PDA

View Full Version : A larger Security Council?




skunk
Sep 30, 2004, 03:52 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3703734.stm
Libya demands permanent UN seat

Libya has told the United Nations General Assembly that it deserves a permanent seat on the Security Council. Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalghem listed a series of Libya's achievements as reasons for inclusion, including abandoning its WMD programme. He also highlighted Libya's key role in Africa and the influence of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Support is growing for attempts to expand the number of permanent members on the Security Council. The council's five veto-wielding permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. The 10 other council members are chosen for two-year terms by regional groups.

"There can be no Mediterranean Sea without Libya," Mr Shalghem said. The Libyan minister also called for a transfer of key powers from the 15-member Security Council to the assembly. "Before we can talk about the lack of democracy in the world, we must first admit that it is lacking in the United Nations," he said. Mr Shalghem said that if powers were not transferred to the assembly, then the world should either "stop infusing money into this dead body" or enlarge the council's membership to include seats for the African Union, the Association of South-East Asian Nations and Latin America. The veto power held by the five permanent members would also need to be rethought, he said.

A senior commission of experts is to deliver recommendations to Secretary-General Kofi Annan by the end of the year on United Nations reforms which will be agreed ahead of next September's 60th General Assembly ministerial meeting. Moves to increase the number of members of the Security Council have been gaining support, with Germany, Brazil, India and Japan seeking permanent seats on the council for themselves and one African nation. France and Britain, two permanent council members, have backed the move although Italy has expressed its opposition.

As bizarre as it may be hearing such sentiments from Libya, that beacon of democracy, the idea itself has merit. Basing global decision-making on the interests shared by such monstrous rogue states as Russia, China, Britain, France and (lately) the USA has led to a tragically neutered organization, incapable of exerting the moral authority to deal effectively even with obvious problems. When the five permanent members are collectively guilty of genocide, invasion, use of atomic weapons and fire-bombing against civilian populations, mass slavery, mass colonization, waging pre-emptive wars, economic strangulation and massive political manipulation of sovereign states, is it surprising that the UN is regarded with some scepticism?



takao
Sep 30, 2004, 06:01 PM
hmm germany,brazil,india,japan sound just a little bit more reasonable than libya...
are there any other possible candidates for an african seat ? any suggestions ?

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 30, 2004, 06:09 PM
Easter Island should be there before Libya.

Thanatoast
Sep 30, 2004, 06:33 PM
I'd be satisfied if they'd just ditch the veto power. Or at least create an override, that if one nation vetos, the other four could override that veto. Four yeas beats one nay, but three yeas and one abstention does not. This would theoretically keep abusers from deadlocking progress.

Of course, this will never ever ever happen, because it would have to be voted on by the Security Council, which will never give up its power. Certainly not without strong US leadership. (a word forgotten in today's administration) And then there would be our own domestic ninnies freaking out about world government. As if we don't all live on the same damn planet and our actions don't affect eachother.