Arghh... China Takes Sides Against Germany!

How ungrateful...

Bolton, China Agree to Stop Bid by U.S. Allies for UN Power

Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- John Bolton used his first full day as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to forge a strategy with China aimed at defeating a formula offered by four U.S. allies to expand the Security Council, the Chinese envoy said.

Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said he and Bolton decided to coordinate efforts yesterday to block the initiative by Japan, Germany, Brazil and India, during one of Bolton's first meetings in New York with a UN envoy. ... ``We agreed to work together to make sure our interests are being maintained,'' Wang told reporters today at the UN. ``That means we have to work in parallel ways to make sure the unity of UN members will not be spoiled by this maneuver.''

German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will be furious! I mean, the guy has done so much to please the Chinese "government", it borders on the ridiculous. He even tried to lift the arms embargo against China.

"You can get all the weapons you want, Herr President.
Just help Germany to a permanent UNSC seat. Should I
walk faster?"

"OK, send the weapons. As to the UNSC seat, we'll
first have to consult Mr. Bolton... You may now kiss
my hand."

Bolton!! A right-wing conservative, unable to the nuanced diplomacy French style the German media so much adore!

Ah, well, never mind. Luxembourg is still on Germany's side.

I guess...

Comments

[Steve]

Well, its a shame that India, Japan and Brazil get screwed in the process, but I guess that at the end, the existing security council members didn't want to water down their authority.

How much do you want to bet that the country that will be blamed the most for this will be the U.S.--especially now that the "arch-conservative" Bolton, and by extension, President Bush, can be blamed?

[Hector]

The EU is overrepresented anyway so I can understand turning them back. Brazil is a net receiver of aid and support so they need to wait, Japan pays 15% of the UN bill and is one of the largest economies in the world so they deserve a seat. India is the world's largest democracy and represents over 1/6 of the people on the planet - they probably deserve a seat as well.

How long will it take for Schroeder to use this to start beating the anti-American drum for the elections?

My solution: Take the UK and France's permanent seats and give the EU one (but don't let their members elect any additional ones to the UNSC either). Then increase the permanent members by one and give the two open perm seats to Japan and India. The extra 3 seats the Euros get on a rotational basis would be given to Africa and SA for their rotations.

[Dave G.]

I don't think we should dilute the U.S.'s power at all. I'd kick France off the security council, though, and replace them with Israel.

The fact is, it's not economic clout or population size that should matter. Some countries aren't morally fit to hold such a high position. China's seat really ought to go back to Taiwan, until such time as China becomes a stable democracy.

Germany showed it's unfit by it's constant greed and self-interest above all else - how can it even consider asking after we just saw it run interference for Saddam because of it's oil and food connection? And even beyond that, a country that descends to having anti-Americanism as it's most noticeable foreign policy needs quite a bit more maturing before it's ready for a top leadership role.

And that's really the key word: leadership. Japan doesn't have it, because they're always reluctant to take a stand. Let them actually start "leading" in the world's affairs before they're given more stature and power.

Brazil and India.... again, just for their population and economies? Let's not. Give them a few decades, then let's talk again.

As for the general council, I think allowing only democracies of some time's standing to have voting rights is also long overdue. It would be a great incentive for nations to democratize. And after all, the representatives of a dictator do not represent the views or will of the people.

[Atlanticus]

China's main motive is Japan. Some weeks (months?) ago the Chinese said they would agree to a permanent seat for Germany.

Similarly the US would support a permanent seat for Japan. But the US-Japanese alliance is not stronger than US opposition against Germany, Brazil and India, it seems.

Interesting that the US prefers communist and human rights abusing China rather than Japan, India, Germany and Brazil as allies...

FAZ: "Pekings Motiv, warum im Rat alles beim alten bleiben soll, ist klar: Es geht darum, den alten Rivalen Japan status- und machtpolitisch klein zu halten. Für Washington hat die Erweiterung keine Priorität, sie ist der am wenigsten wichtige Teil der UN-Reform. Man muß sich diese Nachricht auf der Zunge zergehen lassen: Um die Erweiterung, also auch die Promotion Deutschlands, des alten Lieblingsverbündeten und neuen Widersachers, und Japans, zu dem die Beziehungen eigentlich nicht besser sein könnten, zu verhindern, verbündet sich die Regierung Bush mit Pekings Kommunisten. Schöne neue, unübersichtliche Welt."
http://www.faz.net/s/Rub7FC5BF30C45B402F96E964EF8CE790E1/Doc~E7D77FD6A583F4C75A4A673A746AC6310~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html

[Anatol]

Nice conspiracy theory Ray D! Stick to the facts and you do better!

[Fabian]

couldn't say it better than Anatol

ray - your comments sometimes are worse than that devilish german media you spill your detestation at.

[mamapajamas]

Hmmm... a major international shutdown within his first week.

Yup... Bolton's exactly the man to reform the UN :D. If he keeps this up, we'll have an actual working UN within the year :).

[Tom Penn]

We need to square away our dealings. The most efficient way to do that is to simplify the problem. Cut out the middle men.

[rosignol]

Similarly the US would support a permanent seat for Japan. But the US-Japanese alliance is not stronger than US opposition against Germany, Brazil and India, it seems.

This is silly.

The membership of the UN Security Council is specified in the UN Charter.

ALL of the permanent members of the UNSC have to consent to any change in the UN charter. That means ANY ONE permanent member of the UNSC can block the addition (or removal) of any country to the UNSC, regardless of what every other member of the UN thinks about it.

This is why France will never lose it's UNSC seat- France would have to consent to doing so.

So this talk of 'alliances' being stronger than others is silly... that's just certain governments trying to keep from looking like an @$$hole- if push comes to shove, the permanent members don't need an alliance to keep other countries off the UNSC.

Besides that, including Brazil is silly. If having a lot of real estate is the criteria for being a permanent member, Canada and Australia should be on the UNSC, too.

[Toby]

I have just discovered your blog. Did not know where else to put this comment, so - off the topic - here it is:

David, Ray: THANK YOU ! Until now, I always thought I was alone out there, as pro-American, pro-Israeli Blogs are not that easy to find in a German context. You will find me around from now on.

Note from David: You're welcome, Toby.

[Zyme]

Oh well nevertheless a Voting of all UN-Members is reasonable - since if the G4 won that one, China or the US would have to veto against a 2/3 majority of all UN member states. It would be interesting to see whether they dared to do that, and especially how they would justify it.

Anyhow, if germany and japan are not granted a UNSC seat, i wished they would do the same to the UN as they did to the League of Nations in 1933 - simply leave it and let others collect the pieces.
I guess though that neither the japanese nor the german government is self-confident enough to do that. So they will simply cut down all financial and personal support for UN missions. But hey, that will hurt the others quite a bit as well!

[hurrian]

Japan and India on the SC make sense. Australia makes far more sense than either Germany or Brazil. For that matter, so does Italy.

[Sock Puppet of Doom]

Europe has 2 seats on the UNSC right now. That is way in excess of their throw weight. Germany another seat? You have to be kidding. India makes sense, Japan yes, the rest you must be kidding. Perhaps France or the UK will give up their seat and give it to Germany?

[James]

Has anyone herd about this Russian mini-sub that's gotton stuck on what they think is a fishing net? The US, Japan abd UK have responded by assisting in this time critical matter. Hopefully, the men will all be rescued.

You would think that the way that Schroeder kisses Putin's ass that Germany would be front row and center with assistance. Then again, to provide immediate assistance, you would need:

1 Technology
2 Air transport
3 The will to help other countries

[Zyme]

James, to make you content certainly isnt an easy job
The last time, germany decided to invest into technology and air transport and had the will to help other countries (like italy, hungaria, japan, finland, spain...) you guys were not content either
You know.. you cant have everything

[Doug]

@Hector - I love the plan!

[James]

@Zyme,

Oh and the US Navy was up front and center to help Indonesia immediately following the Tsunami. Germany (aka Scroeder) claims to have donated .5 billion USD to the effort? Also, Germany will "give" the Indian Ocean denizens an early warning system.

1) How much of the 1/2 billion has been "given" thus far?
2) How many people with Siemens employ in Germany in this nobel effort?

Does Germany have budget for this? I don't think so, but then again, they don't care about the 3% rule they demanded having.

[Jabba the Tutt]

Okay, folks, let's take this from the specific to the general and look at human nature. Imagine you had a club with 200 members. The rules of the club gave 5 members a veto, that without their approval, nothing would get passed. Human nature dictates that all 5 veto members would jealously guard their priviledge. These 5 members would have no interest in increasing the number of veto holders. There would always be at least one, who would veto the expansion. It is therefore a total waste of time, effort and sanity to attempt to expand the number of veto holders.

To overcome this logic of human nature, it would take extraordinary pressure. I see no way that Brazil, Germany, Japan and India could bring extraordinary pressure on the UN system. What are they going to do?

If they were truly serious about this, they would support the majority of Americans, who find the UN a hive of villainy and scumbags and trash the corrupt, worse than worthless UN and replace it with a Free World Forum open only to democracies. The UN is unreformable and it's a waste of time to try.

[Don]

"2) How many people with Siemens employ in Germany in this nobel effort?"

You put your finger on it. Schroeder is lobbying for his Nobel Peace Prize. He's finally figured out that bitching and moaning about the US doesn't get you to the podium in Oslo. Nor does gossip about Bush being a Nazi....

[Scout]

@Jabba: "The UN is unreformable and it's a waste of time to try." Priceless. And accurate. I've seen the UN in action on the ground in Kosovo. I can only say I always thought the military was good at wasting money. After watching the UN, I had to conclude that we were only mere amateurs. And there is no power in the universe that is going to "reform" the UN.

[Walter E. Wallis]

Now, just give The Republic of China back their rightful seat, and things will be looking up.

[Walter E. Wallis]

Now, just give The Republic of China back their rightful seat, and things will be looking up.

[moonfarer]

I really thought I would never be able to say this, "but today's Germany is not at all politically mature enough as a Democracy to occupy a seat at the U.N. Security Council."

Any country which prevents 25% of its population from taking part in a plebicite as to whether their homeland should be signed over for annexation by other nations, does nor understand the most basic rules of human rights and democracy.

Such a nation should never be allowed to become a member of the U.N. Security council unless its basic understanding of Democracy has been sufficiently reformed.

[Alan Shore]

@moonfarer

I'm not quite sure what your referring to but it sounds like something the NPD would come up with.
Also, if democracy is a litmus test for membership, what are China and Russia doing in the UN Security Council or other previous members such as Libya or Cuba?