Solana considers one EU seat in UN solution to divisions

EU observer ^ | 24 mar 03 | Honor Mahony

[white trash redneck]

In an interview with Die Welt, the EU's High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, offers some suggestions for how the current crisis in the European Union could be avoided in the future.

A "possible cause" for the rift between the EU fifteen is the fact that the EU is not represented by one seat in the United Nations Security Council.

"The EU is not represented by one seat in the United Nations. But the problems were created in the United Nations."

He noted the differences of opinion ran exactly between the four members of the Security Council - the UK and France (as permanent members) and Spain and Germany (as non-permanent members).

"Imagine what influence Europe could have had if it had spoken with one voice?" asked Mr Solana.

Speaking with one voice is not just something for the Union in the UN but for "the EU as a whole."

According to the Treaty of European Union, all EU member states have an obligation to refrain from doing anything that goes against a common position in foreign policy.

"It is regrettable that precisely this was not followed by some member states," said the EU's foreign policy chief.

Weak Europe not in America's interest Mr Solana believes that a weak Europe is not in America's interest. The big challenges in world politics are usually for both the USA and the EU, he says.

"Of course, Europe should invest more in its military capabilities, I have said that for years. But the USA is the number one and we do not have these strengths."

Europe's strengths lie with international investment, development aid and trade.

[white trash redneck]

While the EU is probably proposing this in order to hobble the UK, this represents an opening to get France off the UNSC, and to get India and Japan on. An additional finesse would be for the UK to withdraw from the EU and keep its seat.

Naaahhh. That sounds like too much work. Let's just get out of the UN.

Problem solved.

[camle]

either get the US out of the UN, or give the EU their wish - cancel the seats of all the members, and give them only one.

[CasearianDaoist]

Not jut in the SC but in the general assembly as well.

[Paleo Conservative]

"Imagine what influence Europe could have had if it had spoken with one voice?" asked Mr Solana.

Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer.

[edwin hubble]

"While the EU is probably proposing this in order to hobble the UK, this represents an opening to get France off the UNSC, and to get India and Japan on. An additional finesse would be for the UK to withdraw from the EU and keep its seat."

I certainly agree on India and Japan.
And I know the suggestion about the EU seat on Security Council is aimed a cutting England off... but it also cuts off the French. (which shouldn't be on there).
An argument could be made that if you bring on Japan, you should bring on Germany.

For India there is no argument against it. They are huge, they are a stable democracy and 'grown-up'. Besides, they will be needed to balance China in the next 100 yrs.

[thtr]

Quote: "For India there is no argument against it. They are huge, they are a stable democracy and 'grown-up'."

You may want to look a bit closer at that before making judgement. India votes against the US position in the UN about 80% of the time.

They are part of the NAG with South Africa and Zimbabwe.

[camle]

exactly. one vote for the EU. Why it would be like each state having a seat, plus one for the US.

[Born to Conserve]

And one vote for Africa.

[edwin hubble]

"India votes against the US position in the UN about 80% of the time."

I know that during the cold war they were a client state of USSR, while Pakistan was close to China. I know they have been historically 'non-aligned', which means they are certainly not in our camp.

I was thinking of their long-term, strategic position against China, which will be dominating the continent soon.
But you are certainly right about India's voting record.

[Mister Baredog]

"Imagine what influence Europe could have had if it had spoken with one voice?"

This is the point Chirac was trying to make. Of course you had to see it his way or just "shut up". I think it will be a cold day in hell before the Brits jump into that frying pan. It will probably take at least another generation of "dumbing down" in the schools before they are prepared give up sovereignty. The EU is already a failed experiment, it will only get worse.

[FRgal4u]

i like my new arrangement of the sec. council in the un..

Seven long-term members - with terms of five to 10 years...carry heavier weights in votes, but no firm veto power..

the seven will be..

usa, uk, russia, china, japan, india and eu (no france, here, eu is a sub for france's old seat)..

+++++++

of course, the usa can start a new UN which allow memberships to non-dictatorial countries...we need no iraq, libya to be in our new UN..

usa funds 25% of UN, japan funds 20%...if usa/japan is out of this old un gig, the old un is finished...

[Mister Baredog]

And one vote for Africa.

Now your talking. The UN would sound a lot better if Europe and Africa each had one vote.

[Kadric]

Either the EU should only have one Or the USA should have 51.

[virgil]

I wonder what the smaller EU states will think of that. I'm not sure that they have worked through those issues yet like making sure the bigger states don't run over the smaller ones.

[Paleo Conservative]

Why it would be like each state having a seat, plus one for the US.

That's not a bad idea. Give each state in the US a vote in the General Assembly.