|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
So, permanent seat for Germnay, or not? | by Control | 2004-09-24 02:03:52 |
| Oh yes, and Tuvalu |
by scissors |
2004-09-24 02:16:20 |
No kidding: the whole idea of "permanent seats and accompanying veto" is an anachronism. When the UN -and its security council- were founded, the world seemed to be "clearly ordered" this way: some big MILITARY powers had just "won" the WW-2. Being military winners, they divided "the world" between them, giving themselves veto-power over all UN decisions.
Of course, they (except Sowjet Union, maybe) had MOTIVATED their war-against-nazism as a war-towards-democracy. So they couldn't give "themselves" all-too-obvious ABSOLUTE power in the UN. Therefor they installed this "security counsil" where ... the 5 big military powers could veto ANYTHING they didn't like, but where other "temporary" members had "chosen" seats too.
As it seems today, the temp-members, backed by their VOTED presence, are the only members who stil can defend that the SC and democracy aren't totally opposite, that is: that democracy is -formally- possible within UN.
The new powers today -Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, ... who will represent Africa? ) want such a "permanent seat" -with the accompanying veto- too. And noone can blame them.
But what do they think they wil GAIN, except prestige?
The USofA, by gong directly against SC rulings, and by frequently vetoing proposed "solutions" to world problems have clearly shown that "military power" is enough to rule the world. It is NOT NECESSARY any more to uphold a democratic façade |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
