POLITICS: Egypt presses case for permanent seat on UN Security Council, page 1

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.