Africa wants veto power in the UN
 

Africa wants veto powers for two new permanent seats it hopes to get on the Security Council in an historic reform of the United Nations expected this year, South African President Thabo Mbeki said.

The demand for veto powers, agreed at a summit of African leaders in Nigeria yesterday, presents a challenge to the world body which has unveiled plans to raise the number of seats, but leave veto powers in the hands of the existing five permanent members: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.

"In light of the fact the current permanent five are saying they will retain the right of veto, therefore the new permanent members should have the same right," Mbeki said in an interview with Reuters and South African Broadcasting Corp after a summit of the African Union (AU) late yesterday. "The AU is saying you should not have two degrees of permanent members, some with a veto right and others not."

A high-level panel on reforming the United Nations has proposed two models for enlarging the council from 15 to 24 members.

One proposal suggests adding six new permanent members without veto power, including two from Africa, plus three new nonpermanent members for a two-year term.

The second option suggests adding eight seats in a new class of members who would serve for four years, subject to renewal, again this would include two from Africa. This plan foresees one non-permanent two-year seat.

Mbeki said the 53-member organisation had decided on the first option, "with improvements".

The African Union will also press for five non-permanent seats on the Security Council, Mbeki said, against the UN?s proposed three, to allow each of the five main African regions to have one each.

Mbeki said a 15-member committee of African Union foreign ministers would draw up detailed proposals to present to the United Nations before the end of March, when Secretary-General Kofi Annan is expected to present his report on the reform.

African Union delegates at the summit said the committee would also seek to break a deadlock between Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt over which two nations should be nominated to become permanent members. Any change to the council membership needs approval from two-thirds of the 191-member UN General Assembly and must avoid a veto by any of the council?s current permanent members.

Meanwhile, the African Union is seeking to break a deadlock between Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt over which two nations should be nominated to join the UN Security Council in reforms expected this year, officials said yesterday.

African nations are hoping for two new permanent seats on the council.

But there is no consensus on which African states should seek the new seats with Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa each campaigning for the privilege. The issue was a talking point at this weekend?s African Union summit in Nigeria?s capital Abuja.

"There is a proposal to put two countries forward to the Security Council as permanent members," said one delegate.

A 15-member committee, representing five African regions, was expected to meet over the next two months, with each region proposing one candidate, delegates said.

"Fifteen foreign ministers will meet and adopt a common position," Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who is also African Union chairman, said at a press briefing.

Delegates said they hoped two consensus candidates would emerge, with South Africa and Nigeria tipped as favourites.

One AU delegate said Africa would challenge the restriction of veto powers to the existing five permanent council members -- United States, Britain, France, China and Russia.

"What the Africans want is the power of veto which the West is not in favour of. But if that is the case, nobody should have the power of veto and it should be done democratically," an African delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

Any change to the council membership needs approval from two-thirds of the 191-member UN General Assembly and must avoid a veto by any of the council?s current permanent members.

It seems to me that expanding the veto only reduces the number of actions the UN can take. Would the intervention in Yugoslavia in 1999 have passed a UN vote with the Russian veto? Each additional potential veto means less action by the UN.

Not a good move in my opinion

now that would be stupid

do you think Un still have the power ?

seriously africa is one of the most fucked up places on the earth right now and they want a say in the rest of the world?

What do you mean? What kind of power?

:upsidedow

Check out this article about the King of Swaziland

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/ixworld.html

I haven't been to Swaziland, but it sounds like a crazy place. Corrupt as fuck, and 38% of the population has AIDS. Then there is the king with his crazy laws and rules (which he breaks himself).

It's good to be king

Not a hope in hell.

Don't worry. We will invade them soon and bring them liberty and democracy...
:disgust

Oh wait...no oil. Sorry fellas...yur on yur own...

they can have our seat. :1orglaugh

It's not a question of the UN having power. The UN exists for countries to have a forum to discuss issues without conflict. The UN is only effective as long as the member nations believe in it's charter. With that said I think the veto is useless. If you're interested in mainting international order and following a basic set of rules that ensure fundamental human rights then there's no need to veto any resolution that gets the support of 18 or 24 security council members.

I would argue that the UN Security Council exists largely to preserve the post World War II power structure of the world. Consider that nothing happens in the Security Council without approval of the US, Russia, China, the UK and France. Consider also that Japan and Germany have never been given veto power.

As far as the veto, consider the ability of any member with veto power to block resolutions condemning its own actions. The USSR used this effectively when it occupied Hungary and invaded Afghanistan.

France and the UK should lose their Veto power, they are becoming more and more insignificant in the new world order.
China should definitely keep it as they are becoming slowly but surely the first economical power.
The US should keep it too just to bother all the haters and also for the fact that it ain't going nowhere (sorry Fletch, no knife anarchy for you yet)
Russia, well no one will dare tell the Russians that if they don't shake it a little, they will soon become as important as the French.
As for giving veto power to an African nation; it seems like African nations are incapable of administering themselves, slaughters after massacres and worst like genocides in Rwanda and now in Sudan. Plus the fact that Africa is actually starting to see its population deflates dues to malnutrition and aids :(
When you think that a country like Malawi is losing 10 people per hour to aids :(
The UN still has a need to exist, sure it does not have real power, but it can still be used to avoid some wars and conflicts. It did keep saddam in power for an extra 10 years :2 cents:

Some 39 per cent of adult Swazis are infected with HIV/ Aids, the highest proportion in the world. King Mswati responded to the crisis in 2001 by banning virgins from having sex for five years. Any man caught deflowering a virgin would be fined one cow.

This law proved too rigorous for the king. Months later, he chose a 17-year old bride and fined himself one cow.

AHAHAHAHAHA, yes it is VERY good to be the King.
Amazing that this type of culture still exists today.

I have more chances to become GFY admin than Africa obtain veto powers in UN....

They really need a better currency.

True True.

How so?

- Both economies are massive, GDP (nominal 2003):
Germany = $2.4 trillion
UK = $1.7 trillion
France = $1.7 trillion
Link

- Both major nuclear powers

- Both spend a considerable amount on defence (though France like Germany never use it, only for UN/NATO "peace keeping" missions like in Afghanistan)

If UK & France have Veto, then Germany & Japan deserve it too because their economies are larger

Africa does not deserve a Veto because they REALLY are insignificant in every way.

What will 7 nations ever agree on as far as security issues?