De : Julia Thompson [mailto:julia@;zurg.net] > 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.
Indeed. However, France would never agree to be removed while the UK stayed, and neither France nor the UK would agree to having no european veto whatsoever. (Neither would the Netherlands, Germany, or any of the others I suspect.) An accomodation would have to be found. > 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? I think that Europe would object to not having a veto. I'm imagining a Security Council with 4 permanent seats, 1 European seat (all five with veto powers) and 10 seats for the rest of the world. Of course, I'm speaking as an outsider. What do Yurpeens thinks about this? Jeroen, Sonja? Ritu, would you care to give us an opinion regarding an Indian permanent seat on the Security Council? Jean-Louis _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
