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

[LoneWolf]

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]

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]

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

[notyoueither]

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]

Entirely possible, but truly unfortunate.

[notyoueither]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Austeralia!

[LoneWolf]

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

[KrazyHorse]

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]

Yeah, nye, you are wrong.

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

[notyoueither]

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]

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.