UN Reforms

[Dr. Shane]

Can we all say it together? "It is about time" However seems the proposals are not going in the direction I would like to see them. I have no issue with the number of Security Council members increasing. I don't like the veto power at all. The veto power gives countries like the US, France, UK, Russia and China a blank check to do whatever they wish. It cripples the UN to take any action against these countries. I would prefer a 2/3 or 3/4 vote requirement and no veto power for anyone.

Mexico, Canada Introduce Third Plan to Expand Security Council

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The latest proposal comes from a group made up of Mexico, Canada, Italy, Pakistan and nine other countries. Its proposal to add 10 two-year nonpermanent seats to the council directly challenges resolutions by the African Union, as well as by the so-called Group of 4 — Japan, India, Germany and Brazil, which seek permanent seats on the council.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of State for political affairs, said: "We agree that the council needs to look like the world of 2005, not the world of 1945," when the U.N. was created. "But we don't think Security Council expansion has to be done now. We don't wish to be the skunk at the garden party, but we feel really strongly that expansion should be delayed."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

But for the United States, a bigger Security Council is not better. "We're a P5 member; we have a veto," Burns said, referring to the United States' status as one of the five permanent members. "We're not worried about the influence of the United States being diluted to an extraordinary degree, but we certainly want to preserve the influence we have, we want to preserve the veto, and we do not want to extend a veto to new permanent members."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">