Permanence
There are some interesting developments going on within the UN as India, Brazil, Japan and Germany (the 'G4' nations)launch a joint bid for permanent seats on the security council for themselves, as well as permanent African seat. All four have been pressing for this sort of expansion over recent years but it's the first time I can recall any co-ordinated action on this level between nations who want to become permanent members.
It's interesting just how complex this issue is - just doing a quick Google News search on the topic brings up several hundred stories on the issue, each one seeming to highlight another potential problem or boost for the G4's aims, be it India's insistence that any new permanent members should have the same rights as the existing five (and that means having veto power, not the current five giving it up) or the remaining 'enemy state' clauses in the UN charter that may affect Japan and Germany.
Of course, just because this has been making headlines today it doesn't make any progress on this issue likely in the short term. After all, any potential changes would have to be discussed by several legions of diplomats first, all of whom are experts at kicking issues into the long grass until they go quiet. After all, they'll say, the current system's been around for almost sixty years, so why rush to change it? It'll also be interesting to see how strong the G4's commitment to each other is - would any one or two of them turn down a permanent place (with or without veto) is the others weren't getting one?
Of course, all this will come as mere confirmation for the cranks (who I think run this website) who constantly take out adverts in the papers to tell how they've decoded the Bible to give the timetable to the End Times, which begin when it's announced that the Security Council will be expanding the number of permanent members. I'm sure this announcement will have them either running for the hills or serenely preparing themselves for the Rapture. Perhaps even both at the same time.
It's interesting just how complex this issue is - just doing a quick Google News search on the topic brings up several hundred stories on the issue, each one seeming to highlight another potential problem or boost for the G4's aims, be it India's insistence that any new permanent members should have the same rights as the existing five (and that means having veto power, not the current five giving it up) or the remaining 'enemy state' clauses in the UN charter that may affect Japan and Germany.
Of course, just because this has been making headlines today it doesn't make any progress on this issue likely in the short term. After all, any potential changes would have to be discussed by several legions of diplomats first, all of whom are experts at kicking issues into the long grass until they go quiet. After all, they'll say, the current system's been around for almost sixty years, so why rush to change it? It'll also be interesting to see how strong the G4's commitment to each other is - would any one or two of them turn down a permanent place (with or without veto) is the others weren't getting one?
Of course, all this will come as mere confirmation for the cranks (who I think run this website) who constantly take out adverts in the papers to tell how they've decoded the Bible to give the timetable to the End Times, which begin when it's announced that the Security Council will be expanding the number of permanent members. I'm sure this announcement will have them either running for the hills or serenely preparing themselves for the Rapture. Perhaps even both at the same time.
Nick got away with this at 9:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home