Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

The Three Pillars

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

Re: softwood issue

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-03-05 06:21:22

>Why is France a permanent member of >the Security Council for the next 300 >years? Doesn't India warrant a seat? >Or Brazil?

We could say the same thing with all permanent members of the security council, why do you concentrate on France?? Why not the UK, or the US? Why Russia? Russia is no longer a power in the world... As for France and the UK, they are at the same level (GNP, military spending, etc..), so if France goes, why not the UK?

I think if the security council must be changed one day, it should be done by completely removing all permanent members - or changing the vote system where these countries would have more than one voice, but could no longer do a veto, not by removing only some countries...

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Re: softwood issue

Contributor: cfallon

Date: 2003-03-05 09:56:55

You are correct - I shouldn't focus purely on France. The UK is questionable too. Maybe it should be 1 permanent member per continent with a veto power and that each continent gets to elect the member every 10 years or something.

Also, I agree, maybe its not so much the membership, but the powers they could exercise.

Reply to this message

Re: softwood issue

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-03-05 17:03:18

I agree with you on that, one veto per contient would be a good balence.

I must also admit that my facts were wrong (I think not a lot of people know about this) ... I was watching a documentary a few hours ago on the UN, and I found out that the UN general assembly also has the power of the security council (with a 2/3 majority vote)!

So its more democratic than i thought!
This is taken directly from the UN site
(http://www.un.org/ga/56/about.htm):

Under the "Uniting for peace" resolution adopted by the General Assembly in November 1950, the Assembly may take action if the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity of its permanent members, fails to act in a case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. The Assembly is empowered to consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Members for collective measures, including, in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression, the use of armed force when necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

p.s : This resolution was proposed by the US being they were tired of always being vetoed by the USSR.

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic