"Because in Cyberspace, no one can hear you scream."
Friday, June 10, 2005
UNITED NATIONS: Brazil, Germany, India and Japan dropped their demand that new permanent members in an expanded UN Security Council be given veto power.
The so-called Group of Four has been campaigning vigorously to become members of the UNÂs most powerful body, but were forced to back down in the face of opposition from a number of countries, including some of the current permanent members who have veto power.
This comes as a surprise as India was probably the only nation that held "the right" of claiming permanent status. Brazil, although a heavy weight on Google's Orkut, is not a global player in the world economy and had little to offer as why it deserved permanent status. Germany is not needed because Europe is already represented through France and Britain, while Japan's addition would have created unnecessary hostilities between it and China.
Like China, India's population is approximately one billion, and having it represented along side the United States, China, etc. on the permanent council would give the U.N. a "new face" not to mention broader appeal amongst third world nations. It seems though that India (along with Germany, Brazil and Japan) are holding out their demands in order to make way for other possible avenues of reform.
Opponents of the Group of Four under the umbrella Uniting for Consensus _ also favour expanding the council from 15 to 25 members, but oppose creating any new permanent members. They want 20 non-permanent members to face periodic election by the General Assembly, which they argue is more transparent and democratic.
Although this is a good idea, one way for the United Nations to become truely democratic is to not only expand the number of seats in the security council but eliminate the permanent membership of "the five." Although such measures would create resistance amongst those in power (as all those in power resist losing it) such procedure would truely reflect the will and intent of the United Nations.
But before any reforms can be made, changing the make up of the council must be proven to be better than the current status, otherwise altering the security council could prove to be fatal.
Deutsch â¢ EspaÃ±ol â¢ FranÃ§ais â¢ Italiano â¢ Portugese â¢ æ¥æ¬èª â¢ íêµ â¢ æ±è¯
Comment Policy: Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of this site or the authors, and are the legal responsibility of the original commenter. Intelligent opinions welcome. Comment here.
By Darnell Clayton â¢ 1:06 AM â¢ Email Post â¢ â¢
Enter your email address below to subscribe.
View Blog Stats
Plus 10,667 hits before August 12, 2005
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of anyone that I work with, for, or associate with in any manner.