Reengineering the UN (was Re: [extropy-chat] urban sprawl asdefense)

[Brett Paatsch]

Mike Lorrey wrote:

> > --- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > That wouldn't be unreasonable, in theory, I accept that 
> > > Japan or Germany might be as good or better than France, 
> > > but there is no way within the UN Charter to remove an 
> > > encumbent permanent security council member.

Good work!

Ok, I stand corrected .... I should have said there is no way to
remove an encumbent permanent security council member against
that permanent security council members will (ie. against its veto). 

If the permanent SC member has ceases to exist in the form that 
it was - as happened with the USSR, and as you point out appears
to have happened with China during the late 40's early 50's (my
knowledge of the history of that period and region is slight) - then
that is a different matter. 

Your point below goes to the question of what the UN does
when there is a question as to who IS the real permanent 
security council member when the member nation that had the 
spot is no longer functioning as the same single coherent member 
nation anymore.   

> Resolution 2758 (XXVI) 
> 
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
> 
> Recalling the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
> 
> Considering the restoration of the lawful rights of the People's
> Republic of China is essential both for the protection of the
> Charter of the United Nations and for the cause that the United
> Nations must serve under the Charter.

Makes sense. 

> Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the
> People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives
> of China to the United Nations and that the People's Republic
> of China  is one of the five permanent members of the Security
> Council,

So the People's Republic of China is deemed to be the successor
to the Republic of China.  
 
> Decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China
> and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the 
> only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations,
> and to expel  forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek 
> from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United
> Nations and in all the organizations related to it.
> 
> 1967th plenary meeting
> 25 October 1971
> end quote
 

> This clearly shows that the General Assembly voted to remove
> the Republic of China government (which they disengenuously
> referred to as "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek") in favor
> of the People's Republic of China government as the legitimate
> representative of the people of China, even though the UN 
> Charter does not name "China" as having a seat in the Security
> Council, but specifically the "Republic of China", which is a 
> government, not a people.

You have hit on an interesting point Mike and have taught me
something but I don't think it means exactly what you think it means.

ie. I think because the Republic of China is named in the Charter
at Article 23 as a permanent member that when the Republic of
China ceased to be a unified member nation (it was at war with
itself)  that what must have arisen was a question as to who the 
rightful permenant security council member should be.  

Only the Republic of China (and not merely "the represenatives
of Chiang Kai-shek") could exercise a security council veto. I
presume the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek still called
themselves the Republic of China ? 

So anyway you do show a legal way of getting around a veto in
some exceptional cases.  Deem the country (member nation) that
has the veto to no longer in fact be that member nation.  

So if the world can be convinced that France is not in fact France
then you could get them removed (with the consent of the other 
security council members who for good measure would allow 
the general assembly to vote on it) and claim those pretending to 
be France could not exercise a veto against it as they are not in 
fact the relevant France that they claim to be !  :-)

The same thing must have happened when Russia took over from
the USSR.

> We could, if we wished, decide to pass a resolution in the 
> general  assembly that recognised that Mary Queen of Scots
> was the legitimate heir to the French crown, and therefore, as
> her son James Stewart was her legitimate heir, and thereafter
> the British Crown is the rightful ruler of France, that Britain
> should have two seats on the Security Council, representing
>  both Britain and France.... it is no less ludicrous than that 
> ridiculous resolution that kicked Taiwan out of the SC and the
> UN.

I am impressed by your scholarship Mike and you have clarified
something for me. You've shown me how Russia would probably
have replaced the USSR. As the USSR had ceased to exist it
would not have veto'd its removal as a permanent SC member - 
and as members of the General Assembly and the Security Council
would have wanted to preserve the UN they would have replaced
the USSR with Russia as the line of least resistance.  

But your example about Mary Queen of Scots, though funny
doesn't work. 

France signed in 1945. Even if your creative arguments held true
you'd have to show why they were not made in 1945 rather than 
now.

After all the US signed in 1945 too and they signed knowing that
France was to be a permanent security council member. 

Seriously I think you (like most people) are still missing an
understanding of the difference between what the General Assembly
can do versus what the Security Council can do. The Security 
Council outranks everything else on the key matter of international
peace and security which is the main purpose of the UN. 

Hey I could be wrong on some details too - I'm talking from 
memory most of the time. But if this interests you I will drill
down. 

Brett Paatsch