| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| British Prime Minister Says U.N. Must Adapt To "New Global Order" |
| 2008-01-22 |
| Posted by:Ebbolulet Dark Lord of the Swedes9659 |
| #8 Dan that is exactly my point of view. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-22 17:05 |
| #7 I once worked for the City & County of San Francisco (hold the applause please). SF has a Charter that sets up a form government that was designed to prevent malfeasance after years of looting by political gangs. The net effect was to set up many independent veto's. No one actor could say Yes, but any could say No. The result was that nothing got done. By all means - UN vetos for everyone. |
| Posted by: Dan White3251 2008-01-22 16:06 |
| #6 The more vetos the less each is worth. I think we should reevaluate things. Everyone knows that and so the Russians/Chinese/Europeans will fight the expansions of the Security Council with their last breath. The US should fight for expansion of the Security Council and become the friends of the third world again. Let the others lie and claim they love the third world while they fight to keep everyone out. India/Japan/Brazil should get seats. We should also set limits on which countries qualify for the rotating seats or seats on various councils. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-01-22 14:28 |
| #5 I'm sure that "NGO" acronym is just a coincidence... |
| Posted by: mojo 2008-01-22 11:47 |
| #4 Or we can have a frag-off with Call of Duty 4. Winners get UNSC seats. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-22 09:01 |
| #3 The alternative to expanding the UNSC is for a parallel organization to emerge, outside of the UN, that doesn't just add the new powers, but excludes UNSC members that no longer have "juice", from having a veto. It is more likely, as just adding veto members would neuter the UNSC. This means the members must have three things. Economic and military power, and the willingness to project them internationally. That is, if they *have* these things, *and* use them, then the club *could* contain the US, Russia, China, India, Japan (if it develops its military), and the EU (if it develops its military). But if Japan and the EU *don't* develop their military enough to project it, then they don't get a veto. Non-voting members would be organized as blocs, the South American, African, Middle Eastern and Oceanic blocs. Each with rotating representation. Ironically, the UNSC-type organization *must* be based not on nuclear weapons, but on conventional "boots on the ground". There is a different "nuclear club", but it is out of the limelight. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-01-22 08:46 |
| #2 They can move it to Brussles so they all can enjoy the multicultural orgy before Western Europe burns down. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-01-22 08:11 |
| #1 I'm for everyone having a veto and reducing US contribution to 2%. And the UN budget can pay for the aid the US gives gratis. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-22 07:45 |