http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/14/1050172536432.html

Prime Minister John Howard wants to reform the United Nations, saying the presence of France as a permanent member of the Security Council "distorts" the council.

He wants Japan, a South American country and India to be represented on the Security Council. France was there only because it was a global power at the end of World War II, he said.

Asking France or any other permanent member of the Security Council to voluntarily surrender their seat was "a major undertaking", he conceded.

His comments risk the ire of France before the first visit to Australia by President Jacques Chirac, who is due in the country in July. Three cheers for the Aussies. :D

oooooo
this looks like it could get ugly
and australia's military technology would struggle greatly to defend itself adequately from a french invasion.
Thankfully, all us aussies will have to do is fire a warning shot into the air, this will send the french scurrying back to their garbage scented country with their puffy tails between their legs:cool:

The only part of france's military with any worth whatsoever is the forign legion.

The UN only works when it is parroting the american line, so unless a way can be found for it to work based upon the majority view of humanity, then it is a worthless waste of money.

Just an aside, were the Aussie troops in Iraq? There were so much mention of US troops and British troops in the media coverage that I cannot help but wander what the Aussie troops were doing.

"Mr Howard cautioned against moving too fast to a new Iraqi-controlled government, because the model had to be right. He suggested a federal system similar to Australia's could be suitable for Iraq." (The Age)

Idiot! Iraq already has a westminister system of government. It was formed by the Brits after WWII. Duh!!

Originally posted by 1119
Just an aside, were the Aussie troops in Iraq? There were so much mention of US troops and British troops in the media coverage that I cannot help but wander what the Aussie troops were doing.

Aussie SAS were involved in long range recon in small patrols in the western parts of Iraq, primarily preventing potential missile attacks against Israel. Had Iraq successfully launched say a chemical attack against Israel then there might have been a wider war in the region involving a number of countries including Israel and her enemies.

Aussie F18's were initially involved in air support and later bombing runs.

Aussie battleships were in the gulf involved in guarding the waters nearby and provided supporting canon fire for the British incursions near Um Casa. And Aussie divers were involved in the clearing of sea mines.

The overall deployment was fairly small, around 2000 personnel.

Have taken part in manuevers that at times involved both Australian special forces and French paratroopers. Both were very tough and well trained. Don't know much about regular fighting forces of each, but I would suspect Australian forces are involved in more overall training.

Originally posted by 7DZ
"Mr Howard cautioned against moving too fast to a new Iraqi-controlled government, because the model had to be right. He suggested a federal system similar to Australia's could be suitable for Iraq." (The Age)

Idiot! Iraq already has a westminister system of government. It was formed by the Brits after WWII. Duh!!

Im pretty sure thats gone after 30yrs under a centralizing tyrant.

I agree that the UN should reform. The security council itself should go. What is needed is the opportunity for every country to be able to voice their opinion and vote on issues.

Perhaps votes or the weighting of votes could depend on the amount a country contributes to the UN in terms of funds and military support to enforce peacekeeping and illegal weapons disarmament.

Originally posted by 7DZ
I agree that the UN should reform. The security council itself should go. What is needed is the opportunity for every country to be able to voice their opinion and vote on issues.

Perhaps votes or the weighting of votes could depend on the amount a country contributes to the UN in terms of funds and military support to enforce peacekeeping and illegal weapons disarmament.

I agree about the reform. The security council is a disaster, the idea of a veto is retarded, and the balance of power is completely distorted. Current UN is a protectorate of the security council and I'm surprised it didn't knuckle under when Bush wanted war.

As far as weighting votes, I don't think funding or military expenditures should count so heavily. If one person has more money than everyone else in the world and contributes more money than everyone else combined, that one person becomes a dictator in the "democracy". I think population should play the major weighting factor, but not the only one. Perhaps expenditures and military commitments are among other things that could be minor factors in deciding who has what power.

I also believe that the U.N. should begin to establish some form of international authority. Its continual failure to establish "peace" over the last 15 or so years is proof that perhaps unifying the world rather than seperating it and trying to get it to work together is the ideal way to go. And I certainly do not believe a country should be "given" the responsibility for anything. The UN should function on its own and all departments should include mixed staff from multiple nations. Syria shouldn't be handed a "responsibilities list" and left to go at it.