Today at my uni the German Ambassador to Australia (a man of 20+ years experience in the UN and diplomatic corp) gave a talk to our UN society and other interested guests about the proposal on the board to exband the permanant Security Council from 5 to 10 with new members being Germany, India, Brazil........
My question is do you think the security council A.) Should be enlarged beyond the five current nations (who are the ones who won WWII) and B.) should it be these nations that get the new posistions?
Personally I am all for it........
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Aye. Supporting the UN and attempting to make it work better is a far more appealing idea than abandoning it entirely. I'm sure ther's some nice metaphors I could use here, but I'm too afraid that people might think I meant "appalling" instead of "appealing."
I think that in the changing world, the modern world, its role is more vital then ever, it is a body that can manage so much, help so many, and I mean, if it manages to stop one war, if it manages to help people, then it is succeeding, as a body that is able to help humanity, to work out problems before they come to blows, and as a symbol of unity and comradeship......
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
there is no negativ whith the idea of the UN but lately it seems like its payback time for vetos of the past. The Un seems crippled in even passing a simplests of thing
Yes, the veto is a questionable tool, but then nations are allowed to think differently, and having such a power can insure an unwise action is not forced upon the whole, that there can be some manner of stop mechinism that can prevent strongarming.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Gender: Male Location: Huntington Beach, California
*sigh*
well if ANY changes aren't good enough. I suppose I might try to name a few.
Lets see, more members, a stricter policy against those who break their sanctions, more financial support from nations other than the United States.
It's my personal belief that when all the countries of the world can become members of the United Nations....this world will finally start to act as one. Synergy is everything...
excuse me, Norway are paying their dues by far. Dont know why a small country like Norway should pour in Money to that 5 nation marionette organisation called the UN. I agree that some of the larger countries that have a healthy economy could chip in a bit more.
Gender: Male Location: Huntington Beach, California
jesus, it was a GENERAL statement. If you want me to add asterisks for all the countries that give their dues...best of luck. I'm American...since when haven't we done things 1/2 ass?
I'm sorry that I make it seem as if the US is the only country providing financial support....that was most certainly not my intention. I said "more" countries provide financial support because of people like finti's views that just because a country is small...they should do what they can.
I'm not asking small economies to pour out everything they have, but if it's for the better good of humanity as a whole? Then why not spend more than "the average"? Does it always have to be about the nation you live in? Why not the planet you live on?
__________________
Last edited by Linkalicious on Oct 14th, 2004 at 08:18 PM
Germany the country that brought the world Zyklon B, not just for rodents anymore...
If you are going to make great contributions a requirement... I think that you need to better define great contributions.
I recently heard a speaker at my university who is the UN ambassador from Sierra Leone. According to him the United Nations has a large part to play still, especially in developing countries and concerning issues of internation justice/international court system. He made a lot of interesting points, and I think more permanent members of the Security Council would be an improvement, and I think that Germany could be an important part of a new security council... i just had to say that they did contribute to a couple million innocent deaths in the last 70 years, but the USA's hands are not blood free either so I dunno...
yeah and you clearly missed out on my views, do what you canyes, but pouring it in there....nah that is a is a diffrence. It is time for those,at least among European countries who think they matter a bit more than the rest of the continent (chough chough germanyitalyandfrance chough chough) to take their turn, let them pay till it hurts for awhile and let see how long their government will hold power
Norway has domestic problems to deal actually plenty of them, and I think my country has an obligation of giving aid and help towards its own taxpaying countrymen that are struggling, to treat the elder of our society with decency. Not like it is today because they say they lack the financial resources. What a load of crap at the moment Norway is among the richest countries in the world and we easily throw money at the UN. But when the health department asks for money to better the situation of our countries elder they get a thumb down. That makes people react and they are fed up with a government that are more concerned about aid abroad than the domestic needs.
Last edited by finti on Oct 14th, 2004 at 09:15 PM
KMC Community Forums
Oct 14th, 2004 11:07 AM
Ytaker agreed with me once on October 9th, 2004
