Comments on: New Term Nonpermanent Seats on the UNSC

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:18:58 +0000

If experience of grand revolutions is any judge, that won't happen for fifty years or more. By then either the world will have learned to accept a nuclear-armed Iran or Iran will have ceased to exist.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:29:26 +0000

No guarantee, but hope does spring eternal. And who knows? Lightning might strike and a rational leadership arise in Iran.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:22:37 +0000

One can also see a sort of logic for some of the Arab states like Saudi Arabia on the Council in order to shift frictions to a diplomatic venue rather than keeping it in a place where it could become hot, fast.

Would that be the effect? Or would it merely enable Iran to keep the ball up in the air for another two years? That was the experience with Rwanda.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:21:41 +0000

Syria would definitely be on the list of supporters.

One can also see a sort of logic for some of the Arab states like Saudi Arabia on the Council in order to shift frictions to a diplomatic venue rather than keeping it in a place where it could become hot, fast.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:51:25 +0000

As best as I've been able to determine the voting for this is by secret ballot. My guess as to who Iran's supporters were would include Iran, Russia, Belarus, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Cuba, and, possibly, a couple of other of the 'stans.

I'd be interested in seeing suggestions on which other countries might have voted for a seat for Iran. Iraq, maybe?

By: charles austin

charles austin — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:46:03 +0000

Thirty-two countries wanted Iran on the UNSC. Great. Fortunately, it isn't possible for my opinion of the UN to be any lower than it already is.