# What Countries Should Have a Permanent UNSC Seat?



## onedomino (Sep 20, 2004)

A rationalization of what countries should have a permanent seat on the UNSC will not necessarily make the organization functional. However, the current list of countries with permanent UNSC seats is outdated and does not reflect international demographics. The following is my opinion of what countries should have a permanent UNSC seat. What's your take?

China
Russia
India - by 2020 will be the world's most populous country.
Japan  by a great margin, the world's number two economy.
United States
European Union - of course the EU is not a "country," but Europe should have a permanent seat on the UNSC. No individual European country has the combination of population, economic strength, and military capacity, that should justify a permanent UNSC seat.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/264/world/As_Japan_spreads_its_wings_int:.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measures_of_national_income

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/04/21/stories/0121000a.htm


----------



## CSM (Sep 20, 2004)

onedomino said:
			
		

> A rationalization of what countries should have a permanent seat on the UNSC will not necessarily make the organization functional. However, the current list of countries with permanent UNSC seats is outdated and does not reflect international demographics. The following is my opinion of what countries should have a permanent UNSC seat. What's your take?
> 
> China
> Russia
> ...



Interesting take on the EU.  If we use that as a baseline, then the Islamic fundamentalists have just as big an impact (maybe more) and I sure dont want them on the UNSC.

In my opinion, nothing but a total revamp of the entire UN is in order, not just the Security Council.


----------



## 5stringJeff (Sep 20, 2004)

China, Russia, India, and the US for sure.  Probably the UK for number 5.  Make the rest rotational by continents: 2 for Africa, 2 for South America, 2 for Europe, 2 for North America, 1 for Asia, 1 for Australia.


----------



## Annie (Sep 20, 2004)

Just dismantle the damn thing. It's got to go. EU should have one seat, but not individual countries, just like US and 50 states. Not going to happen.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 20, 2004)

The UN should be drastically reformed in three major ways:

(a) the Security Council system as it is is abolished. A new, permenent security council is enacted with no veto powers for any parties. The 15 nations comprising it should be as follows (America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Turkey/Pakistan/Egypt and Mexico). 

(b) the UN should cease peacekeeping activities as an organization and contract them out to regional organizations (African Union, Arab League, EU, NATO, OAS, ASEAN) which willl have the option of flying under the UN flag or not. This way, there is no shortchanging of the peacekeeping operations by donor countries or volunteer countries who contribute troops only to get money and acclaim)

(c) Automatic triggers will be built into key emergencies like genocide, nuclear proliferation and oppressive invasion. This way, no nation like China or France will be able to discredit the system by making deals and stalling for time for oppressive regimes like Sudan, Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc etc.

I don't know, there are lots of other ideas, but these are the ones that appear most possible (still improbable though sadly)


----------



## CSM (Sep 20, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> The UN should be drastically reformed in three major ways:
> 
> (a) the Security Council system as it is is abolished. A new, permenent security council is enacted with no veto powers for any parties. The 15 nations comprising it should be as follows (America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Turkey/Pakistan/Egypt and Mexico).
> 
> ...



I am not sure what the UN should look like these days. It seems to me that the more parties involved in any decision making process, the more beauraucratic things will get.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 20, 2004)

there is considerable truth to that


----------



## onedomino (Sep 20, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> The UN should be drastically reformed in three major ways:
> 
> (a) the Security Council system as it is is abolished. A new, permenent security council is enacted with no veto powers for any parties. The 15 nations comprising it should be as follows (America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Turkey/Pakistan/Egypt and Mexico).
> 
> ...



Good ideas NATO; although, the UN might end up militarily attacking Israel without the US veto in place. Perhaps the OAU could vote for Africa. The OAS could vote for Central and South America. Due to its massive population, maybe Indonesia should be seated. Then Islam would not be excluded. It is outrageous that a few Communist Party hacks determine the Chinese use of its veto in the UNSC. Also, giving France as powerful a vote as China or the US does not seem reasonable; only one vote for the EU. 

China
India
Russia
Japan
Indonesia
OAS
OAU
EU
United States


----------



## edwbrown (Sep 20, 2004)

I say dismantel the UN the only time they seem to get involved and want to help is when the US forces them to do something.


----------



## Annie (Sep 20, 2004)

edwbrown said:
			
		

> I say dismantel the UN the only time they seem to get involved and want to help is when the US forces them to do something.


Welcome, edwbrown!


----------



## onedomino (Sep 20, 2004)

edwbrown said:
			
		

> I say dismantel the UN the only time they seem to get involved and want to help is when the US forces them to do something.



First post on this thread? I am honored. Welcome edwbrown.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 20, 2004)

Im going to have to go with the dismantling. UN is a waste of time. It was set up wrong to be a governing body for the world.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 20, 2004)

Avatar4321 said:
			
		

> Im going to have to go with the dismantling. UN is a waste of time. It was set up wrong to be a governing body for the world.



That's a pretty weird looking UN headquarters building in NYC. It's got that funky 1960s wish I had a clue plastic look. What should we do with it?


----------



## acludem (Sep 20, 2004)

The U.N. was set up to prevent World War II from happening again.  It's worked so far.  The U.N. is a good organization.  It was the U.N. with U.S. leadership that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.  The U.N. should absolutely work with and support regional organizations in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts.  They should also work with International non-governmental organizations like the International Red Cross who have extensive experience bringing aid to crisis areas.

Also, I want to make sure that people understand that the EU is NOT like the United States.  All members are still sovereign nations.  The only link-up is economic.  The other issues, for example environmental regulation, farming and food standards, etc. are all related to economics.  This is NOT a political union or some sort of European supergovernment.  It is possible (though I do not think probable) that this may occur in the future.

acludem


----------



## onedomino (Sep 20, 2004)

acludem said:
			
		

> The U.N. was set up to prevent World War II from happening again.  It's worked so far.  The U.N. is a good organization.  It was the U.N. with U.S. leadership that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.  The U.N. should absolutely work with and support regional organizations in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts.  They should also work with International non-governmental organizations like the International Red Cross who have extensive experience bringing aid to crisis areas.
> 
> Also, I want to make sure that people understand that the EU is NOT like the United States.  All members are still sovereign nations.  The only link-up is economic.  The other issues, for example environmental regulation, farming and food standards, etc. are all related to economics.  This is NOT a political union or some sort of European supergovernment.  It is possible (though I do not think probable) that this may occur in the future.
> 
> acludem



I assume you meant WW3. So what is your suggested composition of the UNSC?


----------



## acludem (Sep 21, 2004)

I would have 11 members:  USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and South Africa.

acludem


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 21, 2004)

acludem said:
			
		

> I would have 11 members:  USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and South Africa.
> 
> acludem



that's not a bad composition

i do like indonesia better than pakistan for the security council (true democracy over military control), but since pakistan's got the bomb and is closer to the world's continual trouble spots, perhaps that would be the better choice


----------



## Annie (Sep 21, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> that's not a bad composition
> 
> i do like indonesia better than pakistan for the security council (true democracy over military control), but since pakistan's got the bomb and is closer to the world's continual trouble spots, perhaps that would be the better choice



Why France, Germany, along with UK? Why should EU have 3 voices? Why only US from North America? If EU can have all their states in UN, why should US participate with less than all 50? Have Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Japan all from Asia, unless you want to throw Russia into Europe? Why would South Africa rate more worthy than Middle Eastern state? 

Personally, I think we should just get the heck out, but I'm curious on your concept of more fairness or perhaps it's logic, that is just escaping me?


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 21, 2004)

Alright, you want the leaders of the world and their respective regions right?

US- North America, WORLD LEADER.

Brazil- South America/Central America

Britain (kinda weird, they merit because they're powerful, rich, successful and a world leader by their conduct, policies and what not)

Germany/France- now this I would prefer to give to the EU as a whole, but I'm just being realistic, the French are gonna want in.  Okay, every group needs a wacko/weirdo, so France can be it.  We'll let Germany in because I truly believe they will improve from their dismal past 4 years and become a good leader again.  Their leaders just suck right now.

Russia- World power.  Largest nation in landmass.  Lots of nukes, lots of important ties to regions in Asia, Europe and Middle East.  Large and reforming military that will hopefully fight terrorism well.

China- World power.  Largest in populace for now.  Huge economy.  One of the leaders of Asia and hopefully an improving political climate.  They have a legitimate voice at the table and a lot to bring to it (especially once communism fades away completely)

Japan- Growing power in Asia and the world. A military that is increasingly growing towards offensive action, like humanitarian interventions and taking a strong stand against oppressive regimes (north korea, burma).  An economy that is massive and recovering.  A leader on human rights, development and aid.  Even better, their diplomacy is growing more open-minded and broad, as they tackle serious issues of terrorism and oppression (afghanistan and iraq) and rebuilding (Iraq, Liberia, Afghanistan, East Timor)

India- Growing world power.  Could one day eclipse China.  They contain the world's most diverse population and soon to be largest.  A natural democracy that is pulling off miracles because of good leadership and forward vision.  A military that is improving and modernizing to ally with the US and fight terrorism.

South Africa- The leader of Africa.  Modern military with an eye on deploying troops to trouble spots like Darfur, the congo and Ivory Coast to defend and promote democracy and freedom.  Economic powerhouse in the making.  

Indonesia/Pakistan- this one I'm unsure of as I stated before.  I would prefer Indonesia, natural leader of the various Muslim nations for now.  A democracy with a huge population.  A military force in the making, willing to deploy to fight terrorism and invasion.  Improving relations with the rest of the world.

I would like to put Israel in there too.  One day that will be possible. Israel will become a world leader, I promise.  One day their military will not have to worry about occupying the Palestinian territories and defending against Iran and Syria.  One day they will deploy that military to places like Darfur to show the world Israel is a leader among nations, a nation that uniquely understands the power of democracy to defend against oppression and inhumanity.

Give Turkey 5-10 more years and they will be the first Muslim Middle Eastern country ready for regional and world leadership.  They have a great military, a great government and are the best example (even better than Indonesia) of a functional Muslim government and society that is embedded with democracy and freedom.

TAKE AWAY THE DAMN VETO SYSTEM!

With this new Security Council, simple majorities could approve assisting and aiding regional organizations intervening in crises like Darfur and Iraq.  The US could use this new Security Council as a springboard for improved and better world leadership.  We can help other countries assert leadership so that we are not forced to play global beat cop 24/7, just perhaps global detective (assisting in intel and logistics for various problems around the world).  We could singlehandedly (perhaps) save the UN from itself.  Maybe even make it worth.  Maybe even help spread freedom even further.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 21, 2004)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> Why France, Germany, along with UK? Why should EU have 3 voices? Why only US from North America? If EU can have all their states in UN, why should US participate with less than all 50?



Very good point. On what demographic basis would the EU be entitled to multi-state voting power? If California, Texas, or Florida, were in independent states in Europe, they would economically dominate. The French, German, and UK votes should not each equal the US or Chinese vote. The EU deserves only one UNSC vote.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 21, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> Alright, you want the leaders of the world and their respective regions right?
> 
> US- North America, WORLD LEADER.
> 
> ...



NATO, your post is well thought out and contains many interesting points. In my opinion, however, it suggests an UNSC that is too large.

Other voices in Africa should be represented on the council besides South Africa. That is why the OAU should get the African UNSC vote. The same logic applies to Central and South America. Voices in addition to Brazil need an outlet. That is why the OAS should handle the Central and South American vote. I realize that countries other than those in Central and South America are in the OAS, e.g., Canada and the US. Regarding OAS UNSC voting behavior, the US would not participate because it has its own seat on the council (messy...any ideas?). There is no good demographic reason why separate EU member states should have individual UNSC votes. The closest qualifier might be Germany, but it has yet to realize the economic strength that will eventually emerge from reunification.

I would choose Indonesia over Pakistan. It has a larger population and is democratic. It would be great if the UN had the nerve to make UNSC membership contingent on whether the candidate nation is a democratic state. Countries such as China and Pakistan would only have observer status until they institute democratic reform (that will happen when monkeys are flying over the frozen wastes of hell...the UN could not even mount a serious relief effort for Liberia or Darfur). Anyway, what we are talking about is theoretical. Someday the UN will need to become relevant.

Regarding the veto power...unfortunately, for now, it must be retained. In my opinion, there have been periods in the past when a UNSC simple majority would have voted for military action against Israel. A US veto is necessary to prevent such a scenario, or something similar. However, the veto from China prevents action in Darfur. So what is the answer? If the UNSC looks like this: US, OAS, EU, Russia, OAU, China, Japan, and Indonesia, then there are eight members. Perhaps instead of the veto system, there could be a system that requires 6 or 7 of the 8 members to agree before military action is authorized.

BTW, in this discussion I am not suggesting that the US give up one iota of its sovereignty to the UN.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 21, 2004)

i will add this:

i like your idea better, in the most part because it combines 2 of my 3 ideas for UN reform.  We get broader meaningful represenation for nations around the world that matter, while at the same time strengthening the power of multilateral institutions like the OAU and OAS.

This accomplishes two crucial points: (1) better more cohesive diplomacy by the US and our allies because we're dealing with organizations comprising nation-states, not just nation-states.  That doesn't mean perfect harmony, and while some may say it adds a middleman to diplomacy, i disagree.  It becomes easier for us to get more assistance, support and votes on crucial resolutions because we are able to appeal to broader, more important issues. (we don't have to worry as much about Mexico or Cameroon's national interests, but more about the OAS and the OAU's interests as a whole)

(2) it makes smaller nations feel that their vote and voice matters, an important contribution to building better relationships with the rest of the world (for the US).  Peru can now feel its voice matters as part of an OAU seat at the Security Council.  Lesotho now could recieve dual incentives to provide troops or airspace to a UN/US/OAU/OAS mission.  We help them out, and so does the OAU.  

This could really work, and it would be truly visionary and historic for Pres. Bush to propose something like this next year once the lessons from Iraq, Darfur (and probably Iran) have been better absorbed.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

Attached is a link to a news story regarding a plan by Japan, Germany, Brazil, and India, to jointly lobby for permanent UNSC seats.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10850805%255E2703,00.html


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 22, 2004)

i hope they are successful in this endeavor.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 22, 2004)

China appears to speak negatively regarding Japan's desire to be a permanent UNSC member:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-09/23/content_2010654.htm


----------



## onedomino (Sep 24, 2004)

The inclusion of Japan on the UNSC is shaping up as a battle between the US and China. Recent news stories have the US supporting Japans bid for a permanent seat, while China appears to be opposed.

*US Supports Japan for UNSC Seat, Mum on Others * 
NEW YORK: Though India, Brazil and Germany are widely regarded as potential candidates, the US is prepared to name only Japan for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council at this stage, according to the Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell. 
"We have indicated support previously for Japan's admission to the Security Council but we think the best thing to do now is wait until the Group of Eminent Persons who are studying this issue provide their report to the UN Secretary General Mr Kofi Annan. He has a chance to study it and then it comes before the members of the United Nations", Mr Powell said here yesterday. 
He said, `we think clearly that it is time to take a look at the structure and functioning of the United Nations and its different bodies, especially the Security Council after this half a century of experience. And the world has changed so much from the 51 nations it might have been in the late 40s to 191 now'. 
"And so we will be studying the Eminent Groups report very, very carefully to see how best to restructure the Security Council and the other institutions of the United Nations but we are not prepared to make any further judgments now as to who should or should not be added to the Security Council - beyond those we have already made", Mr Powell said.  PTI http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/businessline/blnus/14241707.htm 

*Japan's Check Cannot Buy UN Council Seat: Chinese Paper*
www.chinaview.cn 2004-09-24 1333
BEIJING, Sept. 24 (Xinhuanet) -- Japan's financial contribution to the United Nations does not necessarily ensure that the country will take a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, China's English-language newspaper, China Daily, said in a by-lined article on Friday. 
Undoubtedly, the world's second-largest economy should play a bigger role in the international area, but the permanent seats on the 15-member UN Security Council are "not up for sale", the newspaper said. 
In a speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi expressed the hope that his country wants permanent membership on the council. 
Japan, together with Germany, India and Brazil, has formed a lobbying group to help one another get permanent seats on an expanded Security Council. The current five permanent members are the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France. 
The newspaper said Japan's economic power does not necessarily mean it should take a permanent seat on the council, noting "there should be no abusive linkage between contributions and attribution of the permanent seats." 
"There is obviously a limit to what money can and cannot buy," the paper said, alluding to Japan's claim that "it should have a say in the UN's inner council commensurate with size of its checks." 
*Japan has continued to have the largest program for official development assistance (ODA), and contributes to nearly 20 percent of the UN's general budget, only second to the United States. * Any membership change of the council needs approval from two-thirds of the 191-nation General Assembly and no veto from the five permanent members. Analysts do not paint a rosy picture for Japan's seat bid, the article said. 
Although the seat campaign comes at a time when reform is high on the UN agenda, the reform aims at enlarging the council to command greater respect, especially in the developing world. Japan, however, would not be able to press for membership on the basis of geographical diversity, or on the basis of being a developing state, the paper said. 
In addition, Japan's constitutional clause clashes with the obligations of permanent membership with regard to the use of force to settle international conflicts, it added. 
UN Security Council membership means member nations will shoulder obligations for maintaining world peace, even by force, if necessary. However, Japan's constitution says the nation should not use force as a means of settling international disputes. 
Moreover, the article criticized Japan for having "never squarely faced its war-time history." 
"With the prime minister and other top Japanese officials repeatedly paying homage to the Yasukuni Shrine, their irresponsible deeds can only alienate their country from its neighbors instead of winning their support for Japan pursuing a bigger role on the international stage," it said. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-09/24/content_2016200.htm


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 24, 2004)

sorry but **** China and what they want

i like the "democracies only" idea for the UNSC (wasn't that yours onedomino?)

why aren't we supporting India's bid as well?


----------



## CSM (Sep 24, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> sorry but **** China and what they want
> 
> i like the "democracies only" idea for the UNSC (wasn't that yours onedomino?)
> 
> why aren't we supporting India's bid as well?



It would be awfully hard to dismiss China out of hand. 

It is interesting that former communist states such as China and Viet Nam have begun to exert some economic muscle now that they have made moves towards capitolism.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 24, 2004)

that is true about their economic development

we can't dismiss china out of hand but we kow tow to them way too much


----------



## 5stringJeff (Sep 24, 2004)

NATO, I agree.  We cannot dismiss China, but I think it would be great to have Japan on the UNSC.  They have been a huge supporter of the UN, and they are a capitalistic democracy.  The latter point, of course, is what chaps the ChiComs so much.


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 24, 2004)

that and they hold a grudge for a long time (this one is about the war crimes japan commited against them in ww2)

i think japan will make it, though i wish india could as well

give brazil five more years and they'll be truly ready

if germany starts making sense ever again, they'd be ready for UNSC membership as well


----------



## 5stringJeff (Sep 24, 2004)

I personally would be great if either Japan or India made it.  Both - even better.  That would give China some pressure!


----------



## NATO AIR (Sep 24, 2004)

then we'd have two-three allies (japan and/or india) to stand with almost on every issue that goes before it... Russia is fickle, China is obstructionist and France... eh..     

that's the quality of their leadership on the council


----------



## onedomino (Sep 25, 2004)

NATO AIR said:
			
		

> that and they hold a grudge for a long time (this one is about the war crimes japan commited against them in ww2)
> 
> i think japan will make it, though i wish india could as well
> 
> ...



NATO is correct. When I lived in Shanghai and had discussions with friends about international affairs, I was not surprised to discover that there is much Chinese hatred for the Japanese. The Japanese military did unspeakable crimes against the Chinese civilian population during WW2. Another reason that China opposes a permanent Japanese UNSC seat is that China views Japan as its main long-term rival for economic dominance in Asia.

I am opposed to multiple permanent EU seats (UK, France, Germany) on the UNSC, unless California, Texas, and Florida, also get seats.


----------



## onedomino (Sep 25, 2004)

Looks like the old axis pals, Italy and Germany, are not happy with each other. Italy has announced its opposition to a permanent UNSC seat for Germany.

From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3689796.stm 

*Germany Slams Italy Over UN Plan*

Germany has criticised Italy for opposing its campaign for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said Europe would lose out if it was the only region not to have a new representative on an enlarged council.

(What? Politically, Brazil might as well be in the EU. Beyond Cuba and Venezuela, is there a country more hostile to US foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere?)  

Under a proposed reform, Germany, Brazil, India and Japan are seeking additional permanent seats for themselves and one African nation. 
Permanent members France and Britain back the plan, but Italy opposes it. 
The drive to reform the council was launched by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, after its failure to reach agreement over Iraq last year. 
Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan this week called for new permanent seats for themselves and Africa, saying the plan would boost the legitimacy of the UN. 

*But Italy voiced its opposition, saying it favoured only the inclusion of more non-permanent seats. * 

"We do not believe the council's difficulties can be resolved through new permanent, irrevocable appointments," Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said, adding that Arab nations might feel excluded. 

Competing allies

Mr Fisher said he regretted Rome's position, in an interview published by Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper on Saturday. "Following the criteria accepted by everyone, the other regional groups, overcoming divisions and difficulties, will have a new representative on the expanded council. We Europeans won't," he said. Mr Fischer added that it was illogical for Italy to reject German candidacy without applying itself. He urged the Italians to seek a permanent seat in "a true competition between two countries that are friends and allies".

(Has Joschka lost his meds?)

Reform of the security council has sparked intense debate at the UN. 
Senegal called for two permanent and two non-permanent African seats, while Nigeria argued it was qualified for permanent membership.

Washington, meanwhile, has backed Japan's bid for a permanent seat, but reserves judgement on Germany, India and Brazil. 

Britain, China, France, Russia, and the US have been permanent members with the power of veto since the council was formed after World War II. 
The 10 other council members are chosen for two-year terms by regional groups.


----------



## Merlin1047 (Oct 3, 2004)

Personally I see no point to "reforming" the Security Council.  The UN is a nest of vipers in our own country and it's time to show them the door.

Reforming the UN is impossible.  Most of its participants view it as a means of gouging richer nations.  UN representative are often corrupt.  Reforming the UN is much like repairing an old car - you reach the point where the money required for repairs exceeds the value of the vehicle and no matter what you do to it, that car will never run like new.


----------



## MJDuncan1982 (Oct 5, 2004)

In the interest of democracy there should be no veto power.

However, it would be quite idiotic to voluntarily give up such a power.

What do we do here?  Sacrifice substanstial control over the UN and promote democracy or keep our control and retain something of an aristocracy or plutocracy.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Oct 5, 2004)

Countries with atrocious human rights records and run by tyrants should not have a voice whatsoever.  That leftist "tyranny is in the eye of the beholder" crap, is crap.


----------



## musicman (Oct 6, 2004)

I'm with Merlin - it's beyond repair. At it's best, the U.N was a naive utopian pipe dream; it is now nothing but a corrupt cesspool united only by greed, lust for power, and hatred of America.

John Kerry says that American actions must meet the "global test".

George Bush clearly states that, under his leadership, the U.S. will tend to U.S. interests irrespective of the opinions of the "world body".

That's really all I need to know about this year's election.


----------

