Author Topic: African state new SC permanent member? (Read 1467 times)

patrone · « **Reply #60 on:** February 02, 2005, 03:12:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zulu7
Oh and I'd go for South Africa as the new SC member. think their military would be the most effective.

Thanks Zulu, for the first "answer" in this thread.

patrone · « **Reply #61 on:** February 02, 2005, 03:15:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
More nonsense, the US doesn't rely on China to buy our products be they military or otherwise. The US buys China's products.

I am sure the US arms and weapons manufacturers would like to sell their goods to China as well but in the overall scheme of things it doesn't matter if China makes its own weapons systems or buys from else where.

The Chinese aren't stupid enough to start a war and cut off one of hands that helps feed it.

I know its a hard thing for you to grasp but the US is the largest consumer economy in the world. That means the US market is vital to the world economy.

Any war or economic sanction or embargo that upsets that not only hurts America but it hurts the world.

You are totaly up in the blue arent you? As Mrs Rice have threatned these kind of messures if the weaponsembargo on China is disposed of by the EU.

It has nothing to do about USA trading with China, but the relations between EU and USA.

Martlet · « **Reply #62 on:** February 02, 2005, 03:18:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
Thanks Zulu, for the first "answer" in this thread.

No, it's the first answer you chose to accept. Like a true liberal, you toss out anything you disagree with.

straffo · « **Reply #63 on:** February 02, 2005, 03:28:45 PM »

The real solution is not to change a member of the SC but to get ride of the SC.

Wotan · « **Reply #64 on:** February 02, 2005, 03:37:37 PM »

Quote

You are totaly up in the blue arent you? As Mrs Rice have threatned these kind of messures if the weaponsembargo on China is disposed of by the EU.

It has nothing to do about USA trading with China, but the relations between EU and USA.

No it is you who are clueless, the context of my replies are set around your claim as stated here:

Quote

A tradeembargo against you would really mess you guys up.

That's the point I replied to. Your English isn't good enough to change directions mid-discussion.

Quote

As Mrs Rice have threatned these kind of messures if the weaponsembargo on China is disposed of by the EU

The US would rather China not have modern weapon systems and can use its status as the largest consumer economy to get its point across. This is a design of American foreign policy. The US can better weather a targeted embargo on EU products better then other way around.

As such the US can threaten the EU or China because the effect of an embargo on EU and Chinese products is greater then the it would be the other way around.

A grand trade war would have a huge negative impact on the world economy.

patrone · « **Reply #65 on:** February 02, 2005, 03:42:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
The real solution is not to change a member of the SC but to get ride of the SC.

Yes, or to enlarge it to 25 members and to take away the "Veto" option for thoose who are permanent members.

USA guys are Crying over that their war in Iraq actully are unlegal because of other countries vetoing their case.

Because of this 1 event, the whole UN is corrupt. They forget that they more or less are runing the UN and calling themselfs names.......

Martlet · « **Reply #66 on:** February 02, 2005, 03:45:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
Yes, or to enlarge it to 25 members and to take away the "Veto" option for thoose who are permanent members.

USA guys are Crying over that their war in Iraq actully are unlegal because of other countries vetoing their case.

Because of this 1 event, the whole UN is corrupt. They forget that they more or less are runing the UN and calling themselfs names.......

Who vetoed anything? Or is your English just so horrible you aren't making sense.

Bodhi · « **Reply #67 on:** February 02, 2005, 04:46:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
The real solution is not to change a member of the SC but to get ride of the SC.

Have France step down first

Elfie · « **Reply #68 on:** February 02, 2005, 05:10:38 PM »

AMENDMENTS
Article 108
Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

According to that it seems that you need a 2/3 majority vote AND ALL permanent members of the SC to vote yes as well.

Zulu7 · « **Reply #69 on:** February 02, 2005, 05:30:56 PM »

No worries Patrone glad to oblidge! my neck isn't red enough for some of the chaps in here!

Pei · « **Reply #70 on:** February 02, 2005, 08:49:58 PM »

From Africa the Republic of South Africa probably has the best claim based on it's status as the greatest regional power and economy. It is also more politcally developed than any other candidate. Egypt would come second.

India, however, has a better claim on a permanent SC seat than any other nation outside the SC right now. Of course letting India in would upset Pakistan (important for the US) and China sees India as a direct local rival.

Pei · « **Reply #71 on:** February 02, 2005, 08:57:00 PM »

With regards to the UN: the whole purpose of the UN was to prevent strong nations weilding power over weaker nations (or at least allow some king of pressure to applied). For a powerful nation there is an obvious downside of this.

Both Chruchill and Stalin objected to the fact the that weaker nations could use the UN to thwart the plans of the the powers (i.e. themselves), and the SC permanent seats were a concession to them. The USSR and the US both saw in the UN an vehicle for weakening the Imperial powers (i.e. France and UK) by encouraging nation states.

A concession by whom? The US: the UN was the US's idea, just like the League of Nations before.

The phrase "hoisted by your own petard" comes to mind.

Another fact that is often ignored is that the US has weilded the veto more often than any other permanent member.

straffo · « **Reply #72 on:** February 03, 2005, 01:15:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
Have France step down first

Not only , the kind of nobility the SC is ,like all nobility should be beheaded...

It serve no purpose,except being an artifact from the past.

Wotan · « **Reply #73 on:** February 03, 2005, 05:25:46 AM »

The SC is about the only really usefull thing about the UN. The problem is its make up. Of the 5 permanent members France really shouldn't be there. I said why above and we can start another thread if you wish to expand. Ultimately though the EU should be given only 1 seat and made a permanent member of the SC.

China
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United States
France

As it stands I could think of a few othe Nations that deserve to be there like Japan, Argentina or even Brazil etc...

FYI all three are currently serving terms on the SC.

Right now there's countries like Benin, United Republic of Tanzania and Algeria on the SC. Insignificant nations that are just there as a 'feel good' messure.

Staga · « **Reply #74 on:** February 03, 2005, 08:16:54 AM »

Wotan; they are not there because it just "feels good" but to give another point of view to the issues and balance the SC.
Without them SC, and whole UN, would become a playground for permanent members.
I know US would like that but there's few other countries (well +200) in the world who also has a right to give their voice in SC at least sometimes.