U.N. launches talks to expand Security Council

Reuters ^ | February 19, 2009 | Patrick Worsnip

[Tailgunner Joe]

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 19 (Reuters) - After a decade and a half of backroom argument, the world's nations launched full negotiations on Thursday to expand the powerful 15-nation U.N. Security Council to reflect present-day realities. ....

The council, authorized by the U.N. charter to impose sanctions and dispatch peacekeeping forces, currently has five permanent veto-holding members -- the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China.

It also has 10 members with no veto power who are elected on a regional basis for two-year terms before being replaced by others. The number was set in 1965, after standing at six since the United Nations was founded after World War Two. ....

A world summit in 2005 said reform of the Security Council would make it "more broadly representative, efficient and transparent and thus ... further enhance its effectiveness and the legitimacy and implementation of its decisions."

But regional rivalries and a concern by the big powers that their preeminence should not be diluted are likely to drag out the talks on key details of how to achieve that goal.

Numerous plans have been put forward in the past, differing over how many new seats should be added, who should have them, whether they should be permanent, semipermanent or time-limited and which, if any, new states should get the veto.

But Ambassador Thomas Matussek of Germany, one of several countries bidding for a permanent seat, said he believed there was now more chance of a result because of demands for "global governance" as a result of the world financial crisis.

"The question is, do you want this world run by G13, G15, G20, or do you want it run by the only legitimate global institution we have? And that is the U.N.," he told reporters.

[KoRn]

I think they should extent the security council to ALL countries, and give every one of them veto power. :p

[txnativegop]

This is prep work to start hammering the US and anything we try to accomplish through the UN. There will always be some small meaningless country somewhere that will oppose what the US does regardless of what it is.

[End Times Sentinel]

Step one: Close the U.N.
If that fails-
Step two: Kick France off council permanently
Step three: Allow for five other regional seats: South America (includes mexico), Asia, Africa, Europe.
Step four: Attempt to close the U.N. again.

[Star Traveler]

LOL...

That’s an absolute guarantee for the Security Council never passing anything... :-0

[Star Traveler]

Send the U.N. to Iraq...

[... they were supposedly talking about doing that a while back...]

[scdown]

"the only legitimate global institution we have? And that is the U.N."

To quote Steve Martin in the Pink Panther, "Good one."

[KoRn]

I know. :^)

[Right Cal Gal]

"The question is, do you want this world run by G13, G15, G20, or do you want it run by the only legitimate global institution we have? And that is the U.N.,"

Uh....No, No, No, and abso-#$%^&-ly NOT!

[duffus]

I like step one a lot.

But if that fails lets just burn the UN to the ground.
I’m having visions of Carthage.

[Westbrook]

> to expand the powerful 15-nation U.N. Security Council to
> reflect present-day realities. ....

I’m going to make a wild guess and venture that this means they want to admit at least one nation dominated by Mahometan savages.

[Navy Patriot]

"the only legitimate global institution we have is the U.N."

ROTFLMAO

[Parmenio]

Exactly my thoughts. That would be “democracy” and who could complain when the UN did even less than it does now?

[Billthedrill]

I’m in favor of it, actually. When you look at the success the League of Nations had in leading the world you just get sort of misty-eyed. Just as long as the U.S. is looking at it from the outside.

[BARLF]

Why Iraq? Why not Iran or Pakistan? Saudi Arabia would be my next choice. Maybe there they’d get beheaded. Maybe a couple airplanes would sail into their building.

[LibLieSlayer]

hussein would like to add syria, iran and libya as permanent SC members.

LLS

[Star Traveler]

You asked “Why Iraq?”..., well, I think a couple of years back there was some talk about it. And then, the U.N. can rule the world from Iraq... LOL...

Iran or Pakistan?... well, a bit too dicey. Saudi Arabia, ummm..., all the delegates would end up getting arrested and thrown out of the country with the laws there... LOL...

So, I think Iraq has it.. :-)

[BARLF]

all the delegates would end up getting arrested and thrown out of the country with the laws there... LOL...

That's my point. The UN is a worthless lot and I want them kicked out of the US but not sent to Iraq. All they are good for is to suckup money.You do remember Oil for Food?

The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995

[Publius6961]

A world summit in 2005 said reform of the Security Council would make it "more broadly representative, efficient and transparent and thus ... further enhance its effectiveness and the legitimacy and implementation of its decisions."

Oh sure.
Just like the General Assembly does!

As far as I can tell, the General Assembly has degenerated into the islamic Second Council of Islamic States.
And their one-note neuroses became tiresome 20 years ago.

That's all we need.

Popularity, specially among the world's parasites, does not equal "legitimacy!"