My goodness
highthief. For someone who started a thread asking if expansion of the Security Council was a good idea, you've certainly got a strange habit of putting words into people's mouths when they respond!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by highthief
The Security Council is essentially, the military decision maker of the UN. Military experience, knowledge and ability are therefore pretty important aspects to consider when selecting a new member. Are they the only criteria? No. But to ignore it would be rather foolhardy.
|
Macro socio-political management is not like boxing. You don't "get better" because you've already been in a few fights. Some would argue that countries with little or no military background would be a
good addition to the Security Council, as they would bring no baggage or international military alliances to the table. Personally, I'm not sure of that, but I don't subscribe to your contention that only countries with large-scale military pasts be included.
The Security Council is an organ of dispute resolution. Believe it or not, military action is only the last resort. And, most importantly, their decisions do not mean those countries themselves provide troops. By way of example, since the Beirut bomb and the Somalia debacle, the US has provided very few UN peace-keepers. But that doesn't stop them from being very important players on the world stage and on the Security Council.
Quote:
|
So military experience, within a strongly military body, counts for nothing, but population does? But it doesn't get Nigeria (the most populous African nation) a vote from you?
|
I didn't say "it counts for nothing". Stop putting words into my mouth.
The rest of your response is therefore predicated on false statements, made by yourself, but I shall address them as much as I can.
With regards to Nigeria, I made the mistake of assuming South Africa was the larger state. Thank you for enlightening me. I believe there's one small catch though. They don't want a permanent seat on the Security Council now, do they? Oppps....
Quote:
|
Poor Australia. No respect. They are a more stable democracy and a more egalitarian society than either Brazil or India. Should that not count for something?
|
No respect? I live in Australia mate.
With regards to them being more egalitarian than India or Brazil, on what basis do you make that statement? India is the largest democracy in the world. Bigger than even the US! :-) Brazil is also a florishing democracy. Why do you think Australia is "better"? Has it got something to do with race? Or Occidentalism?
However, if you want to bring "stability" and "egalitarianism" into the formula, where does that leave your friend the Nigerians? Hmmm.... There was a recent transfer of power from the military to civilian rule, but it's hardly anything compared to the shining beacons of democracy exemplified by Brazil and India after all.
One final thing too. Australia has no interest in a permanent seat on the Security Council either.
Quote:
With regards to Africa, if anyone should be included, then it should be South Africa.
But Nigeria has a greater population, and that was important for Brazil.
|
I didn't realise Nigeria was so much larger than RSA.
Quote:
|
South Africa (I actually think they are a better choice than Nigeria. I think anyone is a better choice than Nigeria, really. Well, maybe not Sudan) however, are they really representative of African society? Still a lot of white power there, and it is, in many ways, disimilar to the rest of Africa.
|
A lot of "white power" still in South Africa? Erm... are you thinking of the same country as I am? The ANC have been in power since apartheid was dismantled. The Nationalist Party (the only "white power" party in the state) was actually disbanded this year. I think you might be confused.
Quote:
You think India would be destabilizing. I do not. Just because one of its neighbours, with which it has gone to war three times in the past 30 years, would object means nothing. China is objecting to Japan being granted access, yet I support it. Besides, I have seen nothing to suggest Pakistan has objected and India's strategic goal of permanent Security Council membership has been known for years.
So, other nations going to war = bad. India going to war x 3 with another nuclear power (albeit they warred pre-nukes) = credentials? That's a head scratcher.
|
Huh?!! Who said the wars were credentials?
Pakistan would make a fuss if India did
anything. They even went to war 3 times. That's the whole point. It's got nothing to do with India's credentials for a seat on the Security Council. You're trying to infer something I didn't say or imply.
Quote:
Why not consider what is right, what is equitable, what is representative, rather than "who spends the most on guns" and what "some US allied tinpot dictator cares"?
Not sure what "allied tinpot dictator" you speak of.
|
I speak of Musharaff.
Quote:
|
Not sure what the US has to do with this conversation (though I understand they are generally opposed to an expansion of the Council).
|
As much as Nigeria does. Or is mentioning other countries in a post not permitted?
Quote:
|
I think Japan and Germany are far, far more influential and egalitarian countries than India and Brazil, don't you?
|
If you're talking about South America then, no. If you're talking about Asia, then no.
Quote:
|
I'd rather have their even handedness and general alliance with democratic principles on the council than the other two.
|
Well, I'm surprised at that sweeping generalization. So Brazil and India are not even handed? Why?
And India has been a healthy democracy since 1948. Brazil, admittedly, only since 1985. But it's the best choice if we're considering a South American member.
Mr Mephisto