Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Britain backs four countries for Security Council veto

First, I wish no country on the UNSC had veto power, but that's just me. Veto power allows countries to prevent decisions harmful to their self interest, but it also is a hugely powerful ability to stop rulings they just don't like or they want to thwart for political reasons.

What's interesting is Britain's willingness to offer such power to others. They hold a very coveted position and agree to offer the same to others.

Is this a matter of what's right or is there a hidden agenda? Do they expect these countries to side with them in most matters? If so, they are forgetting political alliances change with the wind and one veto is all that's required. They don't need allies.
Britain is backing South Africa, Japan, Brazil and India for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, Foreign Secretary David Miliband said in an interview broadcast Tuesday.

He added that there was no question of a European Union seat on the UN body, nor was there any prospect of Britain giving up its own permanent seat, and veto, on the Security Council.

"We think, very clearly, that the South Africas of this world, the Japans of this world, the Brazils of this world, the Indias of this world, have a very clear claim (for a permanent seat), and we will be arguing for UN reform," Miliband told the BBC.

Via Channel NewAsia.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger Jeb Koogler said...

Do you know if these countries would be granted the veto? This seems important. I haven't read the full article, but I imagine they may be "permanent" in name only. As in, they don't get rotated out, but they don't get the veto either.

9/27/2007 02:18:00 PM  
Blogger spiiderweb™ said...

Its in the headline, Jeb. I've read other articles which also say they would have veto power.

Not sure the reporters got it right, but they're consistent.

9/27/2007 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger Jeb Koogler said...

Yeah, I'm not sure where my head was at when I wrote this comment. Thanks for clarifying that.

9/28/2007 07:31:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home