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

To: kabar

Umm no. That’s precisely the reason why the UNSC hasn’t been expanded. The P-5 have been ok with expansion in general, but not on veto powers, which is why the G-4 bloc (India/Germany/Japan/Brazil) haven’t accepted overtures.


17 posted on 11/08/2010 8:10:45 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: sukhoi-30mki
They have not been OK with expansion. The Chinese have opposed a permanent seat for Japan. The US has not supported a permanent seat for Germany. The UN Security Council is anachronistic. It is based on the world as it existed in 1945. The PRC took the seat occupied by the nationalists. The G4 would accept permanent status even without a veto.

Japan and Germany are the 2nd and 3rd largest contributors to the UN. India and Brazil deserve a permanent seat. And there is no permanent representation from Africa. The current permanent five are unwilling to include any other countries as equals, which includes veto authority.

29 posted on 11/08/2010 8:32:39 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

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