Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Allowing the objective of establishing the United Nations to be subverted is the whole point of the Security Council.

How's that?  The primary objective of the establishment of the UN was to prevent direct armed conflict between the great powers. Allowing it to act against the will of one of those powers would have the reverse effect.  

In any case, I don't see the moral case for greater GA power. One country one vote is inherently undemocratic as is the representation of authoritarian governments.  But that's fine, justice, fairness, and democracy  aren't the point here.

I agree with Mig that the composition of the permanent members group is out of date and that you'd want a merger of the British and French seats into one EU one while giving India a seat.  But the original make up was sensible. The US, France, UK, and Soviet Union were clearly the most powerful countries in the world at the time. China was hobbled by civil war, but as the most populous state it also got in. Who else would you have wanted - Brazil? Canada?  (Germany and Japan were out for obvious reasons, India was still a colony)

by MarekNYC on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 at 03:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Carrie 4