POLITICS: Egypt presses case for permanent seat on UN Security Council

The United Nations Security Council is composed of 5 permanent nations: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. Each of these states has veto power in the security council. The remaining ten positions are elected from member nations and serve a 2 year term. Today, Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Ahmed Abul Gheit, argued before the body that the continent of Africa should have a permanent seat on the council. More to the point, he indicated that his own country is "eminently qualified to assume permanent responsibilities" . South Africa and Nigeria have also expressed an interest in the permanent seat as well. The Egyptian Foreign Minister indicated that the seat could be shared in rotation with other countries in Africa.

---

A panel commissioned by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, with its report due in December, is looking at changes to the structure of the UN. After reviewing the report, Annan, would present the findings to the 191 member nations. Other nations such as Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan have also indicated a desire to become permanent members as well. The council along with the UN was set up following WWII and its basic structure has not been altered. It is not clear if the new permanent nations on the council would also get the veto power that exists now.

I must say that I like this idea. I think that Egypt, Nigeria, S. Africa, Brazil, India, Japan and Germany have at least to some degree earned positions on the Security council. Though many terrorists hail from Egypt, their government has one of the most efficient domestic anti-terrorist operatons in the world ('cause they're not afraid to use good old torture lol). I don't know much about Nigeria, but the others are all devleoped thriving countries with seemingly strong intelligence agencies and stable governments. I could be wrong about some of those nations but we need more overall cooperation anyway... cooperation that doesn't' include crazy places like the Sudan.

I think it's a good idea. Africa definitely needs a seat and a new European member is needed. Also, putting Japan on it would be a good idea seeing it could strike more a balance in the Asian region by not having just China on the Council.

The US has already opposed this with exception to Japan.

[edit on 25/9/04 by D]

What about austrailia would they not want a place

France and Germany need to be in there, not for the pride of my country but France and Germany have the better secret services ties into the arab world.

One important arab country like Egypt would promote respect to the arab world - good move.
Yes, Egypt is far away from perfect but sometimes you have to agree to disagree.

Australia is, hm, I have nothing against Australia, it is a great country but I don't see them in any role about our worlds security.
Japans needs to be in for Iran and the whole asian region - they have the ties there.

India and Brazil are logical enhancements. Nigeria? Please....no. That's like Iraq becoming a member of the security council as Saddam was still in office. Nigeria isn't a country it's crime in borders

[edit on 25-9-2004 by shoo]

If there are too many seats, nothing will ever get done. This could signal the end of the UN, as inefficient as it is. I will say however that germany deserves to be on the council more then U.K. and that Japan should take China's place. France and Russia should no longer hold seats on the security council. The seats should be as follows: U.S.A, Germany, U.K., Japan, India. I include India instead of China for reasons that should be obvious. If theres more then five members, nothing will get done, and it already operates at - 10.

I agree that the African/Middle Eatern nations need to be represented in a permanent fashion on the security council. While I understand the concern of nothing getting done because too many countries are involved, I don't think it will be an issue here. Especially if the total number of representatives (15) does not change. I see no reason for France to be a permanent member of the security council. Consider the fact that France is not a dominant world power anymore (hasn't been since before WWI) and you will understand my point. In both WWI & WWII, France had little to contribute - other than being a target.

Let's start with the obvious question: what's wrong with the current structure and what changes will fix it?

1. The part of this world which is in greatest need of help and leadership (Africa) isn't active enough in the UN- they recieve plenty, but they need to be drawn into an active role in their own destiny to build their nations in an coherent way- not just recieving whichever whimsical aid programs the rest of the world tosses them for conscience sake. So we need an African member who isn't Egypt. Egypt just isn't in the same boat as most of Africa. My first recomendation (not being an expert on Africa) would be to have a rotating seat shared by members of ECOWAS (economic community of west african states).

2. The council is a bit Euro-centric. You've got the UK, France, (and you could maybe even put Russia into the euro-list), which although they are very different nations, represent a pretty narrow part of the world; white people in technologically advanced first world nations. There should be a shared seat for EU nations.

3. We need to Muslims represented on the council, and we need to choose a muslim nation which sets a good example. I know Turkey is an EU candidate, but they are very different from most of Europe and need to be on there. They also occupy a strategic position in the world which demands political interaction in the interest of stability.

4. Russia was only put on the council in the first place so that they wouldn't have to resort to violence when they got angry. NATO is cutting Russia to pieces right now. Once Georgia and Azerbaijan are NATO members the Chechens will break away and Russia will lose even more strategic and political relevance. Take them off the council.

5. South America has been left open as a playground for the American CIA and this will get much worse with Porter Goss at the helm. Give South America it's own voice and appropriate recognition in the world by giving Brazil a seat.

6. China is too large and represents too many people to be left off the council, and yet China fails to represent a large part of their region. Who speaks for India, South Korea, and Japan? Japan should be a permanent member as well.

Now we've got 7 seats covering 5 continents. Drop the rotating members now- you've got plenty of seats and everyone in Europe has their shot throgh the EU seat.


Now: why do certain nations NOT deserve a seat (at least not yet?)

India: They're in a nuclear standoff with Pakistan, which is a nation which the world should be encouraging to stay on a peaceful and cooperative path. Giving political leverage to an enemy of Pakistan is a destabilizing move for the world. Also, India doesn't particularly represent the interests of too many other nations.

Nigeria: Isn't their economy built on the efforts of conmen? They should probably be made a UN protectorate, not a security council member.

South Africa: Frankly my knowledge of South Africa ends with aparthied and gold coins and nazi conspiracy theories involving Neuschwabbenland. Most of the maps I own still say that South Africa is right next to Rhodesia. That aside, I do know that I rarely hear of South Africa in the news and that unlike ECOWAS they didn't help in Liberia. Security Council membership is about what you can do for the UN, not about personal glory.

Egypt: 1. Egypt needs to start showing more leadership in it's corner of the world before it is security council material. Sudan would be a decent place to start. 2. Egypt hasn't shown great respect for the UN in the past. If the UN separating force hadn't whimped out, the Yom Kippur War would have had to begin with an Egyptian attack on UN forces. 3. Although torture is nice and effective, it sends a bad message if we reward nations which create stability with heavyhanded tactics. Why not just put Saddam's Iraq on the security council?

Germany (specifically, apart from the EU): We can't have Germany and France pushing Europe around any more than they already try to in the EU. On top of that, Germany isn't doing anything for the world, not even as much as France. All they do is sell very well engineered weapons and cars to anyone and everyone on the planet who can pay for them. Where do you think Saddam got the super gun he aimed at Israel? I believe they also provided Israel's subs. Who's side are they on? Their own of course, and that of anybody else who can pay them.

I like your post, also your idea about the EU seat. Your opinion is well thought and I can agree nearly wholehearly but you did take some meds at the end of it?



Super-gun of Saddam? Ahm, where, what? What world are you living in?

Your argument is that Germany provides technology to those who can pay for it. Uhm, the two subs for Israel had been a present. What do you say now?

Germany isn't doing anything for the world? You know that Africa would be dead without the help of german charity foundations and help projects? -> rhetoric question

Before spitting out such useless garbage inform yourself.

The original plan was for America to build and donate the subs, but it was scrapped in 1990. Germany donated 2 dolphins and sold a third one. It is certainly not beyond comprehension that Germany donated the subs by proxy for the US, and charged Israel for the one that the US wasn't paying for.
To my mind, this makes a lot more sense than the idea that Germany was donating weapons to Israel just a few years after they (and france as well as the USA) sold biological and chemical weapons to Iraq to be aimed at Israel. Germany also provided the centrifuges for Iraq to enrich uranium.

And yes, Saddam had a super-gun capable of firing payloads into space or rocket-assissted projectiles over 2000 miles (for wmd delievery). Although I have heard Germany blamed for this in the past (and didn't find it hard to believe) I did a little reading before I replied, and it turns out that the weapon was build by a british company expanding on the work of a canadian artillery expert named Bull.

As for Africa- Beg your pardon but exactly how much more money than America do you think your all-important german charities are pouring into that continent? Additionally, private charity is nice, but what is the German government doing to assume leadership in that area? What is the German government doing -ANYWHERE- to show leadership, except for kicking and screaming everytime America goes to war.

Nobody likes having their nation's conduct as a citizen of the international community called into question (I'm an American... I know A LOT about that) but it happens to the best of us. We've got to own up to the things that our nations do (or don't do).

Last thing:
Really you ignored my first (and probably more important) point regarding why I would not want Germany added to the council apart from an EU rotation though. Germany and France are already trying to assert themselves as the heads of the EU. We don't need the this unlikely alliance butting its way into the UN as well.

Not quite useless garbage my friend- one off on a couple of details, but the case remains that Germany does not merit a place on the council in the way that the UK, America, Japan, and even France do.

Well, this paragraph isn't very flawless. It's more one big flaw. You take several assumptions and put them together to a very weired point of view.
Could you help me and find news about the german government supporting Saddam Hussein with biological and chemical weapons?

I think your logic lacks the proof to be right. The USA supported Osama bin Ladin and various other people we and especially Israel really don't like at all. Still they sold a lot of weaponry to Israel.
What moral forbids is still possible at all.



Well, I am visiting ATS since more than a year and I can't remember anything like this. I heared a lot of stuff about German-Iraq relations but this is something new. I guess also for the rest of the members.
Would you shed a light on it by pointing to the exact news? You seem to have the information about it. Thanks in advance.
Or did I interpret it wrong and you were basically saying that you once heared about Germany doing it and thought: Yes, could be. So be it. ?



No, I didn't. Read before you reply.

(yes, I have a typo in there...)

[edit on 26-9-2004 by shoo]

1) I always loose this statistics page but it's posted in a lot of threads here. To summarize it: Germany, France(the evil countries) donate more money per citizen than the USA do.

2) Your definition of "show leadership" is military force?
Ours is diplomacy and we are good at it. How should we use military force anyway? I know that we are helpless towards the topic "Africa" beside donations, can't change it.

[edit on 26-9-2004 by shoo]