As Nations Lobby to Join Security Council, the U.S. Resists Giving Them ..

[struggle4progress]

.. Veto Power

By JOEL BRINKLEY
Published: May 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, May 14 - The United States has warned four nations campaigning jointly for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council that it will not support their cause unless they agree not to ask for the veto power that the five current permanent Council members hold, senior diplomats and administration officials said.

The four nations - Brazil, India, Germany and Japan - are unhappy about that position. "The Security Council is not like an aircraft, with first class, business and economy seats," said Ryozo Kato, Japan's ambassador to the United States. <snip>

Mr. Sardenberg said his country would propose that the four nations be granted veto power that they could not use for 15 years. In 2020, he said, the United Nations could hold a conference to decide whether to lift the ban on the use of veto power. The four need the support of 128 nations, two-thirds of the United Nations' 191 members, to amend the United Nations charter. The issue is scheduled for a vote during the September meeting of the General Assembly.

Besides the four countries pooling their efforts, three African nations - Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa - are conducting vigorous individual campaigns for some of the six new permanent seats proposed in March by Secretary General Kofi Annan. The purpose of the change is to have the Council reflect the current balance of global power better than is the case with the original five permanent members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - and 10 members elected to two-year terms. <snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/politics/15diplo.html?

[liberalpragmatist]

1. How about dropping the veto

Seriously.

It's been used to hurt the US as much as if not more than other countries.

It's undemocratic, and it causes gridlock.

Maybe a veto that can be overriden? Or a veto that can only be applied if done in tandem with others?

I understand that 9 or 10 countries with veto power would be a recipe for disastrous gridlock. But the veto ain't that great.

And the US - nor any of the other 4 permanent members - reserve a right based on global politics in 1945. That world is gone. And in the next few decades, the world is going to become less and less dominated by those 5 (with the exception of China, whose influence will grow).

[struggle4progress]

2. I agree. eom

[Theduckno2]

3. Yeah, maybe Bush's push for democracy around the world

would be strengthened if the 5 members gave up their veto powers. Like that would happen anytime soon! Bush doesn't want any officials to ever go before the International Criminal Court,but he would give up the UN veto? Your idea is a good one, but with the current Administration, is still a long way off. Here's hoping!:toast:

[liberalpragmatist]

4. Oh I know

But the idea should be put out there, to be scoffed at first, then gradually accepted.

Of course, it would help if someone prominent would right this in Foreign Affairs, rather than me, a random, anonymous poster and college student on Democratic Underground.

[confludemocrat]

5. Veto for countries other than WWII victors is the only real UN reform

Where is the UN "reform"? India and Brazil, representing important world consituencies should have a seat and a veto, so where is this "reform" everyone repeats unquestioningly as reform. John Bolton supposedly represents reform. Yeah right. He represents more of the same: a hamstrung UN being more effectively hamstrung and hindered or opposed and checked outright.