|
|
Post by matt on Oct 20, 2012 3:03:19 GMT 10
I understand the reasons why the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council should have veto powers. If there were no veto powers then dangerous resolutions would pass, such as the interference in the domestic affairs of nations like Israel, and therefore impacting on their ability to defend themselves. However, veto powers have a real blunting effect, the UNSC has no teeth when it comes to the conflict in Syria, nuclear proliferation in Iran, sanctions on North Korea and many other conflicts. Should the UNSC be reformed so that the UNSC is increased to 20 nations (5 permanent + 15 non-permanent), and where all 15 non-permanent members vote in favour of a resolution, none of the permanent 5 will be able to exercise their veto power? It would mean that if a permanent member wanted to use its veto power, they would have to convince at least 1 non-permanent member to vote with them.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2012 12:25:39 GMT 10
The problem with the veto powers, is that not only do you get despot nations such as Russia and China vetoing resolutions on Syria, Iran and North Korea, but you also get the puppet nation of Israel, the United States of America blocking anything which crticises Israeli warmongering, racism, land theft, secretly building nuclear weapons (while being hypocritical enough to shrilly scream about what the Israelis themselves have already done and have already done).
Time to end the veto permanently. If countries like Israel don't like that, then they are free to leave the United Nations. Don't forget that it was the United Nations which legitimised the modern state of Israel, yet the Israelis are hypocrites who are fighting tooth & nail to prevent the United Nations from legitimising Palestine. Those Israelis are evil faaaarkers who are into practising "do as I say, not as I do!"
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Oct 20, 2012 12:40:02 GMT 10
Why should 5 countries determine what happens in the world....every nation should have a say.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 20, 2012 13:28:31 GMT 10
What Matt's really talking about is a restructure of the Security Council. The 5 permanent members basically reflect global realities at the end of WW2 and, this being 2012, global geopolitics have moved on quite a bit since 1945 but the structure of the UN hasn't.
I haven't seen much in the way of TV news in the last week but the brief and fleeting impression I get is that Bob Carr's answer to the (utterly reasonable) question: "what does the Australian Government hope to achieve from its 2 year membership of the Security Council" was along the lines of "we'll support the good guys and vote for sanctions against the bad guys".
Well, knock me down with a feather! Who could possibly have guessed it!
What I'd like to hear is what we're not going to hear - which is that the Security Council needs to be restructured and that Australia, which has always been an active supporter and member of the UN since its beginning - and wasn't "Doc" Evatt the Pres of the General Assembly in the late 1940s? And wherever there is a "blue helmet" presence anywhere in the world aren't there invariably Australians among them? And haven't Australians consistently contributed police officers to the UN police contingent that has helped keep the peace in Cyprus since the early 1970s? - supports a restructure of the Security Council because Australia is anxious to support the continued viability of the UN.
I accept there is a valid debate about whether or not to have permanent members with veto powers. But to demand that the veto be abolished is like pissing in the wind. It's like the Greens impossible demands about global warming legislation that helped bring down Rudd's PMship, or the Greens impossible demand that all boat people be given open slather to come to Australia. It's a case of "the perfect" being the enemy of "the good" in public policy. If you want change, go for the possible.
To me, the most problematical issue of the 5 permanent members is the inclusion of France and Great Britain. After WW2 that made sense, but that was nearly 70 years ago. As far as I'm concerned Germany has a better claim on pemanent SC membership than either France or the UK.
The presence of Russia as one of the "Famous Five" is explained by the fact that she is the successor state of the Soviet Union. I'm not arguing that Russia ahould be thrown off the SC, but India to my mind has at least as good a claim to permanent membership. In fact expand the SC to have a major country from each continent as a permanent member: Germany for Western Europe, China for the Far East, Russia (perhaps! since it's difficult to argue for the exclusion of a vast country that covers 12 time zones!) for Eurasia, Brazil for South America, India for South Asia, The United States for North America and Nigeria for Africa.
I realise people will disagree and this isn't a position I'd die in a ditch over. But it's a scenario among a lot of other scenarios and, as always, the devil is in the detail. The bottom line issue is the restructure of the UN. I despair of any intelligent or informed discussion in the mainstream media. You need to know where "Asia" is and what "Kyrgyzstan" means and why it isn't the same as "Kazakhstan". Too much information!! Makes your head hurt!! But I would hope we get it from Bob Carr! Early days yet ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2012 13:36:23 GMT 10
The Security Council is useless just like the rest of the useless and corrupt UN. What has the security council been able to do about Syria? Or any of the other conflicts in the Middle East. Or Africa. It's still a basket case and always will no matter how many billions of dollars are thrown at the problem. And look who we were up against ... Finland and Luxembourg, FFS. $5 billion we give annually to get that seat and we'll be paying $7.7 billion in the next couple of years. And what for??  |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 20, 2012 13:52:44 GMT 10
I guess if you come from a mindset that sees Australian foreign policy formation as something that could easily be outsourced to the US State Dept, then you might think that Stellar's post has merit.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2012 14:11:50 GMT 10
The presence of Russia as one of the "Famous Five" is explained by the fact that she is the successor state of the Soviet Union. I'm not arguing that Russia ahould be thrown off the SC, but India to my mind has at least as good a claim to permanent membership. In fact expand the SC to have a major country from each continent as a permanent member: Germany for Western Europe, China for the Far East, Russia (perhaps! since it's difficult to argue for the exclusion of a vast country that covers 12 time zones!) for Eurasia, Brazil for South America, India for South Asia, The United States for North America and Nigeria for Africa. There's one missing from that list....ENZED for “down-under”  |
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Oct 21, 2012 6:53:30 GMT 10
Certainly the hope is Australia is on the council to do good things, but there is the undertones that it is the USA that wanted Australia on the council to rubber stamp it's actions in particular with Israel and its wanting war with Iran, and the US coerced the other nations into voting for Oz...speculation that in time will probably prove correct...!!
|
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Oct 22, 2012 6:46:55 GMT 10
The problem with the veto powers, is that not only do you get despot nations such as Russia and China vetoing resolutions on Syria, Iran and North Korea, but you also get the puppet nation of Israel, the United States of America blocking anything which crticises Israeli warmongering, racism, land theft, secretly building nuclear weapons (while being hypocritical enough to shrilly scream about what the Israelis themselves have already done and have already done). Time to end the veto permanently. If countries like Israel don't like that, then they are free to leave the United Nations. Don't forget that it was the United Nations which legitimised the modern state of Israel, yet the Israelis are hypocrites who are fighting tooth & nail to prevent the United Nations from legitimising Palestine. Those Israelis are evil faaaarkers who are into practising "do as I say, not as I do!" seems to have handed out a few hidings to arm-waving mussos over the years, for "puppets"...can recall those puppets who fell on the Egyptian airfields on June 4 1967, who routed the Egyptian tank armies in Sinai, liberated East jerusalem and the Wall, and booted Assad Snr out of Golan... Can recall more bloody "Puppets" storming entebbe airport terminal... Doughty "puppets". |
|
|
|
Post by chequeredflaggg on Oct 22, 2012 6:51:31 GMT 10
The Security Council is useless just like the rest of the useless and corrupt UN. What has the security council been able to do about Syria? Or any of the other conflicts in the Middle East. Or Africa. It's still a basket case and always will no matter how many billions of dollars are thrown at the problem. And look who we were up against ... Finland and Luxembourg, FFS. $5 billion we give annually to get that seat and we'll be paying $7.7 billion in the next couple of years. And what for??
Look who kicked it off..the biggest big-noter self-promoter of them all...that little psycho Rudd.Apparently we could not think of a single pressing better use for billions of dollars, than this meaningless stunt crap. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 10:38:30 GMT 10
Hey, we're now on equal status with Rwanda!! Rwanda, ffs!! Oh, how prestigious is our standing in international circles. Equal status with Rwanda. And it only costs us $5 billion a year in aid to that corrupt and despicable organisation that sends meddling do-gooders to lecture us on our $2 billion dollar annual payout to the Aboriginal industry while flying first class and staying in 5 star hotels. While the rest of the third world starves or is at war. If that dickhead Carr could understand this it would wipe that smug smirk off his face. This is no achievement. |
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Oct 22, 2012 12:23:16 GMT 10
Conservatives are stuck in a rut like a broken record ...whinge and negativity ..whinge and negativity..whinge and negativity...whinge and negativity ..whinge and negativity..whinge and negativity...whinge and negativity ..whinge and negativity..whinge and negativity...whinge and negativity ..whinge and negativity..whinge and negativity...
My oh my what Abbotts has done to these poor people...!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 12:39:37 GMT 10
Conservatives are stuck in a rut like a broken record ...whinge and negativity ..whinge and negativity..whinge and negativity...whinge and negativity ..whinge and negativity..whinge and negativity...whinge and negativity ..whinge and negativity..whinge and negativity...whinge and negativity ..whinge and negativity..whinge and negativity... My oh my what Abbotts has done to these poor people...!! They're all suffering from FITH syndrome! |
|
