Aussie PM wants to demote the French in the U.N. Security Council

korn469 · April 19, 2003, 01:03

sorry spiffor

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...172536432.html

Howard seeks to demote France in UN

Prime Minister John Howard wants to reform the United Nations, saying the presence of France as a permanent member of the Security Council "distorts" the council.

He wants Japan, a South American country and India to be represented on the Security Council. France was there only because it was a global power at the end of World War II, he said.

Asking France or any other permanent member of the Security Council to voluntarily surrender their seat was "a major undertaking", he conceded.

His comments risk the ire of France before the first visit to Australia by President Jacques Chirac, who is due in the country in July.

France angered the war coalition nations with its strong opposition to a second UN resolution backing military action. Once the troops went into Iraq, President Chirac was a vocal opponent of the war.

Mr Howard offered a compromise, which he said would make the UN more representative of the modern world - three levels of Security Council members, the permanent members, the rotating members and a new group of permanent members that had no veto. It would be "a far better expression of world opinion", he said.

Despite his criticism of the Security Council, Mr Howard said the UN had a complementary role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. But the interim authority would be run by the US with help from Britain, Australia and others.

Mr Howard cautioned against moving too fast to a new Iraqi-controlled government, because the model had to be right. He suggested a federal system similar to Australia's could be suitable for Iraq. "When you reflect upon the strong Kurdish component in the north, the Shiite preponderance in the south and the Sunni preponderance in the middle, perhaps there is some merit in a federal experiment in Iraq," Mr Howard told the 13th Commonwealth Law Conference in Melbourne.

He mentioned the possible model with "some trepidation" in case he was accused of trying to impose an alien Australian solution on another country.

"But when you have strong ethnic and regional differences, it is only a federal system of government that perhaps might provide the means of holding the nation together."

Government officials said Australia's views on the shape of a postwar Iraqi government had been made known to the US and included two main principles - that it be determined by the Iraqi people and that it should allow for representatives of the three main groups and some further tribal groupings.

The Kurds should have a strong degree of autonomy, the officials said.

Australia has sent a number of officials to be part of the transitional authority headed by US retired general Jay Garner. The Department of Foreign Affairs official is Andrew Goledzinowski, an assistant secretary who has worked as a career diplomat and as the chief of staff to Mary Robinson, the former UN high commissioner for refugees.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said Mr Howard should focus his intention on more immediate issues, such as the crisis at Baghdad's hospitals.

"The primary concern is to make sure the hospitals are no longer looted and medical supplies and services are being dispensed to the Iraqi people," Mr Rudd said.

Also yesterday, Mr Howard attacked "armchair generals" who criticised the conduct of the war, while it had run largely according to plan. "Of all the doomsday scenarios that were predicted, not one of them has been realised," he said

Ted Striker · April 19, 2003, 01:06

AU!

cinch · April 19, 2003, 01:08

He wants ... India to be represented on the Security Council.

I would like to see what Pakistan would have to say about that.

**************************

And how is France less of a world power than Argentina or Brazil?

Silly Howard.

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 01:10

This is a very interesting idea. The reason the French have a veto is that they were on the winning side in WWII. But, of course, they had very littlte to do with that win, and there is really no justification, other than the luck of history, for their veto power.
Why not eliminate it?

Urban Ranger · April 19, 2003, 01:13

What a boob!

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 01:22

Originally posted by LoneWolf
This is a very interesting idea. The reason the French have a veto is that they were on the winning side in WWII. But, of course, they had very littlte to do with that win, and there is really no justification, other than the luck of history, for their veto power.
Why not eliminate it?

They are comparable in military strength to the British, and with them and the US are the only nations capable of projecting conventional military force far from their borders.

In other words,

Ted Striker · April 19, 2003, 01:25

On paper maybe, but we know the Brits would smack the **** out of the French.

Frankychan · April 19, 2003, 01:25

I think this is a pretty ingenious idea. Restructuring the UN would allow it to change to meet the world's demands.

Unfortunately, I don't think that France or some of the other members of the UN would want to give up what power they do have.

Is there an Asian country that is a permanent UN member?

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 01:25

Frogger- And your points (if even debatably true) are relevant because...?

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 01:26

Nope, Frogger, and LoneWolf.

The reason they are there is the Brits wanted them there.

Comparable in military strength? Maybe. Comparable in influence? Not a chance.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 01:27

Originally posted by Ted Striker
On paper maybe, but we know the Brits would smack the **** out of the French.

Luckily, we'll never find out. The point is that everybody else is 4th place when it comes to a US-style technological, large and mobile army.

DinoDoc · April 19, 2003, 01:28

Originally posted by Frankychan
Is there an Asian country that is a permanent UN member?

Just an insignifigant country who is "best friends" with the DPRK.

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 01:28

China also has a veto, Frankychan, for exactly the same reason as France.

Frankychan · April 19, 2003, 01:29

Nod, thanks.

Ted Striker · April 19, 2003, 01:30

How about:

US
UK
France
Japan
China
Russia
India
Brazil
South Africa

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 01:31

Originally posted by notyoueither
Nope, Frogger, and LoneWolf.

The reason they are there is the Brits wanted them there.

Comparable in military strength? Maybe. Comparable in influence? Not a chance.

I'd be interested in hearing your expansion on this idea. I've not heard this before. (no troll).

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 01:31

Originally posted by LoneWolf
Frogger- And your points (if even debatably true) are relevant because...?

Because of the duties and responsibilities of the security council.

The US is far and away "Greatest Power", but excluding all of continental Europe is just as laughable as excluding China.

The reason they are there is the Brits wanted them there

Didn't Truman/Roosevelt also want them there? Can't remember too much about the talks that formed it. IIRC the bigger controversty was including China (which hadn't been a world power for 200 years, at the time).

Imran Siddiqui · April 19, 2003, 01:35

Behind this, Howard has the right idea. The permanent members of the SC should be more representative of the world.

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 01:38

Originally posted by LoneWolf

I'd be interested in hearing your expansion on this idea. I've not heard this before. (no troll).

I am not reviewing material, but I am pretty sure the Brits pushed to have the French on the Security Council. They wanted more Euros and they didn't have any other candidates to push.

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 01:42

Entirely possible, but truly unfortunate.

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 01:47

Originally posted by Frogger
Didn't Truman/Roosevelt also want them there? Can't remember too much about the talks that formed it. IIRC the bigger controversty was including China (which hadn't been a world power for 200 years, at the time).

The Chinese were not around when it was started. They joined later.

cinch · April 19, 2003, 01:51

The Chinese were not around when it was started. They joined later.

I thought the UN granted the Nationalist government (Taiwan) a position on the SC, initially, but the power was eventually transferred over to the People's Republic.

Now, as to whether Taiwan was granted a postion at the same time as the French et al., I have no clue.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 01:52

Originally posted by notyoueither

The Chinese were not around when it was started. They joined later.

Weren't they? I thought there had been five from the beginning, and Taiwan's hold on the seat was due to grandfathering of power (since they had mainland until 1949).

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:07

Originally posted by cinch

I thought the UN granted the Nationalist government (Taiwan) a position on the SC, initially, but the power was eventually transferred over to the People's Republic.

Now, as to whether Taiwan was granted a postion at the same time as the French et al., I have no clue.

No, Taiwan was never part of the SC. The PRC did not get into the UN until '71.

Shi Huangdi · April 19, 2003, 02:11

Austeralia!

LoneWolf · April 19, 2003, 02:15

Well, I'd certainly rather have the Aussie's than the Frogs.

KrazyHorse · April 19, 2003, 02:18

Originally posted by notyoueither

No, Taiwan was never part of the SC. The PRC did not get into the UN until '71.

Now you're completely off.

Scroll down to "China"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm

Between 1946 and 1971, the Chinese seat at the Security Council was occupied by the Republic of China (Taiwan), which used its veto once to block Mongolia's application for UN membership.

Imran Siddiqui · April 19, 2003, 02:21

Yeah, nye, you are wrong.

Taiwan occupied the permanent SC spot for China, because the other countries refused to recognize the PRC.

notyoueither · April 19, 2003, 02:29

Well, I'll be damned. OK. I'd forgotten all about that bit.

Well, at least that explains how Mao got the Veto.

Drake Tungsten · April 19, 2003, 02:36

This is a good idea; Europe doesn't warrant two permanent seats on the Security Council. They should get rid of France's seat, make the UK's seat an EU-appointed one and add India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and possibly a seat chosen by the Arab League. The Security Council needs to be more representative of the world's population; the loss of France is just a nice side-effect of this noble goal.