Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Africa: North

Egypt stakes claim to UN council seat

2004-09-12

Egypt staked a claim to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council on Saturday, saying the powerful body should better represent all the world's civilisations and cultures.

"We want to represent the failed states..."

The Security Council's five permanent members with veto power -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have held seats since its creation from the ruins of World War Two. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit told a conference any expansion of the Security Council should not be confined to some societies to the exclusion of others. "It will be difficult to achieve real progress on this subject without a comprehensive view...which grasps the importance of representing all civilisations and cultures in the expanded council," said Aboul Gheit, who was Egypt's ambassador to the United Nations until his appointment in July. "Egypt's ... contributions to supporting the activities and achieving the objectives of the United Nations and its peacekeeping operations qualify it to take on the responsibility of new membership in the expanded Security Council." Egypt joins other major powers such as Germany, Japan, India and Brazil which are seeking permanent seats on the council.

Posted by:Fred

#23 I think that el Baradei's unbroken string of astonishingly successful interventions as head of the IAEA gives us a perfect example of what can be expected from any Egyptian participation on the UN Security Council.

Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-12 4:07:57 PM

#22 "It's oh so humiliating not to have a permanent seat on the Security Council." ; )

Posted by: GK 2004-09-12 3:14:16 PM

#21 The EU should only have one permenant seat, shouldn't it? I mean, It's all one big happy nation, right? So take away France's veto and perm seat, send the stupid bastards back to the milling throng of dictators and syncophants in the GA.

As for Egypt - fuck 'em.

Posted by: mojo 2004-09-12 2:56:40 PM

#20 Frank G: I'm far more concerned with protocols than inspections. Protocols are a two way street, such as the "failsafe" protocol, and the "escalations" protocols. More than anything else, they are designed to avoid accidental use and limit what *could* be contained as a conventional war from going nuclear. They also cover such things as nuclear accidents, the disposal of nuclear waste, and international cooperation with other nuclear problems--like 3rd party proliferation and black marketeering.
*
In other words, protocols are really, really good things to have, to be aware of, and to agree to. They really do prevent war and result in a host of good benefits. Needless to say, most of the protocols in use by the world today were developed at the behest of the US.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-09-12 2:50:12 PM

#19 The IAEA and the UNSC do not have any fangs, just gums to beat. We are going through this Iran exercise to prove this fact---AGAIN. If Iran gets nukes, they will quietly give some to proxies to do their dirty work. We cannot afford to wait until they do. Talking about the UNSC and its members is like a mad hatter's tea party. The UN is dead, it just does not know it yet.

Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-09-12 2:26:19 PM

#18 you're assuming the internationals (protocols, inspections, etc.) have anything to teach or assist the Israelis in responsible ownership and handling of nukes. I submit Mohamed El-Baradei as exhibit 1 in refuting that

Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-12 12:33:30 PM

#17 Frank G: That used to be a much more tangible reason than it is, anymore. The idea is that by coming out of the nuclear closet, Isreal will profit more than by any potential loss--this is the selling point. It would also be a good idea, internationally, as both SA and Argentina are borderline nuclear powers, and have cooperated with Israel under the radar for some years, producing both weapons tech *and* civilian tech, the latter valuable as a legal commodity.
The bottom line is that Israel *is* a nuclear power (and a responsible one), and it is better for everyone's interests if it joins the nuclear club, signs on to international protocols, deals with waste disposal problems, etc.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-09-12 12:13:49 PM

#16 Hell they already own France's seat. What more do they want?

Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-09-12 12:07:45 PM

#15 excuse for seething #3,895

Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-12 11:56:39 AM

#14 "If we don't get a seat, there's no telling what the consequences might be. I'm not threatening, I'm just saying . . ."

Posted by: PlanetDan 2004-09-12 11:54:37 AM

#13 Israel doesn't admit owning nukes because that would start the slippery slope to disarmament/surrender to their enemies. Everyone knows they have them (200+) and will use them if they have to, to survive. Iran will find that out, soon.

Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-12 11:47:18 AM

#12 Darn, I forgot "India", for a seat on the SC.

Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-09-12 11:41:54 AM

#11 Well, let's see. If you want to pick who *should* have a seat on the SC, my pics would be the world powers, that is: US, China, Russia, and Japan, once it has developed a serious military.
*
In addition, blocs of the major trade and military cooperation partners should replace the non-voting individual state members. The EU; ASEAN/Oceania (non-China); an African bloc led by SA and Kenya; a South American bloc led by Argentina and Brazil; and a non-aligned bloc.
*
Voting members can still only be those that can enforce their votes, with both military and non-military (disaster) intervention.
*
Last but not least, there should be a separate Security Council for all nuclear powers. This would have the US, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, India, and Pakistan as VOTING members, plus any other nation that will ADMIT to having nuclear weapons *and* agree to IAEA inspections. Non-voting members would be nations that are "technically" nuclear weapons capable but disavow their creation or possession. That is, they have everything they need and could quickly assemble a nuke, but refuse to do so (also verifiable by the IAEA.) There should be NO membership for any nation refusing IAEA inspections, and any nuclear development, even for "peaceful" purposes, by them, should be discouraged. (This last bit would make this idea popular by those seeking to force Israel to admit it. However, it would be a pyrrhic victory, because if Israel admitted it, and included IAEA inspections, it would become a voting member.)

Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-09-12 11:40:56 AM

#10 They have the chair but they have to take charge of maintenance from the serfs.

Posted by: Shipman 2004-09-12 11:30:29 AM

#9 fine, you can have the chair, but not a veto

Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-12 11:27:57 AM

#8 Why should the Security Council permanently include a culture that refuses to renounce terrorism?

A celebration of multi-cultural diversity?

Somebody you can point out to the newly-formed nations and say "Don't be like them"?

Because having Sudan chair 'Human Rights' was such a success?

Posted by: Pappy 2004-09-12 11:24:04 AM

#7
Why should the Security Council permanently include a culture that refuses to renounce terrorism?
.

Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-09-12 8:32:57 AM

#6 How about giving a permanent seat to the Hebrew culture?

Posted by: JFM 2004-09-12 8:08:48 AM

#5 Actually, the building itself would be a fine attraction at Giza.

Posted by: Hosni Mubarak 2004-09-12 3:04:36 AM

#4 Nope. I get the building; I get all the buildings. Bwahahahaha!

Posted by: Donald Trump 2004-09-12 1:06:35 AM

#3 Far as I'm concerned, they can have the whole friggin building.

Posted by: tu3031 2004-09-12 12:59:19 AM

#2 ROFL!

There are No limits to Arab Absurdities.

Posted by: Anonymous6404 2004-09-12 12:55:37 AM

#1 Help yourselves to ours. We've outgrown it.

Posted by: Another Dan 2004-09-12 12:10:51 AM

00:00