General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGet a load of this crap
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65146557.ampRussia assumes UN Security Council presidency despite Ukrainian anger
Russia has taken the presidency of the UN Security Council despite Ukraine urging members to block the move.
Each of the council's 15 members takes up the presidency for a month, on a rotating pattern.
The last time Russia had the presidency, February 2022, it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
It means the Security Council is being led by a country whose president is subject to an international arrest warrant for alleged war crimes.
More at link
-
How is this allowed? How is it an openly belligerent nation who invaded an another nation be allowed their turn to be head of the security council?
This is where, I believe, the UN drops the ball

Boomerproud
(9,019 posts)Would Eleanor Roosevelt recognize it?
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)The UN charter made the winners of WWII de-facto "supreme rulers" of the world's best hope for a peaceful planet. It's like a worldwide electoral college catch-22.
What could go wrong when an organization for everybody is ruled by a minority of its members?
I think Mrs. Roosevelt probably appreciated the predictable fruits of such irony in real time.
The US electoral college system and UN permanent security council membership authority are like training wheels for democracy and must ultimately to be removed to establish proficiency.
edisdead
(3,359 posts)One more strp closer to people not caring if it falls.
spanone
(140,448 posts)Fla Dem
(27,215 posts)Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)orleans
(36,490 posts)Lonestarblue
(13,001 posts)It needs to be reformed. Im linking to some suggestions from the Council on Foreign Relations. One of those suggestions is to expand the Security Council. The US also needs a way to punish a rogue state like Russia for waging illegal war against another sovereign nation.
The Security Council as currently constituted in terms of membership, functions, and powers cannot effectively respond to the myriad crises engulfing the world. Although it has become apparent over the years that its permanent members have little interest in internal reform, it behooves the other UN member states as well as civil society to continue to push for it. As powerful countries move toward unilateralism, populism, and nationalism at the expense of multilateralism and collective action, a united and forward-looking Security Council capable of effectively driving the wider United Nations to achieve its goals is sine qua non.
https://www.cfr.org/article/un-seventy-five-how-make-it-relevant-again
HUAJIAO
(2,730 posts)another sovereign nation.
And then who punishes the US?
Sky Jewels
(9,148 posts)BumRushDaShow
(161,994 posts)have ranted about the Security Council's "permanent members" configuration as a vestige of a world that no longer exists and that should be replaced with a different definition of "permanent members" that would represent each populated "geo-political continent" (necessarily excluding Antarctica and Australia, the latter only being a single country that could fall under "Asia" or be included in something named to incorporate the relevant Pacific islands with Asia).
I.e., have one "seat" each for ALL countries within "North America", South America", "Africa", "Europe", & "Asia" as your "5 permanent members". Those countries making up these groupings can rotate into/out of acting on behalf of that "permanent member" position for whatever timeframe is decided.
ExWhoDoesntCare
(4,741 posts)I think I'd split up Asia, because it's both huge in its geography, but also has regions that are quite different from each other, culturally and even sometimes politically (Middle East v the rest of Asia, for instance). So give a seat each to the Middle East, South Asia, and Far East Asia, at a minimum.
Africa also has a rather firm split in its cultural/geographic composition. It would benefit from a division between Northern Africa and the sub-Saharan nations.
Australia & New Zealand could go with Oceania. That's what all those Pacific Island nations are known as these days.
As for Europe, I think the only way to get the current Security Council on board with a shakeup of permanent membership is to make it feasible for both Russia and, say, France or Germany to have permanent status.
The New World could be divided between North America, South America and the Caribbean. As with Africa, Asia and Europe, the interests are different enough between these three sub-regions to justify the split.
The temporary, rotating members could be one other nation in each of the regional memberships. Or some regions could decide that one of them will serve a 5 year term as their "permanent" council representation, and then do a yearly rotation among the remaining nations for the "temporary" member. Let each region decide which type of representation it prefers.
That sort of reorganization would create a Security Council more reflective of the real world as it's stood for quite a while now.
BumRushDaShow
(161,994 posts)bit and make it "5 permanent continental regions" instead and put whoever you need to into those "regions".
Right now you have no one from the continent of Africa represented as a "permanent member" by racist design given there are 54 countries on that continent, twice as many as Europe.
The current "permanent members" are the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, & China.
The UK and France and sure as hell Russia, need to be removed. Rotate them in under "Europe" and "Asia".
Where you do have some kind of regional rotation already is with the remaining members that make up the full Security Council of 15 members (total), where there are 10 "rotating" countries that can serve in those slots.
barbtries
(30,853 posts)it's wrong. russia is a rogue nation and should be thrown out of the UN, not allowed to lead it.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)That spot was for the USSR. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia somehow was automatically given spot. Why not any of the other former Soviet member states?
ProfessorGAC
(74,889 posts)...we were still considering them allies (mere weeks after the war ended) & we knew that they had stolen nuclear secrets. (Klaus Fuchs was suspected years before it could be proven.)
Keeping your enemies close sort of thing.
live love laugh
(16,003 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)many places are being revealed as bad actors go renegade.
Next month another nation gets to gavel the meetings. I read that one of the them will discuss Ukrainian children abducted into Russia; it was scheduled by Russia -- for the month when Lavrov will be holding that gavel?
Maybe somehow out of Russia's aggression and various crimes against humanity we'll finally be able to expel it from the Security Council, even though it's now BFs (if not forever) with China.
Irish_Dem
(76,511 posts)The world is failing the audit.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Russia's not the only bad actor on the security council, of course, but maybe we should check the latest audit for any progress anyway.
I evaluate humanity on a curve where passing is doing real good, though.
Irish_Dem
(76,511 posts)Where the cutoff is on the low side of the bell shaped curve.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)I mean, that's usually the point of an audit, right?
2017 is going to be seen as a pivotal moment in history for so many reasons but they all pivot around the sudden surge of greed & authoritarianism around the globe.
Joinfortmill
(19,254 posts)Dios Mio
(429 posts)have such nice jobs.
Bev54
(12,965 posts)It needs to be disbanded and a new organization put in its place.
Historic NY
(39,369 posts)of which Russia was a piece. East & West Germany were made members in 1973
https://time.com/6256488/russia-united-nations-security-council-undeserved-seat/]
Javaman
(64,685 posts)They should have been kicked off
KentuckyWoman
(7,302 posts)the world needs to put together a secret bully removal squad. A few dozen individuals around the world that can get into places no one else can and remove the bully. Just make them mysteriously vanish without a trace.
Let the UN and NATO do what they do, but when all fails call in Orkin ... so to speak. Not at all feasible but sure I'm not the only one who's thought it would be nice if we could.
liberalla
(10,721 posts)but I can see a problem also.
Qutzupalotl
(15,562 posts)At the end, they dissolve the organization and re-form as The Ancient Mystical Order of No Homers.
Do we have the power, with enough free countries, to dissolve the UN and start a new organization that does not rotate authority to autocratic regimes?
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)which has probably done more to prevent war in Europe than the UN has. Minus, of course the Ukraine situation, which is driven by the existence of a madman rather than diplomacy and deterrent.