Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Krusher on March 21, 2005, 10:15:52 AM
-
I see Koffi wants to add a 4th seat (germany) to the permanant security council. Considering all but one would be members of the Europe Union, it seems removing 1 would be a better idea.
-
Doesnt really matter if all but one are from the EU does it.... as all have veto right..
-
the EU is an economic union, not a govermental or military one. the EU does not exist as a government and thus cant have a seat in any council.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I see Koffi wants to add a 4th seat (germany) to the permanant security council. Considering all but one would be members of the Europe Union, it seems removing 1 would be a better idea.
What? Aren't there currently 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council? Adding another would make it 6.
UK
US
France
Russia
PRC
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
What? Aren't there currently 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council? Adding another would make it 6.
UK
US
France
Russia
PRC
-Sik
UK, France and Russia are in his European pool. He wants to add Germany.
He wants to expand the council to 24 seats 6 per geographical region. Europe, Americas, Aisia/pacific, and Africa. Some will be permanant some rotating.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
UK, France and Russia are in his European pool. He wants to add Germany.
He wants to expand the council to 24 seats 6 per geographical region. Europe, Americas, Aisia/pacific, and Africa. Some will be permanant some rotating.
Sorry Krusher, this isn't making any sense to me. Right now, we have 5 permanent members, and 10 rotating seats. Adding Germany as a permanent member would be a 6th seat, not a 4th.
Is there an Article you're working from? This really does interest me.
-Sik
-
Who cares? The U.N. is irrelevant... send the U.N. to brussels, and NATO to New York.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Sorry Krusher, this isn't making any sense to me. Right now, we have 5 permanent members, and 10 rotating seats. Adding Germany as a permanent member would be a 6th seat, not a 4th.
Is there an Article you're working from? This really does interest me.
-Sik
Ok I see what the problem is, my original post was phrased wrong. What he has proposed is adding new members to the current system.
front page on the BBC.com download the pdf
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Ok I see what the problem is, my original post was phrased wrong. What he has proposed is adding new members to the current system.
front page on the BBC.com download the pdf
Here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/21_03_05_unreport.pdf
Is that what you are talking about?
Thanks. Links are our friends.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by VWE
Who cares? The U.N. is irrelevant... send the U.N. to brussels, and NATO to New York.
70% of Americans surveyed by the BBC supported the Secretary General's proposals.
Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4362709.stm)
-
Eurika! I've got it!
Ok, page 43 of the document has the two proposed models. The first one, adds a 4th European seat... Ok, that's what was confusing me. It would actually add 6 total new seats to the Security council.
Wow, I'm all for SC change, but 11 permanent members, each with a Veto? heh, if we thought the UN was a total waste of effort now, after this reform nothing will ever get done.
Thanks Krusher, this is a very interesting topic. I think that they included model "A" only to make Model "B" look better. There's no way that all 5 permanent Members will accept A, but I bet they will accept B.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I see Koffi wants to add a 4th seat (germany) to the permanant security council. Considering all but one would be members of the Europe Union, it seems removing 1 would be a better idea.
Germany ? Why not Austria ?
But in any case I have to refresh my German.
Zieg heil to every body, uncluding the U.N.
:D
-
Originally posted by Momus--
70% of Americans surveyed by the BBC supported the Secretary General's proposals.
Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4362709.stm)
And how many of those surveyed Americans work in the U.N. building ?
:D
P.S. Big BS
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Eurika! I've got it!
Ok, page 43 of the document has the two proposed models. The first one, adds a 4th European seat... Ok, that's what was confusing me. It would actually add 6 total new seats to the Security council.
Wow, I'm all for SC change, but 11 permanent members, each with a Veto? heh, if we thought the UN was a total waste of effort now, after this reform nothing will ever get done.
Thanks Krusher, this is a very interesting topic. I think that they included model "A" only to make Model "B" look better. There's no way that all 5 permanent Members will accept A, but I bet they will accept B.
-Sik
agreed, Plan B is probably it.
Sorry for the confusion. I was adding a post while I was on the phone listening to elevator music.
-
The UN fails because there IS a power to veto. Plain and simple.
Hypothetical situation: Imagine the Kyoto treaty was a UN council thing. A treaty they are trying to impose on the world for the benefit of the whole world.
Instead of not signing the treaty, the US simply says they will veto the thing. The other countries really want this to go through so they start the bribing process (thats why vetos exist..so others can bribe you to change your mind).... if the US does not veto the treaty they will give trade concessions, etc etc etc etc.
Then china sees what a nice bribe the US is getting and says they will veto too. Bribes sent their way as well.
Then whatever nation holds the rotating council seat (lets just say the rotating council seat has veto power too)... say, Costa Rica, says they will veto the treaty... they wont have bribes sent their way but rather threats. If you veto it we will increase tariffs on your products, cut foreign aid, etc etc etc.
The pecking order of the powerful.
And what is funny is that if Annan somehow makes a charter where there is NO veto powers, then the UN would collapse since the member nations that pay for the UN's expenses will just cut funding and leave.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
70% of Americans surveyed by the BBC supported the Secretary General's proposals.
Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4362709.stm)
I wonder if all calls to Americans polled were in California. Call the south and you would get the reverse, 70% want to disolve the UN (course I have no hard data on that).
-
Originally posted by OIO
The UN fails because there IS a power to veto. Plain and simple.
I dissagree with this. The Veto is only used for Security Council resolutions, yet the General Assembly, where there is no veto, is equally ineffective.
If you want to try and find a single reason I would suggest: The UN Fails because none of its resolutions are binding upon anyone.
The UN serves as a big room for people to talk. But I think that's it. You get to say what you want, but nobody has to give a ****.
In that sense, I think it's a good tool to have. But it doesn't create international law, which is what some people seem to think that it should do.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
If you want to try and find a single reason I would suggest: The UN Fails because none of its resolutions are binding upon anyone.
-Sik
And making them binding would be almost impossible.
-
Kofi Annan says:
"What's needed now is not more declarations or promises, but action," Annan said. "I believe my report provides a clear program of action."
US and GB say:
"Well... DUH!"
:lol
-
Originally posted by genozaur
And how many of those surveyed Americans work in the U.N. building ?
:D
P.S. Big BS
Originally posted by Goth
I wonder if all calls to Americans polled were in California. Call the south and you would get the reverse, 70% want to disolve the UN (course I have no hard data on that).
Did either of you intellectual heavyweights refer to the actual study before posting, or did you just fall back on the easiest rationalisation you could come up with for rejecting a result that conflicts with your preconceptions?
Link to the actual poll results. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/BBCworldpoll/032005/Report03_20_05.pdf)
USA :1000 people surveyed between November 17th and December 12th 2004. Type of sample : Nationwide.
-
But in any case I have to refresh my German.
Zieg heil to every body, uncluding the U.N.
Sovjetski sojuz comerade. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Did either of you intellectual heavyweights refer to the actual study before posting, or did you just fall back on the easiest rationalisation you could come up with for rejecting a result that conflicts with your preconceptions?
Link to the actual poll results. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/BBCworldpoll/032005/Report03_20_05.pdf)
USA :1000 people surveyed between November 17th and December 12th 2004. Type of sample : Nationwide.
I read it and then did a poll at work. Out of 65 people polled, all 65 agree the UN is useless and you're a troll.
-
GScholz, put the knee pads away and step back. No one, especially the pollers, asked for Norwegian input. Go back to building cruise liners. :)
-
Originally posted by Goth
I read it and then did a poll at work. Out of 65 people polled, all 65 agree the UN is useless and you're a troll.
If you had read the report before posting, then you would have known that the poll used a nationwide sample. Is pointing that out trolling as well?
65 people in your workplace? That must be a big McDonalds. :lol
-
Originally posted by Momus--
70% of Americans surveyed by the BBC supported the Secretary General's proposals.
Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4362709.stm)
70% of Americans could't find Europe on a map...besides, what does that have to do with the fact that the UN is irrelevant?
-
Originally posted by Goth
I wonder if all calls to Americans polled were in California. Call the south and you would get the reverse, 70% want to disolve the UN (course I have no hard data on that).
http://www.sq.4mg.com/stateIQ-income.htm
-
moving the U.N to finland seems like a workable solution.
lazs
-
Nah.......... Paris is the place.
Where better to linger over cafe and croissant, discussing the news and world politics, deploring the sad state of many oppressed nations and........... while away the day doing nothing?
-
"Little Eichmanns" (http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson031805.html)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
65 people in your workplace? That must be a big McDonalds. :lol
Without taking sides in the pissing contest.... That was funny.
-Sik