BRICS states call for UN reform

Excellent! The begining of the end for the West and its replacement by pro-Serb, anti-Saud BRIC. Time to clear out the last remains of the NWO and welcome the New Geopolitical Reality.

It is great to see the emerging powers getting organised and forming the new world order. The old world order is a dying machine, where financial and corporate lobbies have made a complete mess of Western economies, particularly that of the US.

While the BRICS are paving the future in China, the Europeans and North Americans are back in Bretton Woods attempting to save their backsides. It doesn't look good for the US though. Check -> http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/13/bretton_woods_outlook_dark_for_america

Lets hope the orgy of violence and attempted world domination by this evil empire is coming to an end. This will free the world.

I defiantly think that if we're to have permanent members in the UNSC, then Brazil and India should have permanent seats. Also I think there should be an African country with a permanent seat, with South Africa, Ethiopia, Nigeria ect all as likely candidates.

However I don't think there should be permanent seats in the UNSC, I think all issues should be put through to a vote at the General Assembly and the majority vote prevails. Each country should get one vote, that is democratic; it is unfair that five countries get to block issues. Why should the US or China have more of a say than Estonia or Sri Lanka? Every country should be equal members in the United Nations.

Ian,

So by your logic, you would agree that Kosovo isn't an independent nation as the majority of the world doesn't recognize Kosovo as being independent.

Good to have you on Serbia's side of the fence Ian!

Ian,

So by your logic, you would agree that Kosovo isn't an independent nation as the majority of the world doesn't recognize Kosovo as being independent.

Good to have you on Serbia's side of the fence Ian!

"BRICS states call for UN reform"

I think the title and contents of this article is quite misleading as it seemed to suggest that the BRICS focused only on UN reform.

In fact if you read their Sanya Declaration, they seemed more preoccuied with economic issues. In particular, they wanted the establishment of a broad based international reserve currency system, including an expanded role for the IMF's special drawing rights. While not mentioning the greenback by name, they are obviously calling for an eventual diminution of the Yankee currency as a medium of exchange in international trade.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/14/c_13828637.htm

Also you have implied that the 117 UN member states who currently don't recognise Kosovo are opposed to Kosovo's independence.
(Ian, UK, 14 April 2011 16:22)
--
Are you implying that the 70 odd recognitions did so out of their own free will? No arm twisting, bribing or pressure? You and other Albanians must really find it difficult taking authority as the truth instead of truth as the authority. It's no wonder you support the mass murder going on in this world at the moment.

Ian,

So by your logic, you would agree that Kosovo isn't an independent nation as the majority of the world doesn't recognize Kosovo as being independent.

Good to have you on Serbia's side of the fence Ian!
(Another Canadian Serb, 14 April 2011 15:33)

You have just implied that it is up to the UN to decide what is and what isn't a country, you couldn't be further from the truth. All the UN can do is accept/ refuse membership to applicants. So by my logical, Kosovo could enter the UN once it gets 97 recognitions. Also you have implied that the 117 UN member states who currently don't recognise Kosovo are opposed to Kosovo's independence. That number is roughly between 40 and 50, the rest are neutral or don't want to be involved. So my logic prevails again.

"However I don't think there should be permanent seats in the UNSC, I think all issues should be put through to a vote at the General Assembly and the majority vote prevails. Each country should get one vote, that is democratic; it is unfair that five countries get to block issues. Why should the US or China have more of a say than Estonia or Sri Lanka? Every country should be equal members in the United Nations."
(Ian, UK, 14 April 2011 11:23)

I do not think that would work in the world of today Ian. There is the need of the UNSC to represent the more powerful countries, otherwise the UN would not work at all, it would become even more fragile. Imagine half+1 countries voting for some problem against China or the US or Russia. How would they enforce those decisions? Imagine half+1 countries voting the following: "Russia must retire its troops from Georgia". You think Russia would obey? How would they make Russia obey?
In general, a social system serves to canalize power and conflict inside some structure so that it does not become destructive and it flows more or less normally. In democracy "the fights" happen in parliament among representatives of different portions of the population and with words and votes, not on the fields as in medieval times. But countries are no people. Among countries, the power is not divided almost equally as among people inside a country (and even this in reality is not true, people inside a country do not have the same power in reality, but at least formally everybody is equal in front of the law). So the structure you build to canalize that power in a room and not in the field (=UN) must take that into account. In my opinion, Russia must have veto power in the UNSC, China too, the US too, UK too. The more important a country becomes, the more decision power it will want for itself.

Ian,

So by your logic, you would agree that Kosovo isn't an independent nation as the majority of the world doesn't recognize Kosovo as being independent.

Good to have you on Serbia's side of the fence Ian!
(Another Canadian Serb, 14 April 2011 15:33)

You have just implied that it is up to the UN to decide what is and what isn't a country, you couldn't be further from the truth. All the UN can do is accept/ refuse membership to applicants. So by my logical, Kosovo could enter the UN once it gets 97 recognitions. Also you have implied that the 117 UN member states who currently don't recognise Kosovo are opposed to Kosovo's independence. That number is roughly between 40 and 50, the rest are neutral or don't want to be involved. So my logic prevails again.

It is great to see the emerging powers getting organised and forming the new world order. The old world order is a dying machine, where financial and corporate lobbies have made a complete mess of Western economies, particularly that of the US.

While the BRICS are paving the future in China, the Europeans and North Americans are back in Bretton Woods attempting to save their backsides. It doesn't look good for the US though. Check -> http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/13/bretton_woods_outlook_dark_for_america

Lets hope the orgy of violence and attempted world domination by this evil empire is coming to an end. This will free the world.

Excellent! The begining of the end for the West and its replacement by pro-Serb, anti-Saud BRIC. Time to clear out the last remains of the NWO and welcome the New Geopolitical Reality.

Ian,

So by your logic, you would agree that Kosovo isn't an independent nation as the majority of the world doesn't recognize Kosovo as being independent.

Good to have you on Serbia's side of the fence Ian!

Ian,

So by your logic, you would agree that Kosovo isn't an independent nation as the majority of the world doesn't recognize Kosovo as being independent.

Good to have you on Serbia's side of the fence Ian!

I defiantly think that if we're to have permanent members in the UNSC, then Brazil and India should have permanent seats. Also I think there should be an African country with a permanent seat, with South Africa, Ethiopia, Nigeria ect all as likely candidates.

However I don't think there should be permanent seats in the UNSC, I think all issues should be put through to a vote at the General Assembly and the majority vote prevails. Each country should get one vote, that is democratic; it is unfair that five countries get to block issues. Why should the US or China have more of a say than Estonia or Sri Lanka? Every country should be equal members in the United Nations.

"BRICS states call for UN reform"

I think the title and contents of this article is quite misleading as it seemed to suggest that the BRICS focused only on UN reform.

In fact if you read their Sanya Declaration, they seemed more preoccuied with economic issues. In particular, they wanted the establishment of a broad based international reserve currency system, including an expanded role for the IMF's special drawing rights. While not mentioning the greenback by name, they are obviously calling for an eventual diminution of the Yankee currency as a medium of exchange in international trade.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/14/c_13828637.htm

Also you have implied that the 117 UN member states who currently don't recognise Kosovo are opposed to Kosovo's independence.
(Ian, UK, 14 April 2011 16:22)
--
Are you implying that the 70 odd recognitions did so out of their own free will? No arm twisting, bribing or pressure? You and other Albanians must really find it difficult taking authority as the truth instead of truth as the authority. It's no wonder you support the mass murder going on in this world at the moment.

"However I don't think there should be permanent seats in the UNSC, I think all issues should be put through to a vote at the General Assembly and the majority vote prevails. Each country should get one vote, that is democratic; it is unfair that five countries get to block issues. Why should the US or China have more of a say than Estonia or Sri Lanka? Every country should be equal members in the United Nations."
(Ian, UK, 14 April 2011 11:23)

I do not think that would work in the world of today Ian. There is the need of the UNSC to represent the more powerful countries, otherwise the UN would not work at all, it would become even more fragile. Imagine half+1 countries voting for some problem against China or the US or Russia. How would they enforce those decisions? Imagine half+1 countries voting the following: "Russia must retire its troops from Georgia". You think Russia would obey? How would they make Russia obey?
In general, a social system serves to canalize power and conflict inside some structure so that it does not become destructive and it flows more or less normally. In democracy "the fights" happen in parliament among representatives of different portions of the population and with words and votes, not on the fields as in medieval times. But countries are no people. Among countries, the power is not divided almost equally as among people inside a country (and even this in reality is not true, people inside a country do not have the same power in reality, but at least formally everybody is equal in front of the law). So the structure you build to canalize that power in a room and not in the field (=UN) must take that into account. In my opinion, Russia must have veto power in the UNSC, China too, the US too, UK too. The more important a country becomes, the more decision power it will want for itself.