Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Payback For Germany In Wrangle Over UN Top Seat
The Times [UK] ^ | June 17, 2005 | James Bone

Posted on 06/20/2005 6:12:32 PM PDT by quidnunc

New York – The United States poured cold water on Germany’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council yesterday, saying that it favoured adding only two full-time seats to the top table of international diplomacy.

Washington, which can block any expansion of the 15-nation council, said that it wanted to add two permanent members, including Japan.

Bush Administration officials were quoted as saying that the second seat should go to a developing nation and that Washington would also support the addition of up to three new rotating non- permanent seats.

The long-awaited American position was interpreted by diplomats as payback for Germany’s opposition to the Iraq war and a reward for Japan, which joined the coalition.

The new US policy also gives hope to India, another democratic US ally, which would clearly be the leading candidate for a third-world permanent seat. But diplomats predicted that it would antagonise the 53- nation African group at the UN as well as the 34 Latin American and Caribbean countries.

The announcement confounded a joint effort by Germany, Japan, India and Brazil to win approval from the 191-nation UN General Assembly for six new permanent members to sit alongside Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. The so-called Group of Four had threatened to push for a vote next week on a framework resolution, to be followed in several weeks by another vote, deciding which countries would get the new permanent seats. Their plan — which is supported by Britain and France — calls for the six new permanent seats to be filled by Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and two African powers.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany
KEYWORDS: oldeurope; paybackisabitch

1 posted on 06/20/2005 6:12:33 PM PDT by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

I say we shrink the security council. France, you're off!


2 posted on 06/20/2005 6:15:19 PM PDT by TheOtherOne (I often sacrifice my spelling on the alter of speed™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Germany's 2 year turn on the Security Council was not good for the United States. The German UN ambassador is an obnoxious anti-American. Besides Iraq, Germany led the fight to have the US peacekeepers exemption from the ICC killed.

The payback is well deserved and is for a series of actions-not just one.


3 posted on 06/20/2005 6:16:42 PM PDT by Patriot from Philly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Good. Glad Washington is showing that there are consequences for making the wrong choices. Germany needs to get it's stuff together before it comes to the US and asks for anything.


4 posted on 06/20/2005 6:17:21 PM PDT by DuckFan4ever (Liberals lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
...and two African powers.

I nominate Libya and Zimbabwe! < /sarcasm >

5 posted on 06/20/2005 6:17:21 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
New York – The United States poured cold water on Germany’s bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council yesterday...

Somebody ping Dick Durbin. More torture!

6 posted on 06/20/2005 6:18:52 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (A lack of preparation on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

I sort of agree. How about a security council of one permanent member and one rotating member from each continent? Maybe Asia gets three permanent members, but only two rotating slots.

The Premanent Members:

1. Europe: UK
2. Asia1: China
3. Asia2: Russia
4. Asia3: India
5. South Pacific: Australia
6. Africa: South Africa
7. North America: USA
8. South America: Chile

Maybe South America would be Brazil, but they are a bit flakey right now. If there were just 7 rotating members, one per continent except 2 for Asia, then there would be an odd number of members, 15, and no ties. I would keep the veto in the hands of only those security council members who have it now. And of course France would lose there's and their permanent seat.


7 posted on 06/20/2005 6:22:37 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
Hey, Schroeder!     Remember this?

 

Love ya!

-GWB

 

 

8 posted on 06/20/2005 6:23:51 PM PDT by StoneGiant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
and two African powers.

I'm hard pressed to think of even one.

9 posted on 06/20/2005 6:24:26 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

Either the EU should get only one seat (buh bye France) or the US should get 50.


10 posted on 06/20/2005 6:41:32 PM PDT by kennedy ("Why would I listen to losers?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne
I say we shrink the security council. France, you're off!

No, we need to look for a win-win situation. Declare the French seat to be the EU seat, and then let Germany hold it on behalf of the EU.

11 posted on 06/20/2005 6:50:19 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JLS
"The United States will spell out its preferred criteria for candidates at the UN next week, arguing that a country’s size and population, military capacity and potential to contribute to UN peacekeeping..."

What is Chile going to do to contribute to the UN? The US should allow its influence to be diluted with additional members. No new members!

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com
12 posted on 06/20/2005 6:52:00 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com (Visit my web site and win ....... nothing! The government took it in taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com

correction:
The US should allow = The US shouldn't allow


13 posted on 06/20/2005 6:53:15 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com (Visit my web site and win ....... nothing! The government took it in taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com
We have all the influence we need. We have veto power. And we ought to use it more often.
14 posted on 06/20/2005 7:00:24 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The long-awaited American position was interpreted by diplomats as payback for Germany’s opposition to the Iraq war and a reward for Japan, which joined the coalition.

While that may be a factor, it isn't the sole reason.

For instance, Old Europe is already represented. IF we were going to add yet another European voice it would go to Poland.

Japan's influence is strategic. An expanding coalition between Taiwan/Japan/India/Australia and the U.S. is being built to counter China.

15 posted on 06/20/2005 7:04:57 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

We ought to just dump the damn thing and let it die.


16 posted on 06/20/2005 7:18:35 PM PDT by RedTail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedTail

Amen.


17 posted on 06/20/2005 7:25:28 PM PDT by Just A Nobody (I - L O V E - my attitude problem!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"But diplomats predicted that it would antagonise the 53- nation African group at the UN as well as the 34 Latin American and Caribbean countries."

Well damn! That would ruin my day...

Who can name an African, South American or Caribbean country that would amount to more than a pimple on Japan's or India's ass...

Most of those Turd World "nations" can't feed, care for or defend themselves -- and they want to vote on how the rest of the world operates?

Sorry - folks -- they're not up to the task..
Neither is France for that matter...

Semper Fi

18 posted on 06/20/2005 7:27:11 PM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Six new seats? Let's see, uhh, Japan, Brazil, Georgia, California, Ohio, and Texas.


19 posted on 06/20/2005 7:36:07 PM PDT by nkycincinnatikid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
I nominate:

JAPAN
INDIA

I prohibit:

GERMANY
BRAZIL
NIGERIA

20 posted on 06/20/2005 7:38:30 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLS

How 'bout we jest sh_tcan the UN?


21 posted on 06/20/2005 7:38:48 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
and two African powers.

I'm hard pressed to think of even one.

Egypt and Detroit.

22 posted on 06/20/2005 7:39:23 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Well done.


23 posted on 06/20/2005 7:58:36 PM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com

xzins offered a simple yet elegant solution that I could agree with but maybe is not happening.

JeffersonRepublic.com, I see it as not diluting the US's influence. One less permanent member with a veto, ie France off as a permanent member, would add to the US's influence. The way to sell it is to balance the security counsel by regions and to do that would require a South American representative. The new 15 member SC would have only four members with vetos, US, UK, Russia and China rather than 5 it has now.


24 posted on 06/20/2005 8:00:32 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JLS

"I see it as not diluting the US's influence. One less permanent member with a veto, ie France off as a permanent member"

Sounds good to me, but what would being a permanent member mean if we where to kick out a "permanent member" - unless the EU agreement is used... Kick out France or the US gets 50 members.

Holtz
JeffersonRepublic.com


25 posted on 06/20/2005 8:12:28 PM PDT by JeffersonRepublic.com (Visit my web site and win ....... nothing! The government took it in taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Membership on the Security Council should depend entirely on a country's ability to contribute to the security of the world. How many men, arms, tanks, planes can they contribute? That is what the Security Council is all about. If you can't contribute, you shouldn't be on it.


26 posted on 06/20/2005 8:25:38 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com

I think the arguement for removing a permanent member is that the current set up of 5 permanent members was established for the circumstances after WWII and all five of the winning allies got permanent seats. But of course we know that France was only techically an ally.

Anyway, geographic/population balance could be used to remove France as a permanent member although they would veto the action if it happens through the security counsel?
Also such a move might lead to the collapse of the UN another plus.


27 posted on 06/20/2005 8:37:41 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Exactly!


28 posted on 06/20/2005 8:42:46 PM PDT by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

End result will be the same no matter what happens.

The UN Security Council becomes even more ungainly and useless, gradually being phased out. I suspect that's part of the plan.


29 posted on 06/20/2005 9:43:53 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA (New blogspot at "http://yankeestation.blogspot.com". Mostly military and political affairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeffersonRepublic.com

I'd much prefer to add 60 members to join the council so that it'll be entirely useless. And yet still have our priceless veto.


30 posted on 06/20/2005 9:45:47 PM PDT by Joseph_CutlerUSA (New blogspot at "http://yankeestation.blogspot.com". Mostly military and political affairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc; Grzegorz 246; Lukasz; lizol

Maybe it is quite astonishing, but large parts of the political informed people in Germany see the attempt of the socialist red-green gouvernment to bring the country into the SC of the UN, extremely skeptical. If Germany would be a permanent member, it wouldn't be possible to refuse substancial help in the crises of this world anymore. Especially the German public is not interested in more engagement. No matter if it should be financially or militarily. This is the reason why the coming "new" more right wing gouvernment of the CDU under the lead of the new chancellor Angela Merkel, who will probably succeed Schroeder and his scum in autumn, will not press the membership ahead wholeheartedly. The best thing that could happen to her, is that the US keep Germany out the SC and she could blame it on Schroeder (who is already history - a lame duck). Everybody in Germany would be happy since we must not waste our money and soldiers in conflicts far away from Europe. Others (especially the US) would have to pay the bill.

Because Mrs. Merkel will be a stauch ally of the US and G. W. Bush, I doubt that it is in the interest of America to keep Germany out of the SC. It would be much easier to share the burden of the "global war on terror", if Germany would have more responsibility. If the current status is going to be cemented, there will be no real contribution of the fifth largest economy of the world in the near future.


31 posted on 06/20/2005 11:38:26 PM PDT by Atlantic Bridge (O tempora! O mores!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

There's no point in any African nation getting a seat -- they have NO way of projecting their power or keeping the peace even on their own continent. They can't even pay their way. Ditto for Latin American and Caribbean nations. Now Australia CAN carry her weight and MORE, but she's not got a large population (it does count!), France, yes she does toss her weight around West Africa, but I think that's really just an extension of colonialism. the UK deserves her seat as does Russia, the US (of course) and yes, even China. Japan should be on because I feel Japan should be rehabilitated into the world and I think Japan CAN carry her weight military if need be (they are easily able to carry their weight economically). India can take care of the Indian ocean pretty well (as demonstrated during the Tsunami crisis) and is improving further militarily, socially and economically.


32 posted on 06/21/2005 1:33:34 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Bridge
Firstly I must say that I doubt that new government of Poland will support the German bid. I don’t think that Schroeder deserved for any kind of support, beside I don’t think that additional European members it is a good idea for us.

Personally I would like to see only one permanent seat for EU with rotation system among the biggest members.

Everybody in Germany would be happy since we must not waste our money and soldiers in conflicts far away from Europe.

Firstly European countries should at last resolve problems with final status of Kosovo and seriously think what to do with Bosnia. We definitely should do that and after short period withdraw our troops. The most important conflicts in European orbit are in Moldova, Georgia and Karabah. These conflicts must be resolved as soon as it is possible. How Europe may think about conflicts far from old continent if we have so many problems here?
33 posted on 06/21/2005 4:36:57 AM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz

"...Personally I would like to see only one permanent seat for EU with rotation system among the biggest members..."

The whole SC-system of the UN is BS because it doesn't represent the real relative strength of the dominating powers in this world. Its decisions are not legitimiated by a democratic instance either. Therefore it is ridicoulus to pick out certain countries and to forget about the others. To give an uncontroversial example: Why is Italy no candidate to the SC but Japan? Italy proved its will to help and its responsibility and has done far more than Japan in the recent crises. The only reason for a membership of Japan is its mere size.

It doesn't matter if Europe gets a new member in the SC or not. The system will still be BS. The conditions and the legality for unilateral action (i.e. the preemptive strike on Iraq) can't be decided or found in this exclusive club. We (the whole world) need a completely new and fairer system.

BTW - I o not think it is in the interest of the US or Europe that the UN does not work anymore, since it is still a perfect platform to solve conflicts before they get really hot. Therefore I do not see a solution in a synchronised SC that is represented by the friends of America only. Nobody of the real bad guys (Putin or our friends from China) would respect such an institution if they feel themselves not represented in a fair proportion. As I already said - the SC needs reforms but they have to go deeper.

"...Firstly European countries should at last resolve problems with final status of Kosovo and seriously think what to do with Bosnia. We definitely should do that and after short period withdraw our troops. The most important conflicts in European orbit are in Moldova, Georgia and Karabah. These conflicts must be resolved as soon as it is possible. How Europe may think about conflicts far from old continent if we have so many problems here?..."

Good point. This is the area, were I want so see the help of my country first and it is the place where it is needed most. Nothing more to say.


34 posted on 06/21/2005 5:30:33 AM PDT by Atlantic Bridge (O tempora! O mores!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

ROFL


35 posted on 06/21/2005 5:37:56 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson