Article

2005-05-16 International-UN-NGOs

US warns nations seeking UNSC seat on veto

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-05-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Good!

Posted by 3dc 2005-05-16 00:11|| 2005-05-16 00:11|| Front Page Top

#2 Paralyse? The UNSC has been paralysed since its inception.

Posted by Captain America 2005-05-16 06:34|| 2005-05-16 06:34|| Front Page Top

#3 Paralysed? More like a 2 week old dead man.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-05-16 09:31|| 2005-05-16 09:31|| Front Page Top

#4 Why Warn? Why not offer something else, like a new organization as an alternative to Dictators and Kleptocracy Inc.

Posted by Jeper Elmeath5805 2005-05-16 09:34|| 2005-05-16 09:34|| Front Page Top

#5 More like a 2 week old dead man.

Maybe we should start referring to it as "Bernie".

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-05-16 10:42|| 2005-05-16 10:42|| Front Page Top

#6 Excellent idea Bomb-a! UN, I hearby dub thee, Bernie.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-05-16 11:45|| 2005-05-16 11:45|| Front Page Top

#7 It should be the other way around. All you countries out there lets revise the UN Charter at the General Assembly. Sort of like a 2nd constitutional assembly or Vatican council. In it, we really reform the place and get rid of "all" vetoes and bring in new permanent SC members - one each from Eastern Europe, Asia, South America, Africa and North America. Believe me, denuding France, Russia and China of veto power will do more to reform the joint than one set of reforms will ever do.

Posted by Jack is Back!">Jack is Back! 2005-05-16 12:10|| 2005-05-16 12:10|| Front Page Top

#8 Jeez, guys, it was designed to be paralyzed! That was the entire point at the time - slow down the course of events to give the Nuke powers time to get reasonable.

Sheesh. I'm gonna have to start charging for these tidbits of obviosity...

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-05-16 13:19|| 2005-05-16 13:19|| Front Page Top

#9 Give every state veto power and step back and watch the fun.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2005-05-16 17:21|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2005-05-16 17:21|| Front Page Top

#10 The organization of the UNSC should be that only countries that are economically strong, militarily strong, and willing to commit significant forces to UN peacekeeping roles should both be members and have veto power. This would mean a guaranteed commitment of an *equivalent* of either direct military support, money, or requested equipment. If everyone who was willing participated, this would mean the US, Russia, China, India, Japan, and the EU. If you don't pay the ante, you can't play the game. Unless you have economic power, military power and a willingness to commit forces, then you have no veto. This would mean, say, if there was a genocide in Africa, Russia and India would *lose* their veto unless they were willing to send forces there. Then a simple majority, 4 of six, could vote to send in forces. This would mean that no commitments would be made without adequate force, equipment and money to back it up.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-16 17:28|| 2005-05-16 17:28|| Front Page Top

#11 This would mean, say, if there was a genocide in Africa, Russia and India would *lose* their veto unless they were willing to send forces there.

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-16 19:41|| 2005-05-16 19:41|| Front Page Top

#12 This would mean, say, if there was a genocide in Africa, Russia and India would *lose* their veto unless they were willing to send forces there.

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-16 19:41|| 2005-05-16 19:41|| Front Page Top

#13 Damnit.
This would mean, say, if there was a genocide in Africa, Russia and India would *lose* their veto unless they were willing to send forces there.

Or they could say they would but refuse. I remember this from 19.

Posted by Shipman 2005-05-16 19:42|| 2005-05-16 19:42|| Front Page Top

#14 That only applies if commitments of resources such as troops and money were made *after* the event in question had begun, as it is inefficiently done today. Again, using the poker game analogy, each UNSC member would have to lay their bets before they get all of their cards. If they fold, they lose their stake to what the majority want. This means that, while they may not be enthusiastic to what is decided, their personnel will be on the ground, or somebody else's personnel will be doing the job with their money. The best part of this situation will be that most of the time, the UNSC will want to do *nothing*, but when the majority decide to do something, then everybody has to play. The sore loser, probably France, would betray itself if it tried to undermine what others were doing.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-16 20:36|| 2005-05-16 20:36|| Front Page Top

00:06 trailing wife
00:01 Anonymoose
23:59 trailing wife
23:57 badanov
23:57 docob
23:56 Al Bundy
23:42 docob
23:41 trailing wife
23:40 .com
23:40 docob
23:34 .com
23:34 JosephMendiola
23:34 .com
23:32 Silentbrick
23:30 .com
23:26 docob
23:23 Atomic Conspiracy
23:23 John in Tokyo
23:20 Cluse Jiting2689
23:18 trailing wife
23:16 trailing wife
23:15 docob
23:12 trailing wife
23:07 Anonymoose