What's new

Who should replace the Saudis at the U.N. Security Council?

Solomon2

BANNED
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
19,475
Reaction score
-37
Country
United States
Location
United States
rosett.jpg


Who Should Replace the Saudis at the UN Security Council?

October 18th, 2013 - 11:50 pm

Having won a seat for the first time on the United Nations Security Council, Saudi Arabia turned around a day later and rejected it, citing the Council’s double standards and failure to uphold international peace, justice and security.

As UN moments go, this is a classic — if only for its sheer absurdity. It is precisely because of the UN’s double standards that a country such as Saudi Arabia can win a seat on the Security Council in the first place — with 176 of the 193 members of the UN General Assembly voting yes. As as friend of mine puts it, the Saudi move smacks of Groucho Marx’s joke that he would never join any club that would accept him as a member.


Obviously, the real problem is not a sudden Saudi aversion to UN double standards per se. If it were, Saudi Arabia would not still be running for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, in General Assembly elections to be held Nov. 12. As far as I’m aware, the Saudis — who with no evident concern about hypocrisy have served previously on the Human Rights Council – have not dropped their bid to reclaim a seat.

There’s a lot of speculation right now on why the Saudis did their about face on a Security Council seat, especially after their ambassador to the UN in New York, Abdallah Al-Mouallimi, initially told the press that “our election is much to rejoice over.” In a statement released Friday, the Saudi Foreign Ministry cited a hodge-podge of reasons for the boycott, ranging from the failure to apply “deterrent sanctions” to the Syrian regime, to such stock stuff as the failure to “make the Middle East a free zone of all weapons of mass destruction,” and the continuing failure to resolve “the Palestinian cause” to Saudi Arabia’s liking.” What makes the most sense to me — though it’s just a guess — is that the Saudis suddenly realized that in dealing with hot issues such as Syria and Iran, they might be better off dealing in the backrooms, rather than having to put their diplomatic cards on the table in Security Council votes.

But whatever the reasons, if the Saudis want to denounce double standards and demand better behavior from the UN Security Council, why not hold them to it?

Right now it’s unclear how the UN might fill that suddenly vacant two-year nonpermanent seat, for 2014-2015. Candidates for the Council’s 10 rotating seats are usually nominated by regional blocs in the General Assembly. From these slates, the GA then elects the winners, with a required minimum of two-thirds of the GA’s 193 votes. But what Saudi Arabia has just done, in walking away from a win, is highly unusual.

So perhaps, in the interest of integrity, Saudi Arabia would care to recommend as an alternate a country that has done more and sacrificed more for the cause of peace in the Middle East than all the other countries of the Middle East combined, as well as the UN itself. How about recommending that Israel, the only truly functional democracy in the Middle East, fill the vacant seat?

It is thanks to the Israelis that the world — including Saudi Arabia — has been spared a Syrian regime with a full-bore nuclear program; in 2007 the Israelis took upon themselves the risk of destroying the Assad regime’s nearly completed clandestine reactor, built with the help of North Korea. It was the Israelis who in 1981 destroyed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor, quite likely sparing the world — including the Saudis — a nuclear-armed Iraq. In a neighborhood rife with hostile and terror-spawning despotisms, it is the Israelis who have tried over and over to walk a line toward peace — withdrawing from Lebanon in 2000, Gaza in 2005, and trying cope with a “Palestinian cause” that can be summed up by the PLO logo featured to this day on the web site of the Palestinian Authority’s Mission to the UN, depicting a map from which Israel has been erased. While Saudi Arabia boycotted the General Assembly annual opening debate last month, it was Israel whose leader squarely addressed a threat that also deeply worries the Saudis — the threat of a nuclear-weapons-seeking Iran.

There were reports earlier this month that Israel, which has never held a seat on the Security Council, will be campaigning for a seat for 2019-2020. If the Saudi aim is to pressure the UN Security Council toward dropping its double standards and stepping up as a genuine defender of international peace and security, surely the obvious candidate to fill that empty seat is Israel. Indeed, though the bigotry of the African and Asia-Pacific states means that Israel has been left to align itself with the voting bloc known as the “Western European and Others Group,” geographically Israel belongs to the “African and Asia-Pacific states” that combined to produce the slate on which Saudi Arabia ran for a seat.

Not that Saudi Arabia, or the UN General Assembly, is about to do anything of the kind for Israel. We live in the real world. Any prospect of Israel replacing Saudi Arabia in a Security Council seat these next two years would probably send the UN into terminal shock (which, in itself, might do wonders for world peace). But if anyone really cares about ending those double standards, reforming the UN and giving peace and security a chance, this is the obvious move.

*****
 
Hopefully Iraq. Iraq is a Shia ally of Iran. Iraq is ancient Sumeria / Babylon and deserves to have the seat.
 
Did Saudi Arabia submit a formal request of rejection yet? If not, then we really need to wait before guessing.
 
Bold move by the Saudis.

UN is UNable. That applies especially to UNSC - council of ineffectiveness

Initially Saudis had been pushing hard for the seat; someone in the higher ups decided otherwise
 
Why did KSA reject the seat again?
Because the seat is worth nothing,so who cares who gets the worthless seat of a worthless organisation?
 
Nobody should replace anything

Disband the security council. It in and of itself is a symbol of arrogance and utter stupidity.. The UN system has been infiltrated largely by leftists anyways - fck them
 
Instead of a security council why can't we have a vote system, where every nation has a right to have a single vote and decide on the issues that affect the world.
 
UN is a dictatorship, which is by design biased towards Muslims. As they say 'If you are not in the sight, you not on the mind'. UNSC needs to be democratized and Muslim states need to be added in as permanent members, so we can have our voices heard. Until UNSC remains a post WWII dictatorship, it will remain a futile organization.
 
UN is a dictatorship, which is by design biased towards Muslims. As they say 'If you are not in the sight, you not on the mind'. UNSC needs to be democratized and Muslim states need to be added in as permanent members, so we can have our voices heard. Until UNSC remains a post WWII dictatorship, it will remain a futile organization.

Why should there even be a permanent seat? Its called a United Nations each and every country should have the right to decide and must have a voice in the decision making.
 
Russia and China always keep getting in the way. If Putin had not protested, US would have invaded Syria, Saudi Arabia would have taken the seat.
 
Why should there even be a permanent seat? Its called a United Nations each and every country should have the right to decide and must have a voice in the decision making.

Then disband the stupid UNSC, and give power to the UNGA.
 
Then disband the stupid UNSC, and give power to the UNGA.

Best solution, today there are many small nations who have no voice in the the UNSC and barely and even in the UNGA. All the decisions are made by the P5 members, with each looking to further their gains. By having a vote for each nation you would have more involvement of other nation and even the more powerful ones will have to work with other smaller nation whom they usually tend to ignore.
 
Best solution, today there are many small nations who have no voice in the the UNSC and barely and even in the UNGA. All the decisions are made by the P5 members, with each looking to further their gains. By having a vote for each nation you would have more involvement of other nation and even the more powerful ones will have to work with other smaller nation whom they usually tend to ignore.

Do you know, what you just said is EXACTLY the same demand, Muammar Gaddafi made at the UN?
 
Do you know, what you just said is EXACTLY the same demand, Muammar Gaddafi made at the UN?

And why not, look at the UNSC today, each and every nation in there pass out resolutions without the consent of the other nations. The higher power don't care about the UNGA, its the their playing field to see which one trumps the other. While the nations who are not in the P5 take the brunt of the actions. The UN today is a joke, no nation follows their resolution because they know that there is no point in following them. The UN is just a puppet at this point, look at India, Pakistan and Bangladesh we send in troops each year yet there is very little say for us in the matters of international issues. Everything is decided by the P5, and whose soldiers are on the ground, its the UNGA members who send more troops.
 
None of us have any voice against the 5 tyrants in UNSC.
 

Back
Top Bottom