Attempts to create a European permanent UNSC seat appear to have failed...

[Ecthy]

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/pubs/aktuell/pageviewer.asp?TextID=30830

According to this article in the Tagesspiegel paper of Berlin, the Schröder administration has made repeated careful attempts to bring back the decades old debate about a permanent UNSC seat for Germany. This debate slowed down with the German government change in 1998 and got frozen with the recent tensions between Germany and the US in 2002/03. Now that Schröder and Bush have been talking, the debate is brought back, but it also brings back the more recent question of how sensible and possible it is to create one permanent security council seat for all of the European Union.

According to the 2002 (september elections) government coalition agreement, Germany would only try and pursuit a course for her own UNSC seat if chances to a European seat appeared marginally low. Thus, the newly brought up discussion indicates, that at least for the German government the debate about a European seat has already ended.

Does it really mean this? How could it happen, is it merely because of the UK's totally different foreign political stance in most matters compared to continental Europe, as well as with other middle sized nations in consideration such as Spain and Poland? Or is it just blatent shortsightedness of our government, them totally forgrtting about European approaches when making German decisions?

Discuss.

[TheStinger]

There is more chance of the Pope declaring his undying love for Brittany Spears than the UK giving up its Veto to the Germans, Italians et al

[CerberusIV]

It isn't going to happen for 2 reasons.

A European seat would certainly mean the UK and/or France giving up their seat(s). Neither country will willingly surrender one of their last vestiges of global power.

ANY change to the UNSC will bring a swarm of other countries all clamouring for a permanent seat or changes to the UN structure or whatever. No-one really wants to open that particular can of worms.

That is why I believe it is time to scrap the present UN and start over with a new organisation. It won't happen though - too many vested interests.

[Dinner]

Agreed, neither France nor Britain is likely to agree to give up their veto powers; rightly so I may add. I don't see a common EU seat working until all of the member states officially abolish themselves and form an official Federal union. We'd have to see something like what happened in Germany or Italy in the 1870s-1880s where the old states totally gave up their sovereignty to the new state.

[Ecthy]

Should Germany get it? Japan? Nigeria? Nauru?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Should Germany get it? Japan? Nigeria? Nauru?

Germany, Japan, and India.

[Dinner]

Germany, Japan, and India should be given perminent seats but no veto powers.

[Cruddy]

I thought the EU was about economic, not political union.

Anyway, for the EU to get a seat means UK and France not objecting. This is not only possible, but likely. One day a nuclear exchange will occur, probably by complete accident.

I doubt any time soon - not for decades if not centuries. Sooner or later though, chances are one side or the other will get terminally fed up of the other.

Read your history books if you really don't believe me.

As for future UNSC expansion - it would have to a balanced entry. Population and military wise I would say India - but to balance that, a Muslim nation would also have to be included.

I'm buggered if I can think of one Muslim nation that all the permanent members would agree to - possibly Indonesia, although the UK wouldn't be over the moon about that choice.

The real problem with the Muslim nations is that the head honcho's are NEARLY always who the US decides should head that country.

Pakistan falls in that category for sure.