Howard wants to Reform Security Council - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-14-2003, 08:56 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:22 PM
Howard wants to Reform Security Council

This is excellent. He wants to remove France as a permanent member. But, that is not what I think is excellent. I like his ideas to reform the council.

Here is the article.

Howard seeks to demote France in UN
April 15 2003
By Louise Dodson
Chief Political Correspondent
Canberra


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.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 04:44 AM   #2
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Hello,

I don't think that removing France as a permanent member is the right way to reform. What's next? Removing Russia when it disagrees, or the UK, including Pakistan as a permanent member because it says yes?
I think a better initiative would be to take away the veto, so a single member cannot block the entire process. There might be some system where the permanent members have a bigger vote in the process (say a vote of a permanent member counts as two 'normal' votes), but it will remove the disproportionate weight current permanent member votes have in the Security Council.

C ya!

Marty
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 07:57 AM   #3
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:22 AM
I agree with his views on a federal government for Iraq.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 11:02 AM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,699
Local Time: 03:22 PM
Quote:
I don't think that removing France as a permanent member is the right way to reform. What's next? Removing Russia when it disagrees, or the UK, including Pakistan as a permanent member because it says yes? I think a better initiative would be to take away the veto, so a single member cannot block the entire process. There might be some system where the permanent members have a bigger vote in the process (say a vote of a permanent member counts as two 'normal' votes), but it will remove the disproportionate weight current permanent member votes have in the Security Council.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-15-2003, 12:20 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
I agree with his views on a federal government for Iraq.
So do I. What with the Kurds, and the other groups in the country that don't always get along, this could be the way to prevent destructive disputes in the country. It's very important to not screw up with this.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 12:56 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:22 PM
I don't agree about demoting France, either. That's just penalizing them for disagreeing with the U.S. and Britain. Every member of the Security Council should be treated the same way. Maybe abolishing veto power for any one country is the way to go. If France hadn't been able to veto the U.N. resolution this dispute wouldn't be going on. This stupid "I'm gong to screw you for disagreeing with us" game has got to be stopped and some real reform has to be implemented.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 02:08 PM   #7
Babyface
 
Electric Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 23
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
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.
Give me a fucking break. France is not the problem, the veto system is. (Good points, Marty)

And while we're talking about new permanent members, I'd like to see every continent represented in the Security Council, including Africa and South America.


Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
This stupid "I'm gong to screw you for disagreeing with us" game has got to be stopped and some real reform has to be implemented.
__________________
Electric Blue is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 02:14 PM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Electric Blue

And while we're talking about new permanent members, I'd like to see every continent represented in the Security Council, including Africa and South America.

I agree. It's not fair that entire continents are not represented at all.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 02:22 PM   #9
Babyface
 
Electric Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 23
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I agree. It's not fair that entire continents are not represented at all.


Didn't mean to use the F-word in my previous post. It just slipped out.
__________________
Electric Blue is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 02:52 PM   #10
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:22 PM
So, down with France because they have their own opinion?

*polemic*
How about throwing G.B. out of the security council - they just repeat what the US says so there's no need to hear it twice And can you call a country superpower who's affraid of having a own opinion?
*endpolemic*

ok, seriousely, reforming the UN is a good idea, as long as you don't use it for increasing your own power only.

Maybe the Veto system is outdated, maybe not. We saw at the upconming Iraq crisis how small countries started to change their minds because of the chequebook dimplomacy of some countries and the presure of the big-5. Without Veto these things are more likely to hapen in the future.

Was Japan choosen because they agreed with US or why did he think of this counry?
India should become a permanent member of the UN for sure. They are more Superpower than G.B. and France together.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 08:05 PM   #11
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,760
Local Time: 10:22 PM
I don't know if france should be pulled....but I think that either


some countries should be added to the permanent security council panel

Or lets just gget rid ot eh 5 nation veto system...and let's go to having an assembly actually do it democractically and vote...majority wins



having 5 countries determine the course of the world is not something I think the "United Nations" should stand for.
__________________
V Nura is offline  
Old 04-15-2003, 08:52 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:22 PM
Quote:
Or lets just gget rid ot eh 5 nation veto system...and let's go to having an assembly actually do it democractically and vote...majority wins
Arun,

Sounds good to me.

Israel would be in their 1967 boarders.

Tens of thousands of lives would have been saved.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 03:25 AM   #13
The Fly
 
Zedbetty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: here
Posts: 145
Local Time: 09:22 PM
Mr Howard wants a lot of things. In the whole scheme of things he is an irrelevance, buoyed only by his (somewhat one-sided) friendship with the Bush administration.

Australia's government has shown little interest in the UN thus far, except to ignore it when it said things the government did not want to hear. Now he's a statesman? Yeah, whatever.
__________________
Zedbetty is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 03:29 AM   #14
The Fly
 
Zedbetty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: here
Posts: 145
Local Time: 09:22 PM
I also think the suggestions for a federal system are good suggestions, leaving aside the breathtaking stupidity of Australia presuming to tell Iraq what it might do five years down the track. There are all the intervening weeks and months to get through first.
__________________
Zedbetty is offline  
Old 04-16-2003, 09:28 AM   #15
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:22 AM
lol K, your love for him is showing through again. Ironically, it is one of the better suggestions I've heard for the long term future of Iraq. Let Bush and co squibble over the immediate future, because after the dust settles, there's going to be a huge problem with any new Government being implemented, and in this case, as everyone is fully aware, there are many groups to consider, and many interests at stake. I dont believe Johnny has a real economic interest as such, and by sending our troops there, doesn't hope to gain a piece of immediate control that others might. Or might not.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com