U.N. Calls for Sweeping Changes, Including an Updated Council

[Placebo]

The United Nations proposed the most sweeping changes in its history today, recommending the overhaul of its key decision-making organ, the Security Council, and suggesting standards of international legitimacy for countries that have not been attacked to go to war against an enemy posing an imminent threat.

The changes were outlined in a much-awaited 101-recommendation report from a 16-member panel commissioned by Secretary General Kofi Annan a year ago in the aftermath of bitter divisions that had left the United Nations feeling ill-equipped to meet modern day challenges represented by terrorism, failed states, nuclear proliferation, poverty and mass violence.

In its most attention-getting recommendation, calling for a 24-member Security Council, the panel, led by Anand Panyarachun, a former prime minister of Thailand, was unable to agree on one proposal and ended up suggesting two options. Both are aimed at broadening the membership of the 15-member council to reflect the world of today rather than the one that existed when the council set up after the end of World War II.

It currently consists of five veto-bearing permanent members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - and 10n members elected to two-year terms.

One alternative would add six new permanent members from Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe - the likely candidates are Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Egypt and either Nigeria or South Africa - as well as three new two-year term members.

The other would create a new tier of eight semi-permanent members chosen for renewable four-year terms and one additional two-year term seat.

The right to cast vetos would continue to be limited to the five members that now have that right.

The new arrangement is aimed at rewarding both countries that have achieved economic and regional prominence over recent decades and countries that make the most significant contributions to the United Nations.

Addressing the legitimacy of the use of force, a source of crippling tensions at the United Nations last year when the United States was seeking Security Council authorization to go to war in Iraq, the panel said it found no reason to amend the United Nations charter's Article 51, which restricts the use of force to countries that have been attacked.

full article may be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/international/30cnd-nati.html?ei=5094&en=02bb6f3d50bd8225&hp=&ex=1101877200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1101850549-wjdwg88FZgTJ0tUn5kDEGw

[justinsb]

1. It would be better if

they could do away with the veto power entirely.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. Do away with the Security Council entirely

It made sense in the late 1940s, but it's an anachronism now. It gives the most powerful and richest states control, and that violates the spirit of the United Nations.

[struggle4progress]

14. Yes! eom

[mazzarro]

3. I agree

The veto does not quite fit into the contemporary era.

[bullimiami]

6. exactly what i was thinking. they need a way to override.

the permanent members veto power is too much. they have proven to use it for their own political ends again and again.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

4. Does This Include Bill Clinton as Secretary General?

He wants it.

[Wisc Badger]

5. At the very least

Add Germany and Japan as permanent members of the Security council and give them the veto also.

Add Brazil and South Africa as permanent members with out veto power.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. I'd like to see the veto changed so that

a majority of the veto-holding nations must agree ... three out of the five.

[DRoseDARs]

8. If they don't modify the veto powers, then they might as well...

...give Santa's Workshop, Pee-Wee's Playhouse, their local Starbuck's, and some homeless person seats on the Security Council too. It'll be just as effective as what they seem to be proposing for the SC. :eyes:

[Placebo]

9. Ha.

[DRoseDARs]

10. It astounds me they don't understand it isn't the number of seats...

...that makes the Security Council damn near useless most times and usually weak when they DO do something.

[Laelth]

11. If you take veto power from the US, ...

... or if the UN were to change the rules to allow more vetoes on the security council, or, even, if the rule changed to where 3 of 5 nations on the security council could override the veto of a permanent member, then Bush would likely pull the US out of the UN and kick them out of the country. I'm not so sure that's a good idea.

-Laelth

[justinsb]

13. I'm not sure it's a bad idea

I'd like to see the UN Headquarters move to Jerusalem. Then maybe there will be an incentive to solve that problem.

[nickzen]

12. Oh, how soon we forget

Seems like only yesterday that I watched in amazement at Ambassador Albright's masterful use of her power. The Europeans and the UN sat singing Kumbaya as genocide was perpetrated throughout the Balkans. It took President Clinton and the ambassador doing some real arm twisting to bring IFOR into existence, and get the USAF flying to bring an end to the horror. Lose an election, and our time horizon collapses to 20 minutes, and we live for short term spite. The next Democratic President, and there will be one soon, might not agree with your casual regard for such an important tool for good.