Expanding the Security Council
Uploaded by Fady Mirhom on Apr 27, 2005 |
|
|
Expanding the Security Council is an issue that I was thinking about for long time. Many countries believe that they should become members of the Big Five club; they demand the expanding of the council. Countries like Japan, Germany, Italy and even some under developed countries like South Africa, Egypt, Brazil and other countries want the privileges of being permanents members of the Security Council.
On the other hand, the five VETO holders will not accept some other countries to hold their powers and become equal to them in the International society. As World War Two winners: The USA, The UK, France, Russia (SU) and China (Taiwan), always have the heights hand in making international decisions by having the VETO right. They decide where to send troops, they put embargoes on other countries, they make international laws, and they always protect themselves, their alias and their friends with the right to refuse and canceling any Security Counsel’s decision or resolutions without even giving explanations. If any resolution conflicts with what they prefer, they always click on the key word VETO.
I personally believe in expanding the Security Counsel, I believe in giving the rest of the big economical and strategic countries some extra power. Yes Russia is a winner in the war, but that was 60 years ago and it is not the Soviet Union any more. Compare the Japanese economy to the Russian’s today and see who has more power in the actual time. Compare between the French and the German army force. Compare between the Chinese and the Italian Human rights. The None Winners back then, are not Losers now.
The Five rulers countries come from only three continents, that means that three other continents are left behind with out even one permanent representative among the international law controllers.
Therefore I came up with my idea and discussed it with others on what the International society can do to give the winners and the other countries a more realistic role in setting international codes. I know it is not easy because that still going to put other countries in a better position, so the VETO holders may not agree, and use their VETO right to prevent the other counties from becoming permanents members.
Why not letting up to ten other countries become members? And also keep ten rotating countries. The new members will not hold the VETO right; they can have a BAN right. Every new member will have four options when it comes to passing a resolution; to agree, to be absent, to disagree, or to Ban. The Ban right is an objection right that the new member can use if any of them strongly disagree with any resolution. If seven of the ten new countries declares Bans, that can be counted as one VETO. The total number of the Security Council members, will become twenty-five instead of fifteen. To pass a resolution you need fifteen out of twenty-five members to agree. To dysfunction a resolution, you need either fifteen votes, or two Vito (instead of one), or one VETO plus four Bans.
With these new rules the five winners will still have their prestige and their powers, and in the same time other countries will be presented with permanents chairs in the Security Council, with bigger roles and other privileges that put them in a closer position to the VETO holders. |
|
|