SDSR - UK - Perm Member of UN Sec Council - How can it continue?

[Henry09]

Today POTUS Obama has said on his visit to India that he will strive to ensure that India takes a rightful place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, therebye recognising India's growing commercial and global clout. He even called the relationship between the USA and India as one of the 'defining relationships of the 21 century'!

It begs the question or indeed debate, that with SDSR reducing our military to the smallest shadow of it's former self, since probably before the time of Queen Elizabeth the 1st, why we, the UK should even be a permanent member of the UN security council? Will Obama have us give our slot to India? Is that the final indignity? Although legally it probably can't be done, it seems the suggestion is on the brink of being made.

Rule Britannia...mmmmmm! I hope all the politicians over the last 20 years feel that their pension and peerage was worth it. Not a patriot amongst them, apart from maybe 2.

:{

[Roadster280]

You adding two and two and coming up with 17.

Nobama was touting the need for reform at the UN, the Security Council being one of the areas to be reformed. In fairness, as one of the most populous states in the world, and a nuclear power to boot, India probably does merit a place on the top table.

However, noone is suggesting that the UK relinquish its place in favour of India. Maybe the SC will become a 21-member committee with 10 permanent places.

The UK is one of a handful of countries (the others also being members of the Security Council) that have the ability to launch an autonomous nuclear attack on any other country, and completely obliterate it at will. India is not there yet. I have no doubt that will change in my lifetime, or at the latest, in the lifetime of my children.

I submit that the sky is not falling in.

[Finningley Boy]

Each step of the way, I don't think the politicians wilfully tried to bring us to this situation. But that's because they are all to self serving and blinkered to see where we're heading. We don't have the Great Statesmen any longer. :(

FB

[Henry09]

Roadster280

OK. I feel the question almost needs asking without Obama's little gem today. I wont make the sum = 17 and doubt we would relinquish our seat to India (I was being mellodramatic :) ). But seriously what credibility do we now have to be on that council? Even our ability to 'launch an autonomous nuclear attack' on any other country is now in future question. Surely if that is the main caveat, India, Pakistan, Israel?, N Korea? should all be invited as perm members.

If Argentina backed by Latin America decided to move in and take the Falklands tomorrow', there is little we can now do, and we would certainly not be supported by the USA. Why do we hold a perm place on the UN Security Council? It makes us sound important, and we are not any more.

[Climebear]

Henry

The only was that we (or any of the others) can loose our permanent seat on the UNSC is if the UN vote for it; however, as we hold the permanent seat we also hold the power of veto. Therefore, the only way we can loose our seat is if we vote for it.

[Henry09]

Climebear

I both understand and agree. I guess I am questioning our credibility on the world stage with our recent cull in the military. Should we hold such influence any longer?

[Climebear]

My wife always tell me it's not the size that counts but what you do with it!

Even with our dimished forces, we will still be a player if we remain willing to do the dirty work. Others have bigger forces yet they don't let them do anything worthwhile when it comes to the shooting.


Mind you I'm not always sure that my wife also tells the truth

[Trim Stab]

It begs the question or indeed debate, that with SDSR reducing our military to the smallest shadow of it's former self, since probably before the time of Queen Elizabeth the 1st, why we, the UK should even be a permanent member of the UN security council?



That is why we have signed a 50 year military and nuclear alliance with France.

[Ali Barber]

We may not be able to retake the Falklands conventionally, but we could still lob a nuke at down town Buenos Aires!

[vecvechookattack]

The UK is a permanent member of the UN security council.... Which means that we will permanently be a member of the UN Securith council .... That's not a temporary member .... Not for a week or two.... The only way permanent member of the council can be voted off is if ALL members voted them off.... Which means we would have to vote ourselves off

[BillHicksRules]

Henry,

I am curious as to who you consider the two patriots to be?

Cheers

BHR

[The Old Fat One]

In fairness, as one of the most populous states in the world, and a nuclear power to boot, India probably does merit a place on the top table.



Surely if that is the main caveat, India, Pakistan, Israel?, N Korea? should all be invited as perm members.


Absolutely wrong. None of these states are nuclear weapon states as defined by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is fundamental UN protocol and one which has recently beeen strongly supported by....Barack Obama.

In fact the above states are non-signatories and must remain so unless the NPT is re-drafted (absolutely zero chance) or they give up their nukes (when hell freezes over?). Operating in defiance of a core UN protocol is going to act as a complete barrier to any formal advancement in status within the UN.

Some years back I was at a conference at Durham Univerisity when this very subject was discusssed. On the panel of experts, the leading UN authority at the Foreign Office simply stated....never going to happen. Her argument, much the same as posted VVHA and CB... it was designed to be permanent and permanent it will stay.

[Whenurhappy]

VVCH, Climebear, TOFO,

Thanks for attempting to kill off the Urban Myth that puports to link nukes with being a member of the P5. The P5 were the Victors at the end of WWII and the role of the UNSC is to maintain status quo ante. Yep, reform is desirable, along with motherhood and apple pie, but none of the P5 have any appetite to dilute their influence.

It would be interesting to having a non-NPT State as a permanent member of the UNSC. I fear that the ILC (not to mention pro-Pak states within the UNGA) would raise serious concerns about the legitamacy of such a move!

[Roadster280]

Surely if that is the main caveat, India, Pakistan, Israel?, N Korea? should all be invited as perm members.

No. They don't have the ability to obliterate any other country, only those in range. I'm sure India will get there, and possibly Pakistan, but not Israel or NK.

[Trim Stab]

never going to happen. Her argument, much the same as posted VVHA and CB... it was designed to be permanent and permanent it will stay.


She's wrong - an intransignent failure to recognise changing geopolitics will just lead to the devaluation and eventual disintegration of the UN.

[The Old Fat One]

She's right.

Nothing to do with intransigence. It's called realpolitik. Read the small print behind the headlines of the Obama story (any newspaper you like).

The bit that says "privately officials state that any change to the permanent security counsel is unlikely in the forseeable future".

Forseeable = next 20 years. After that who knows?

[Trim Stab]

After that who knows?


Well there you are - you agree with the point I made.