New UN Security Council Members

[Partisan]

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?

 

[MontyB]

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?

The UN has multiple problems not the least of which is a general misunderstanding of its role in world affairs, way too many people fail to grasp the concept that it only has the resources nations are prepared to give it, it has no standing military nor any mandate to interfere in politics therefore its only role is really that of a mediator and facilitator.

In terms of its make up I tend to agree that the 5 permanent members powers are redundant as the world is firmly broken up into 2 or 3 spheres of influence and no matter what individual nations may get up to one of those 5 nations will simply veto any attempt to get involved as we have seen with middle eastern affairs.

However I suspect that you will discover that any attempt to break up the UN will be met with a very hostile response from the 3 leading countries as despite the insistence that certain countries should pull out of the UN because it is "not needed" there is a reality that without having a forum to demonstrate power, you have no power.

 

[ASTRALdragon]

If the UN wants to stay relevant in the new century, it needs to be revamped to reflect the new globe. Five permanent members should be increased. I strongly support Brazil's, India's, Germany's, and Japan's candidacy to join the permanent five. Japan's is the 2nd largest monetary contributor to the UN right behind the U.S. If I was Japan, I'd lower my contributions until "the club" gives me my due membership power.

 

[HokieMSG]

The UN is irrelevant. The organization is corrupt and will never, IMHO, be relevant.

The U.S. will never listen to the UN when it has made it's mind up on an issue.

The UN has been trying for years to impose a gun ban here in the U.S. Fortunately the NRA has been working hard to prevent this and I believe that were it to happen in the US. Bad things would happen.

 

[mmarsh]

The UN is irrelevant. The organization is corrupt and will never, IMHO, be relevant.

The U.S. will never listen to the UN when it has made it's mind up on an issue.

The UN has been trying for years to impose a gun ban here in the U.S. Fortunately the NRA has been working hard to prevent this and I believe that were it to happen in the US. Bad things would happen.

CORRECTION: The U.S. HAS never listened to the UN when it has made it's mind up on an issue. For example: about Israel, where the US has routinely never listened to the UN.

The UN has been trying to impose a gun ban on the US? Thats a bit of an exaggeration (very close to a conspiracy theory) isn't it? There's a small matter of the 2nd Amendment in such a scenario, which not even Obama could get around (had the desire, which he doesn't, as he has bigger fish to fry).

I support responsible gun-ownership rights, but this is where the NRA starts to piss people like me off. Its sounds less like a advocacy group and more like a group of kooks. Opposing Gun restrictions which really don't impact US citizens very much because of paranoid fantasies about this faceless government conspiracy trying to take their guns away is pretty irresponsible. Sounds like the type of nonsense the Tea-Party would spout.

In fact, its not really a gun issue, its a International TRADE issue that happens to be about guns. What the UN is trying to do is impose a gun-ban on countries where there is a risk of the following:

1. Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity; (aka Sudan)

2. Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime; (Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and many others)

3. Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes; (Somalia, Israel)

4. Be diverted from its stated recipient; (North Korea)

5. Adversely affect regional security; (Rwanada, Sierra Leone)

6. Seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development. (Burma)

Keeping guns out of IRRESPONSIBLE countries and the dictators who run them should be a no-brainer. In fact the few countries opposed to the ATT are Iran and Zimbabwe, which should not be hard to figure out why.

 

[George]

CORRECTION: The U.S. HAS never listened to the UN when it has made it's mind up on an issue. For example: about Israel, where the US has routinely never listened to the UN.

The UN has been trying to impose a gun ban on the US? Thats a bit of an exaggeration (very close to a conspiracy theory) isn't it? There's a small matter of the 2nd Amendment in such a scenario, which not even Obama could get around (had the desire, which he doesn't, as he has bigger fish to fry).

I support responsible gun-ownership rights, but this is where the NRA starts to piss people like me off. Its sounds less like a advocacy group and more like a group of kooks. Opposing Gun restrictions which really don't impact US citizens very much because of paranoid fantasies about this faceless government conspiracy trying to take their guns away is pretty irresponsible. Sounds like the type of nonsense the Tea-Party would spout.

In fact, its not really a gun issue, its a International TRADE issue that happens to be about guns. What the UN is trying to do is impose a gun-ban on countries where there is a risk of the following:

1. Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity; (aka Sudan)

2. Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime; (Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and many others)

3. Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes; (Somalia, Israel)

4. Be diverted from its stated recipient; (North Korea)

5. Adversely affect regional security; (Rwanada, Sierra Leone)

6. Seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development. (Burma)

Keeping guns out of IRRESPONSIBLE countries and the dictators who run them should be a no-brainer. In fact the few countries opposed to the ATT are Iran and Zimbabwe, which should not be hard to figure out why.

But gun grabbers will use anything they can to eliminate our gun rights, incuding thier own interpretations of the above rules. fienstien addmitted she'd have banned all guns if she could have, but settled for the Assault Weapons Ban, @ least as an intended step "forward" in her view. There are many Internationalists who'd like to see the UN become the actual world Govt.

 

[HokieMSG]

CORRECTION: The U.S. HAS never listened to the UN when it has made it's mind up on an issue. For example: about Israel, where the US has routinely never listened to the UN.

The UN has been trying to impose a gun ban on the US? Thats a bit of an exaggeration (very close to a conspiracy theory) isn't it? There's a small matter of the 2nd Amendment in such a scenario, which not even Obama could get around (had the desire, which he doesn't, as he has bigger fish to fry).

I support responsible gun-ownership rights, but this is where the NRA starts to piss people like me off. Its sounds less like a advocacy group and more like a group of kooks. Opposing Gun restrictions which really don't impact US citizens very much because of paranoid fantasies about this faceless government conspiracy trying to take their guns away is pretty irresponsible. Sounds like the type of nonsense the Tea-Party would spout.

In fact, its not really a gun issue, its a International TRADE issue that happens to be about guns. What the UN is trying to do is impose a gun-ban on countries where there is a risk of the following:

1. Be used in serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or acts of genocide or crimes against humanity; (aka Sudan)

2. Facilitate terrorist attacks, a pattern of gender based violence, violent crime or organised crime; (Iran, Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and many others)

3. Violate UN Charter obligations, including UN arms embargoes; (Somalia, Israel)

4. Be diverted from its stated recipient; (North Korea)

5. Adversely affect regional security; (Rwanada, Sierra Leone)

6. Seriously impair poverty reduction or socioeconomic development. (Burma)

Keeping guns out of IRRESPONSIBLE countries and the dictators who run them should be a no-brainer. In fact the few countries opposed to the ATT are Iran and Zimbabwe, which should not be hard to figure out why.

I stand corrected. Thank you for clarifying that.

I have done a little more checking on the ATT and discovered, much to my surprise, that this is not the case. As long as the ATT keeps the provision that the signers are free to regulate guns within their own borders.

The NRA is IMHO a necessary evil. The gun ban crown here in the USA has been working to slowly chip away at our rights with innocuous requirements. I have always believed that we should enforce existing laws, not make up more. Studies have proven time and again that gun bans don't work. In fact, violent crime usually rises after the institution of a gun ban.

That being said, I still think that the UN is too entrenched to get anything useful done. The organization has not stopped genocide in Rwanda or Darfur. As long as the corruption remains in the UN, atrocities will continue.

 

[mmarsh]

But gun grabbers will use anything they can to eliminate our gun rights, incuding thier own interpretations of the above rules. fienstien addmitted she'd have banned all guns if she could have, but settled for the Assault Weapons Ban, @ least as an intended step "forward" in her view. There are many Internationalists who'd like to see the UN become the actual world Govt.

George

First of all, the real gun-grabbers is a very, very, small group of people. Remember Brady was a Reagan Republican, not a Democrat. Yes their are people who want to ban all guns, thats their opinion they are entitled to it. But one single senator opinion doesn't make a movement, and given how utter weak and ineffective the assault weapons ban was should be proove enough of what power these people have...which is none. The only thing the ban did was waste paper.

Guns to the left is like the Abortion issue is to the right. Each side has its radicals that want to "ban" things, but the powerbrokers on both sides are not crazy enough to mess with it too much, which is why guns and abortion are still legal.

I personally think the jackass who thinks its wise to allow people to carry firearms into bars as long as people don't drink alcohol needs a good smack in the head. To any semi-intelligent gun owner, the dangers of mixing alcohol and guns should be evident enough, are people stupid and naive enough to think people wont drink in a bar because they have a gun? People already know that drinking and driving is a bad thing, but does that stop them getting behind a wheel while piss drunk? What stupid idea is next? Allow passengers to carry guns on aircraft?

There are idiots on both sides.

Who are these famous "internationalists world order", please name one. Thats simply another conspiracy theory George.

 

[George]

George

First of all, the real gun-grabbers is a very, very, small group of people. Remember Brady was a Reagan Republican, not a Democrat. Yes their are people who want to ban all guns, thats their opinion they are entitled to it. But one single senator opinion doesn't make a movement, and given how utter weak and ineffective the assault weapons ban was should be proove enough of what power these people have...which is none. The only thing the ban did was waste paper.

Guns to the left is like the Abortion issue is to the right. Each side has its radicals that want to "ban" things, but the powerbrokers on both sides are not crazy enough to mess with it too much, which is why guns and abortion are still legal.

I personally think the jackass who thinks its wise to allow people to carry firearms into bars as long as people don't drink alcohol needs a good smack in the head. To any semi-intelligent gun owner, the dangers of mixing alcohol and guns should be evident enough, are people stupid and naive enough to think people wont drink in a bar because they have a gun? People already know that drinking and driving is a bad thing, but does that stop them getting behind a wheel while piss drunk? What stupid idea is next? Allow passengers to carry guns on aircraft?

There are idiots on both sides.

Who are these famous "internationalists world order", please name one. Thats simply another conspiracy theory George.

Hardly just one, Chuck Schumer being another prominent gun grabber. Lautenberg & his retroactive ban on owning for commiting what is often a Misdemenor, ect.
Hardly just "A waste of paper", by limiting supply the Ban raised prices & made it harder for the working class guy to buy guns & magazines.
It's usually the guy w/o a permit who's illegally carrying that causes problems.

 

[03USMC]

UN and Security in any sentence or designation is an oxy freakin moron.

 

[mmarsh]

I stand corrected. Thank you for clarifying that.

I have done a little more checking on the ATT and discovered, much to my surprise, that this is not the case. As long as the ATT keeps the provision that the signers are free to regulate guns within their own borders.

The NRA is IMHO a necessary evil. The gun ban crown here in the USA has been working to slowly chip away at our rights with innocuous requirements. I have always believed that we should enforce existing laws, not make up more. Studies have proven time and again that gun bans don't work. In fact, violent crime usually rises after the institution of a gun ban.

That being said, I still think that the UN is too entrenched to get anything useful done. The organization has not stopped genocide in Rwanda or Darfur. As long as the corruption remains in the UN, atrocities will continue.

"Signers are free to regulate guns within their own borders".

You have totally misinterpreted that line. That line says that that signers may CHOOSE to regulate their own gun laws if they so desire. It doesn't say they are REQUIRED to. This provision was included SPECIFICALLY with the US and Canada in mind, so they could rest easy that there would not be any attempt outside interference. Its pointless inclusion anyway, because no treaty can override the US Constitution. The people at the UN aren't stupid, many of them have lived in the US previously. They are fully aware that even if they wanted to ban guns in the US it would never work, So you have NOTHING to worry about.

Have you ever been to the UN? I have been twice, the last time was last August, which is why I remember it. Amongst their many mandates, they are dedicated to ending world arms trafficking, if you take the guided tour there is even a dedicated exhibit on it. The UN already restricts the Arms Traffic of weapons, but small arms are not restricted do to a loophole in the treaty. The ATT is designed to close this loophole.