Jean-Louis Couturier wrote:
>
> De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net]
> >> > I haven't been reading the WSJ editorial page much recently, but my
> >> > husband has, and he's seen a fair bit of the following as of late:
> >> >
> >> >1) Arguments that France shouldn't be a permanent member of the UN
> >> >Security Council.
> >> >
> >> >2) Arguments for a somewhat new set of permanent UNSC members: US,
> >> >Russia, China, India and Japan.
>
> From: "Jean-Louis Couturier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> How is Japan more important than the EU, especially security wise?
>
> De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet@;houston.rr.com]
> > The EU isn't a country.
>
> Of course it isn't. But it is enough of a political power that we
> should have at least one of its members sitting on the Security
> Council at all times. We could have a permanent seat for Europe
> where its members take turns. Europe would be represented but a
> country would be sitting on the council.
You also pointed out in another post why Japan might not be suitable.
I've been giving this a bit of thought in the past 16 hours, and what
makes more sense to me than the WSJ's proposal is just dumping France
and taking on India, instead.
If Europe were all one country, I'd argue that it ought to have a seat
on the UNSC. But it would also only get one vote in the UN.
As far as the "rotating European seat" goes, there is a lot of rotation
of UNSC members, but there are 5 *permanent* ones. If Europe were
guaranteed at least one, or at least two, of the remaining 10 seats
(where there *is* rotation), how would you feel about having no European
member in one of the 5 *permanent* seats?
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
