Posted on 01/26/2005 9:07:37 AM PST by SunkenCiv
The external relations commissioner has said that the EU should strive for a single seat in the UN Security Council. Speaking in Berlin on Monday, Benita Ferrero-Waldner said that the United Nations system is very strongly based on nation-state thinking. Instead, she argued, "sovereignties" should be combined... "I think that one should consider a special seat for the EU in the security council given its foreign policy significance" ...German foreign minister Joschka Fischer said the idea was "unrealistic". He said that Germany would agree to creating a single EU seat if France and the UK would give up their own seats. He added, however, that "this will not happen in the near future, so the debate is over before it has even started" ...Structural changes to the Security Council would have to be approved by two-thirds of the delegates in the General Assembly with no veto by one of the permanent members.
(Excerpt) Read more at euobserver.com ...
FR Lexicon·Posting Guidelines·Excerpt, or Link only?·Ultimate Sidebar Management·Headlines
Donate Here By Secure Server·Eating our own -- Time to make a new start in Free Republic
PDF to HTML translation·Translation page·Wayback Machine·My Links·FreeMail Me
Gods, Graves, Glyphs topic·and group·Books, Magazines, Movies, Music
Another reason to leave the UN.
Key part of EU Constitution may be changedIn a bid to ease French fears about Turkey membership of the EU and the voting power it would wield due to its size, the European Commission President told French daily Le Figaro on Wednesday that the rules may be changed... In order for a decision to be taken 55% of member states representing 65% of the total EU population are needed. By the time Turkey joins the EU, not before 2015, it is expected that its population will have outgrown Germany's - currently the biggest member state in the European Union... French voters are largely hostile to Turkey's EU membership... If the rules were to be changed, all member states would have to unanimously agree to it and it would have to be done before 2015 - the earliest possible date for Turkey's EU entry.
by Honor Mahony
Jan 14 2005
This would make sense if Germany, UK and France had a common foreign and defense policy. But it's not the case.
NATO to be marginalised by the EU"The EU, rather than NATO, will increasingly become the primary institution for Europe, and the role which Europeans shape for themselves on the world stage is most likely to be projected through it", said the forecast. "Whether the EU will develop an army is an open question, in part because its creation could duplicate or displace NATO forces", says the report.
by Lisbeth Kirk
Jan 17 2005
I am totally in favor of the EU having a single seat in the UN. However, they must give up all the existing seats the countries currently hold.
In order to have a permanent seat on the Security Council a state has to have (1) a robust economy capable of sustaining a war-time effort, (2) a strong military capable of enforcing Security Council resolutions, and (3) the political will to use that power. The EU has the first, but not the second or third.
I'm all for it provided they take away the seats held by Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, etc. If they don't, then we should insist on seats for Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, etc., in addition to that held by the U.S.
Some members of the EU are members of NATO, some are neutral.
Some support the Iraq war, some do not.
Combine those and you have at least four different points of view.
There is no way this is going to work.
How about and 'old europe' seat and a 'new europe' seat instead of the uk and french seats :)
I'm not sure it would make sense even then. If there's going to be "reform" at the UN, the UNSC is *not* the place to start. Right now, the rest of the EU members want what the UK and France have, and one way to get it (and this might fly with the General Assembly) is for the UK and France -- and Russia -- to drop their permanent member status in exchange for their voices in a single EU seat.
What else might be added though, as long as such a sweeping change is being proposed? A Moslem permanent seat of some sort, perhaps Turkey? A Latin American seat, perhaps Brazil? And would the Spanish-speaking nations of Latin America balk at that? Maybe a permanent seat for India? Then, what about Africa? Nigeria? Egypt?
The UNSC is barely workable right now, but at least in theory the western powers have three vetos, and the eastern powers two, with no veto for nations in South America, Africa, and southern Asia. This is a consequence of the WWII origins of the UN, but I think as the UNSC goes, so goes the UN. Eventually the UN will be superseded by something else. I doubt that it will take a war, but there's no crystal ball either. ;')
Molotov demanded individual seats (not on the UNSC) for each of the USSR's "republics", saying that the UK and France would have multiple seats eventually as their colonies gained independence. The compromise was to admit the five largest SSRs as if they were separate entities. He also demanded a veto power over debate. Stalin acted as if he was just learning of this when the US translator said, in Russian, "there's a little more, Molotov". Stalin said, "what is this madness?" and said that debate was "a small right", one that the USSR could live with.
The compromise stinks to high heaven, and did then, but as Shelby Foote said, the American political genius is for compromise. :')
This council will not be representative as long as Poland isn’t in :) and as long as Russia represents our region :) Actually we are in coalition which blocking seat for Germany. :)
Getting a single EU seat would take the debate out of the UN and into the EU. For this seat to have any kind of meaning, it would require EU members to increasingly act as one, thus encouraging political integration.
Frankly, I don't see that happening. The EU is a successful economic union, but was not devised to be anything more. The EU citizens are quite content with their nation-states, and wouldn't trade it happily for a joint sovereignty.
And as you aptly put it, the Permanent Seats were supposed to give Western nations a majority on major decisions, because they share the same culture and the same values. Changing the UNSC is changing the UN, and it would probably not be in a pretty way.
I can't imagine, for example, having Saudi Arabia having a permanent veto power. That would be the end of every sensible policy regarding the ME, and leave the West with no other option than to act outside of the UN to protect its interests, while giving our enemies a free podium to denounce the old "imperialistic racist anti-Muslim schemes of the West", or something like that.
I assume the central concept of the UNSC is the put major decisions in the hands of a few majors powers. 200 countries talking isn't going to get decisions made. The major powers need to represents different viewpoints and geographies. Population size, Economic size, Military Size and Geography should all be factor. Africa has very little influence on the world doesn't really need a seat. The middle east does deserve a seat but who on earth would get it? -
Reckon these 7 would cover most bases. They represent over 50% of the worlds population, reasonable sized militaries (ex. EU). All figures approx
(Population, Economy, Geography)
USA (300M, 10 Trillion, North America)
CHINA (1300M, 6 Trillion, East Asia)
JAPAN (135M, 3.5 Trillion, East Asia)
INDIA (1000M, 1 Trillion, South Asia)
EU SEAT (450M, 11 Trillion, Europe)
BRAZIL (200M, 1 Trillion, South America)
RUSSIA (145M, 1 Trillion, Europe/Asia)
With the new EU Constitution, there will be an ever closer union on foreign and defense policy in the EU. Since the European federalists want a European superstate, they should have a unified representation in the UN.
As long as each of the 50 states also get a seat. heheh That would be very interesting.
Or.....We get 50 more.
I fully agree with them, they should have one: give up 25 and take one, now sit down and shut up your Fascist little crapweasal scum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.