.


48 posted on 03/22/2008 11:27:19 AM PDT by wastedyears (More Maiden coming up in a few months!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KingJaja
Did you think I needed a definition of the word? There's generally nothing Elitist at the “Mom-n-Pop” bakery, college reporter or Village Trustee. However within business, the media, academia, finance or government, Interdependency is an altar every globalist in bureaucracy prays upon. When independence or sovereignty is interject its castigated as outdated, immoral and dangerous so much as to shatter the bounds of the nation-state. Pretty much everything you covered under trade is regulated in Brussels or some other regional trade negotiation. You failed to mention our country's entangling alliances with foreign militaries or merged New Economies.

I know globalism and expansion of elitist institutions will continue to dominate and ultimately crush our nation. Most of it was driven from the US.

49 posted on 03/22/2008 1:13:04 PM PDT by endthematrix (He was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of crap to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

We can’t eat our cake and have it. We set this ball rolling. Coke and Pepsi are sold in every nation on earth. Microsoft Windows is the defacto world standard. Reagan preached free trade.

Agreed, government should ensure that international trade agreements are just. We love to bash China, but the truth is that if the Chinese revalue their currency we will be in big trouble. It is not the fault of China that we have an almost zero savings rate.

It is not China’s fault that Germany (with a third of our population and higher labor costs) is the World’s largest exporter. If Chinese imports did not destroy German manufacturing, then why did they destroy ours?

Are we still competitive? We need to ask ourselves that question.


50 posted on 03/22/2008 6:16:19 PM PDT by KingJaja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa
Have you thought deeply about the consequences of leaving the UN?

No serious Republican/Conservative politician will take the US out of the UN and I hope you understand why. Even if Michael Savage were to be elected President, he wouldn't take the US out of the UN.

You haven't thought deeply about the consequences of America abandoning the international system. Conservatism should be driven by logic not emotion. Sure, it feels good to abandon the UN, but it is not practicable.

If we are out of the UN, with what legitimacy would we deal with China, India or any other nation for that matter. We needed a UN resolution to invade Iraq because we wanted to establish a precedent. If China goes on a rampage tomorrow, we have legal grounds to oppose them.

The strength of America is its moral right. There was a time when America could afford to ignore the World. We ignored the rest of the World at our own peril (WWI and WWII).

51 posted on 03/22/2008 6:34:38 PM PDT by KingJaja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

How do you define conservatism? Who are your conservative heroes? Reagan? Burke? Friedman? von Hayek? Thatcher?

Please tell me how their views differ from mine?


52 posted on 03/22/2008 7:30:46 PM PDT by KingJaja
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 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