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.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International
Howard seeks to demote France in UN
2003-04-14
Edited
Prime Minister John Howard wants to reform the United Nations, saying the presence of France as a permanent member of the Security Council "distorts" the council. He wants Japan, a South American country and India to be represented on the Security Council. France was there only because it was a global power at the end of World War II, he said.
And now it's not. And becoming less so...
Asking France or any other permanent member of the Security Council to voluntarily surrender their seat was "a major undertaking", he conceded.
It'll be fun to watch them oink and wiggle, though...
His comments risk the ire of France before the first visit to Australia by President Jacques Chirac, who is due in the country in July.
Want us to stitch up those ire wounds for you, John?
France angered the war coalition nations with its strong opposition to a second UN resolution backing military action. Once the troops went into Iraq, President Chirac was a vocal opponent of the war. Mr Howard offered a compromise, which he said would make the UN more representative of the modern world — three levels of Security Council members, the permanent members, the rotating members and a new group of permanent members that had no veto. It would be "a far better expression of world opinion", he said. Despite his criticism of the Security Council, Mr Howard said the UN had a complementary role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. But the interim authority would be run by the US with help from Britain, Australia and others.

Either that or just can the daggone thing as an idea whose time has gone. The League of United Nations has raised being ineffectual to new levels, at the same time it's presented an opportunity for relatives of Third World bigshots to find cushy jobs and take potshots at countries that actually work. It can be replaced by a network of alliances among genuine allies, along with an autonomous group of NGOs that can be funded based on performance.

Also yesterday, Mr Howard attacked "armchair generals" who criticised the conduct of the war, while it had run largely according to plan. "Of all the doomsday scenarios that were predicted, not one of them has been realised," he said.
That's Australian for "nyah nyah nyah!"
Posted by:George

#20  Like his Commonwealth colleague, Tony Blair, John Howard has shown himself to be a man of steel. He has stood up to, and now crushed, the whole saddamite fifth column in Ozland: media-monkeys, pinko senators, muslim infiltrators, and slavering greenbats alike. The duplicitous frogs and their hench-scum must be shitting themselves every time they hear his name.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy   2003-04-15 00:02:21  

#19  France relying on England's veto? Oh, boy - Wouldn't that twist their knickers?

Hey, call it the price of federation, guys...
Posted by: mojo   2003-04-14 20:53:28  

#18  I have a better suggestion. Let's just dump the entire UN mess, bills and all, and form a NEW organization, built around the Coalition. Might be easier. No "security council", no "open membership", just those that understand that some things need to be done, and are willing to roll up their sleeves and pitch in. I think it will take about three problems to get the attention of the rest of the world, and the EUnunchs in EUrope will find themselves slowly slipping down the shower drain, with the rest of the scum.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-04-14 18:37:10  

#17  Think Pakistan will have a hissy if India makes it to the Security Council?

(grin)
Posted by: Baba Yaga   2003-04-14 18:18:08  

#16  India should definitely have a seat. I mean, they're only the 2nd largest country in the world in terms of population.

However, bear in mind that India is perhaps even more anti-American than France is. During the cold war, they sided with the USSR and had very close ties. They still mourn the demise of the USSR.

So, the net effect would probably be the same, only less whiney. Indians have a sense of dignity that the French lack (the French think they have it, but they just look ridiculous)
Posted by: Jeremy   2003-04-14 17:40:56  

#15  "One thing going against them is the way they dealt with the Zimbabwe issue."

And another is their irresponsible handling of AIDS...and another is the corruption in the ANC...you get the picture.

While it would be nice to see an African country in a responsible position it would be a terrible mistake to describe South Africa as "a mature country".
Posted by: Pink & Fluffy   2003-04-14 16:51:23  

#14  I know it might take a rewriting of UN charter, but has anyone floated the idea of dumping France from the Security Council? I mean, WHY are they still there. Stalin's question about the Pope seems appropo here.

Possible replacement players could be: (we could have fun here)
-Japan (I know, no divisions either - but definite specific gravity)
-The Whole EU as one seat (GB must exit)
-India (imagine that - tooooo scary)
-Brasil (doesn't emerging Sud America rate a seat?)
-If it's just GNP you want, how 'bout Taiwan?

Posted by: Scott 4/11/2003 1:54:48 PM

Further proof of Rantburg's global reach. I'm still rooting for Taiwan, right after they purchase mainland China, in exchange for solving their SARS problem.
Posted by: Scott   2003-04-14 13:32:10  

#13  Froggendammerung.

Darn it Dave! That required a drink warning!
Posted by: Ptah   2003-04-14 12:34:13  

#12  My personal recomendiation is South Africa. Yes they were against the war but the fact that they gave up their entire WMD program voluntarily shows that they are a mature country. Plus they would be able to represent Africa. One thing going against them is the way they dealt with the Zimbabwe issue.
Posted by: rg117   2003-04-14 12:22:55  

#11  Ah, um, find and replace neutral with nuclear in my previous post. I know, pay more attention to the preview.
Posted by: Yank   2003-04-14 11:55:50  

#10  If India were added along with Brazil and Japan it would not appear to be rewarding them for going neutral but instead recognizing the dominant regional players.

The US should jump on this, and start saying any attempts to stop Japan, India and Brazil are based on racism.A United Europe only needs on veto after all. And if we play it right we can be on the side of the small guy and the third world.
Posted by: Yank   2003-04-14 11:54:15  

#9  India actually has a lot going for it other than just being a nuclear power. There's a billion people there, as opposed to France's 65 million; the second largest population of Muslims in the world; and it's the world's largest democracy. Whether they would want to be part of the Security Council is anyone's guess.
BTW, didn't the Aussies call their participation in the coalition "Operation Bastille"?
I love the Aussies!
Posted by: Baba Yaga   2003-04-14 11:53:44  

#8  I'm all for India over France, but as someone recently remarked, giving India a seat makes it look like rewarding them for going nuclear...although by that logic, I'm not sure what France did to deserve its seat, uh, donate massive acreage to Allied graveyards, maybe.
Posted by: (lowercase) matt   2003-04-14 10:41:48  

#7  John, couldn't remember McCain's exact words, so I did the best I could. Had something to do with former film queens living off their former beauty. I think the French aspire to that but deserve less
Posted by: Frank G   2003-04-14 10:41:42  

#6  Hey Frank, I didn't know John Howard and John McCain were related. Come to think of it....
Posted by: john   2003-04-14 10:30:37  

#5  I LOVE this guy! Someone had to say it, and he deserves accolades for having the balls to call the French what they are: has-been whores trying to live off a beauty they no longer have
Posted by: Frank G   2003-04-14 10:12:48  

#4  Japan and India are far more deserving and representative - they shoudl have a permanent seat. A third rate, failed colonial power, France, has no business being there with a veto.
Posted by: OldSpook   2003-04-14 10:08:00  

#3  Hurray for John Howard. The Aussies have rightly won the honor of landing the first blow in the upcoming Froggendammerung. Dropping France from the UNSC may well be our price for continued participation in the UN.
Posted by: Dave D.   2003-04-14 10:01:41  

#2  Oh the Greenies in Oz must be pulling their hair out that none of their warnings came true, and that Howard is more of a leader than any of their phoney candidates could ever dream of being.
Posted by: g wiz   2003-04-14 09:54:30  

#1  Good for Howard.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-04-14 09:43:57  

00:00