Virgos Groove Posted August 12 Posted August 12 Quote The United Nations chief has called for the UN Security Council (UNSC) to reform its outdated structure and assign Africa a permanent seat at the table, stressing that the continent is underrepresented. Quote Speaking at the UNSC, Sierra Leone President Julius Maada Bio said Africa demands two permanent seats in the UNSC and two additional nonpermanent seats. "The African Union will choose the African permanent members. Africa wants the veto abolished. However, if UN member states wish to retain the veto, it must be extended to all new permanent members as a matter of justice," he said. Al Jazeera Seems unlikely since reforming the permanent council would open up one hell of a Pandora's box (German and Indian accession, Japan's beef with its neighbours, etc.). But if it did happen, I wonder what countries would be chosen. South Africa and Nigeria?
Tropez Posted August 12 Posted August 12 You mean all 54 countries are represented by one seat. But Europe has three, Asia and America have one? Either we abolish the security council or we make it equal for all countries.
Bosque Posted August 12 Posted August 12 I understand why they want it but the Security Council is already totally useless (I guess there is no way to make it even more useless)
wastedpotential Posted August 12 Posted August 12 The only way Security Council reform will get passed is with the unanimous approval of the P5 (assuming you get 2/3rds of states to agree in the GA), and that's just not happening, and neither is the end of the veto. All things considered, if the SC was going to be changed, adding African states as permanent members would probably be easier than any of the other top candidates (the Russians would block the Germans and the Chinese would block the Indians or the Japanese, and I don't think anyone would be willing to go to bat for Brazil), but still, the chance is incredibly remote. 1
stevyy Posted August 12 Posted August 12 11 minutes ago, Bosque said: I understand why they want it but the Security Council is already totally useless (I guess there is no way to make it even more useless) I came here to say the same. They never agree on anything, especially since mostly bad players and war mongers are in it: USA, Russia and China and to a lesser degree the UK. It should be comprised of the most peaceful countries on earth... and if countries act against UN resolutions (like Russia) and international UN special force should be able and allowed to arrest the people responsible and put them in front of an international court of law. It's so vile that China did vote against sanctions on Russia. Away with these corrupt systems. #Imagine
Jotham Posted August 13 Posted August 13 The Security Council was created within the context of WWII so it's outdated now and in desperate need of reform, but I think it's very unlikely that it will ever actually be changed unfortunately.
Tropez Posted August 13 Posted August 13 2 hours ago, stevyy said: I came here to say the same. They never agree on anything, especially since mostly bad players and war mongers are in it: USA, Russia and China and to a lesser degree the UK. It should be comprised of the most peaceful countries on earth... and if countries act against UN resolutions (like Russia) and international UN special force should be able and allowed to arrest the people responsible and put them in front of an international court of law. It's so vile that China did vote against sanctions on Russia. Away with these corrupt systems. #Imagine Congrats to France for having amazing PR. Especially these past few years. Their neo-colonialism in Africa is virtually unnoticed. 1 2 1
shimind Posted August 13 Posted August 13 UN is a wastage of time. they cant do anything... and useless. BRICS is the future. 2
Recommended Posts