One thing to consider : As we learned at the time of the Millenium Summit in September 2000, there is an alliance between various Third World and European NGOs to "reform" the UN. They wish to turn the UN into a one nation, one vote "global Democracy". To do this, they wish to see the Security Council and the veto abolished by 2008.
The debacle at the UN is being finessed by much of the media-US and international-as proof that the SC (and not the UN itself) is cumbersome, outmoded, and incompetent.
We hear that the French presence on the SC and the veto is a source of pride in France.
Is it just possible , though, that the French government sees the abolition of the SC as a way to strengthen both the UN (thereby hobbling the US) and France? If the debacle at the UN leads to the abolition of the SC, could the Third World see France as its leader or saviour, or at least be grateful for this abolition? Would this lead to the strengthening of France not only in the UN, but in the EU, as French prestige is increased?
Whatever the French gain from an SC seat and the veto might be outweighted by what it would gain if both were abolished.
I anticipate we'll see more and more calls for the abolition of the SC and the veto in the months to come. The media will try to create the impression that abolition of the SC/veto is the 'correct' ,'enlightened' position to hold.
The article publised here at NR called "The Eurabian Alliance" might explain why the French want to destroy the SC, even though they supposedly gain prestige by being on it. The EU wishes to create an EU/Islamic alliance, and the percentage of the Muslim population in France itself is estimated at anywhere from 5-13%. And the EU as a whole is supposed to be 50% Muslim at least by no later than 2100.
By destroying the SC, France gains prestige in the Third World, hurts the US, and placates its Muslim population, all at once.
Name
Address