Canada's position in the Security Council, UN

[Andem]

The current permenant members of the United Nations Security Council consist of:

- China
- France
- United States
- United Kingdom
- Russian Federation

I suppose it's because they are the largest members of the United Nations. The United Nations seems to work quite often in the favour of the United States which always supports it's allies like Israel even if it's not in the favour of their citizens... that's politics! Anyways, since I'm not very well informed on the politics and the regulations of the UN, just what comes up in current politics, I'd like to know whether Canada has a chance in getting another two year term anytime soon on the council and what the current standing of the United Nations is. Can it withstand it's abuse by President Bush and his clan? Will it recover from this abuse? Can the United States be kicked off as a permenant member of the Security Council for it's recent disobeying of several UN resolutions?

Any information on this subject is appreciated.

 

[moghrabi]

I like to hear what Researchok have to say to that. I like to get informed also.

 

[Andem]

Be nice, moghrabi... You two really gotta tone down your dislike for each other.

 

[researchok]

The post of SC President, is a combination of rotating and voting blocs.

Canada will at some point be appointed to SC Presidency, but it may not be for a while. Attempts will be made to have smaller countries appointed to that position.

That follows current UN policies-- which is how the UN ended up in the absurd position of having Sudan and Libya, for example, on the UN Human RIghts Commission.

There is an excellent article by RSF (repoteurs sans frontieres) on this very topic. I will post it in a bit.

The feeling is, that numbers alone can prevent countries like Canada-- and for that matter, all western democracies, from having responsible positions in the UN-- another example of General Assembly politics. The idea of course, is that the GA controls what gets tabled in the SC, to a large extent.

By charter, the US nor any other permanent member can be kicked off the SC-- you wouldnt want that. If that were to occur, traeties of all kinds would be jepordized and the UN would fall apart-- irrespective of which Permanent Member were kicked off, as alliances, outside trade treaties, monetary agreemnets would be up for grabs. Best hope is balanced UN-- in EVERY sense of the word.

By the way, Im proud to say Canada's leadership term is very well regarded-- but in that position no one is happy all the time== which means Canada did a good job.

 

[moghrabi]

Never meant any offense to him. He seems to know more about the UN more than both of us.

If it offends anyone, I take my question back.

 

[researchok]

No problems here, either.

Civil conversation on point cures all ils.

 

[researchok]

See RSF's article on UN HRC here:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=7620

To make matters WORSE, rsf was SUSPEDED from UN coverage!!!

see link below

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=7619

 

[Reverend Blair]

Reforms to the UN is where Canada can actually help the UN. We have a kind of odd position in the world...a middle power with some pretty strong influence both in the developed and developing nations. That's why Kofi Annan came and asked for our help. Paul Martin threw a little bit of money his way, then headed south to cuddle up to George Bush.

Things we should push for:

Get rid of vetos in the Security Council. Consider having permanent member status removed for states that are continually in violation of international law.

Restrict the right of states who are in violation of international from voting on issues related to their violations. (Sudan couldn't vote on human rights issues, the US couldn't vote on anything having to do with Iraq)

Form a standing UN force trained in peace-keeping and peace making. It was part of the original plan and would give the UN a quick-response unit to respond to things like the Sudan.
It would also give the UN a way to stop things like the illegal invasion of Iraq...if there were UN forces standing in front of the US, they would not have invaded.

Make the mandate of the ICC universal. No exceptions. Require all member states to apprehend those in violation.
The leaders of countries that ignore international law would find their influence a lot smaller if they couldn't leave their own countries without being arrested.

 

[researchok]

Nice ideas, but some won't float.

The vetos, fro example will never be rescinded. Too much vestyed interest by the SC permanent members-- and not just the US.

Russia wont stand for sanction re Chechnya.
France wont agree because of its Africa policy
China-- think internal situation and Taiwan.
UK-- not until Ireland is resolved- and then theres the potential for dissolution of the Commonwealth.

As for the examples of Sudan, Libya-- good luck-- smaller nations wont agree, from South America to Middle East, to Pacific Rim. Theyd lose influence.

As for a standing 'army' im in agreement there. Not this 'patch together at the last minute crap'. It would have to have REAL juice--- UN to date has a 000 batting average in subduing violence.

As for the ICC, that would have to b evoted on-- you cant just 'make it so'. And even if you did, there would have to be a mechanism so that Darfurs dont happen again-- wherby the UN refuses to indict because of self interest voting blocs.

I will say Rev, in a perfect world, youd get my vote.

Youre on the right track-- its just everyone else has a reason to void the ideals.

 

[Reverend Blair]

That doesn't mean that it isn't worth pushing for though. The actions of France, England, Belgium, the US and even China in Africa are reprehensible. Their influence there needs to be seriously reduced in favour of true multilateral influence.

Canada is in a position, as long as we kep our distance from the US and take measures not be seen as taking sides, to have some serious influence in these matters.

When it comes to the issue of vetos...don't be too sure. After Iraq, where the US avoiding asking permission because it knew the answer would be no and that France would veto anything it put forth, most of the world was disgusted. When the US vetos whatever resolutions come up against Israel over the wall, there will be even more disgust.

We have a UN Secretary General who is openly calling for reforms. The world is increasingly of the opinion that things aren't working...that the Security Council is just another tool of the imperialism that got us in this mess in the first place.

Changes can take place in spite of those trying to keep all of the power for themselves. A movement is forming and if the middle powers support it things can really change.

 

[researchok]

Like I said, I wish you luck-- but your own words reflect the reality of change.

If it could be pulled off-- or even stand a shot-- I'd back it all the way.

Im going to send you a PM

 

[Reverend Blair]

If I believed in saints I'd apply to be the patron saint of lost causes, no doubt about it. I do believe that you might as well shoot for the impossible though...if the end result is achieving the barely acceptable, or even making just one more person really think, then things are still better than they were before.

At the very least, you gain an appreciation for Woody Guthrie, Steve Earle, and Billy Bragg. I really don't see a down side here.

 

[researchok]

Ok, we meet in the middle here.

Ultimately, a more informed citizen is a better citizen.

Thats certainly doable.

 

[Vincent_2002]

Canada has had the position of temporary member 2 times in history, if I am not mistaken

 

[Cyberm4n]

they should not have permenant members. everybody should have a temporary place in the club so that everything is more democratic or we could even have elections for security council members every few years. right now its not fair that usa uk china russia etc have power all of the time

 

[researchok]

Yeah, great idea.

I guess its not enough that Sudan and Libya used the system to sit on and chair UN Human Rights Committee.

Yeah, we need more of that.

 

[moghrabi]

Yeah right. US of A with its human rights record should stay as PERMENANT member so they can screw everybody else more. The UN will not be democratic until EVERYONE has a voice.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, and there's the problem. The US isn't innocent. Russia, China, and France aren't exactly shining beacons or respect for human rights either. Wait...who did I miss? Oh yeah, jolly olde England. Are they still holding Irish political prisoners? No matter...they've moved on to helping the US commit war crimes in the Middle East.

Libya and Sudan both have long histories of being backed by various SC members. While those countries certainly shouldn't have seats on the human rights councils, should those that have backed them and ignored the carnage in the name of profits?

 

[moghrabi]

exactly my point Reverend. But then no matter what we say or think, these same countries will always have the bigger say, veto anything they dislike. Maybe a rotating veto power countries should be elected every year from all over the globe. This way depending on their UN records will be elected or not.

 

[Lee]

So, is there any reason why you have to attack Presidet Bush and the U.S.?

I'd be very curious as to your response to President Bush and the U.S. if Canada came under attack. Whether it be by a traditional hostile military force or a terrorist organization.