Partisan
Active member
So the new Security Council has been elected, highlights are that Portugal, Germany, India, South Africa and Colombia have been elected.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11526592
I understand why the 5 permanent members, with veto powers are reluctant to allow anyone else into the "club", it would also make the decision making process more moribund than it currently is, but why do we not have a rotating permanent council - why do we Western Powers dominate the council.
I think that if I was a member of a club and told that I would never be able to progress or overrule the "Old Guard", I would be tempted to leave and find or found a club where I could have an equal voice. What does everyone else think? After all the last couple of wars have been undertaken without UN Security Council full blessing, so is it a redundant forum?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11526592
I understand why the 5 permanent members, with veto powers are reluctant to allow anyone else into the "club", it would also make the decision making process more moribund than it currently is, but why do we not have a rotating permanent council - why do we Western Powers dominate the council.
I think that if I was a member of a club and told that I would never be able to progress or overrule the "Old Guard", I would be tempted to leave and find or found a club where I could have an equal voice. What does everyone else think? After all the last couple of wars have been undertaken without UN Security Council full blessing, so is it a redundant forum?