Some feel that Syria is a terrorist nation. I personally would like to know how a nation that backs Hamas and finances Hezbollah is allowed to be part of the UN Security Council.
They'll level sacntions against Libya but not Syria? This is madness. Level similar sanctions against Damascus until they *ahem* crack down on terror. Not saying that will happen, but at least we can level sanctions.
Why? I thought they were an irrelevant remnant of a pre-PNAC world? I thought it was now de rigeur to give no heed whatsoever to anything the UN does, says, or thinks? Or has Bush's U-turn on such issues really had that swift an effect of the commonplace perspective on his groupies throughout the land?
As long as there is no such thing as enforceable international law among nations, the UN will remain a lawless organization. Criminal states will have undue influence, because after all, who is to define what is lawless? Giving a voice to all nations is like allowing all people of a neighborhood, including the criminals, to interpret law. To make matters worse, International relations among nations are like those among thugs in an inner city jungle. Countries constantly lie to each other and attempt to trick each other. The strong do whatever they want, while the weak try to get away with whatever they can. The only way a semblance of order is kept is by vigilante justice (or the threat of it) by the most powerful, like the US or NATO. It is not a desirable world, but we have to understand it for what it is. In that context, having Syria at the UN Security council should not come as a surprise.
The rotation system. Here's an honest-to-God true story. Richard Nixon nominated some clown to the Supreme Court. He was not a distinguished thinker, to put it kindly. A Republican senator (IIRC, Roman Hruska from Nebraska...just look at that name, and you'll see why it sticks in my mind) defended the nominee thusly. He acknowledged that the man was mediocre, but argued that mediocre people deserved representation on the Supreme Court. The nominee was eventually defeated. Anyway, even states that support terrorism deserve a rotating seat on the UNSC. And to all of the right wing slobber jobbers here, ponder this. Which has resulted in more deaths, Palestinian terrorism against Israel, or our pointless invasion of Iraq?
And since most of you either doubt my anecdote, or want to read more about it, I did a google. Yep, it was Roman. http://www.artnet.com/magazine/features/finch/finch9-3-02.asp And just in case you thought this couldn't be any funnier, I present the next paragraph.
I'm going off topic, but this discussion wasn't going anywhere. There was an interesting, if long, article about the problems of the UN by Michael Ignatieff in the NYT Magazine a couple of weeks ago. Writing as a supporter of the notion of removing Hussein but a critic of the hamhanded way the admin handled the diplomacy, Ignatieff argues that the SC must be reformed so it attends less to state sovereignty and more to human rights. Ignatieff claims the problems of the UN lie in it being a relic of the immediate post-WWII world, where its founders were worried about preventing international conflict. However, in the years since, intranational conflict has caused far more deaths and the UN Security Council, concerned above all with state sovereignty, has not acted. Ignatieff proposes several changes to the SC to make it more responsive to gross abuses of human rights within states (Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc). -Expand the permanent membership to make it more representative of the world's population, but only add nations allowing free elections. Add Japan, Brazil, India, Germany, among others. -Create a strict criteria of situations allowing UN military intervention. Off the top of my head: ethnic cleansing that gov't won't or can't stop, overthrow of democratically elected government, WMD proliferation, gross human rights abuses, invasion of another state. -Eliminate the veto. All decisions made on strict majority vote. US should start this by voluntarily renouncing its veto. This would encourage coalition building and eliminate petty squabbles. -Nations (including the US) renounce unilateral military action and agree to act only under the guise of the UN, except in cases of self-defense. IMO, this would empower the UN to be what asf above seems to say he wants. It would create a international body that could act against rogue states. It would create a set of standards that nations would have to abide by when dealing with their own people along with other states. It would back this up by making it much easier to get UN military forces (not peacekeepers) engaged. By eliminating the veto, it would force SC member-states to build coalitions rather than encouraging stubborn intransigence. Unfortunately, the article's archived now: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F1FF73E5C0C748CDDA00894DB404482
Every member of the UN gets a chance eventually to be on the Security Council because they rotate on and off it according to a pre-set schedule. Hence, if you were the President of the United States and didn't like this setup, you can do the following: 1. Petition the UN to change the rules so that the US gets veto power on all Sec Council members. You probably would want this to be a unilateral veto power, not given to the other permanent Sec Council members (UK, France, PR China, Russia). The last thing you want is those pesky French telling us that they want to boycott one of our selected countries. 2. Use the US military to liberate 42nd Street and 1st Avenue in NYC and forcibly remove them. 3. Drop out of the UN, which doesn't really "solve" the problem but would make you feel personally superior. Syria is a sovereign country and a member of the UN. Hence, they get their Sec Council seat just like every other country. Grow up and deal with it.
My own personal feeling, no country whos leaders were not elected as their representatives by the citizens of their country deserves to sit on the SC. Realistic? No.
Word. Personally, it seems to go against what the UN stands for in the first place, but technically, it actually makes the UN more effective. Past are the times where you have a certain group making all the rules. Now, the world is forced to deal with everyone and the inclusion of such states, and the dealings needed will create interaction and force all nations' opinions to be taken into consideration. Besides, as said before, this is a pre-set rotation. This possibility was not only NOT a surprise to anyone, but the exact rotation is so set in advance that it seems you could have marked your calander. Now, Lybia was on the human rights council, too. Is that also set on a rotation? The UN is political and if you think politics on any level is absent of such influence, then maybe you had better get a grip on reality.
The system is designed to allow certain representation by regional groups. One country that has never been on the Security Council through a "rotation system?" Israel. The Arab countries refuse to allow it to participate in the Asian group. Since it's not a member of the group, it can't be elected to the security council.
The question isn't, should Syria be on the Security Council. The question is, why in God's name should we give any creedence to the Security Council's decisions as long as Syria is on it (and China is a permanent member)?
In case anyone is interested, here's the full quote: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there."
The UN, obviously. The UN Is Never Wrong. Look, I honestly don't give a rat's ass whether or not Syria is on the Security Council. The SC is a body of the UN, which means the UN can make the rules as to who they want to be on it. But as long as countries like Syria and China are on the SC, don't expect the US to pay the slightest bit of attention to their decrees.
But just think, if the goal is "security" then wouldn't be a key point to include those nations that (by selfish USA sense of security) pose the greatest threat to US security and the world? I mean, the shoe is on the other foot right now. In some international polls, the USA was voted the greatest threat to world peace. In fact, name me a nation that has used "naked aggession" in the last two years? That pre-emptive can of worms and not a can of whoop ass has caused the US to lose the moral high ground and you'd be best served to climb down from the cross.