Kamala Harris Defends Policy Stance in Heated Fox News Interview

[Social Media]

 

As the world grapples with growing challenges from authoritarian regimes, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has championed the expansion of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a move met with sharp criticism. During a lecture at the Bingham Center for the Rule of Law, Lord Hermer, the attorney general for England and Wales, declared, "We will advocate for reform of the Security Council to ensure that those with seats at the top table truly represent the global community." This vision suggests adding Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, and Africa to the UNSC.

 

While British Foreign Secretary David Lammy acknowledged that Lord Hermer’s proposal aligns with existing UK policy, criticism of this stance has intensified. In November 2023, British deputy permanent representative to the UN, James Kariuki, put forth a similar plan to expand both permanent and non-permanent members of the council, raising the total from 15 to the mid-20s.

 

Despite this continuity, Starmer’s Conservative critics are outraged. Sir Iain Duncan Smith warned that UNSC expansion would result in a “dramatic weakening” of Britain's global standing. Former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps sarcastically added, "When Sir Keir Starmer told us he’d bring change, he failed to mention it would involve shrinking Britain’s global responsibility."

 

Post-Brexit, Britain's seat on the UNSC has become a crucial marker of its global influence, with London playing a key role in humanitarian crises like those in Myanmar and Sudan. However, critics argue that expanding the council would weaken Britain's authority, providing opportunities for illiberal regimes to gain more influence.

 

Russia, in particular, has manipulated UN votes to project an image of international support, despite its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has lobbied Global South countries to abstain from voting on resolutions that back Ukraine, aligning with its broader goal of polarising the international community. Expanding the UNSC would grant Russia additional allies in this pursuit, particularly as countries like India, Brazil, and African nations have adopted ambiguous stances on the conflict, often justifying their neutrality as a form of peace advocacy.

 

The creation of a Russia-China-India-Brazil-Africa bloc within the UNSC could further undermine the council’s mission to uphold state sovereignty and prevent military aggression. Such an alliance would allow arguments like Russia's justification for invading Ukraine to go unchallenged, while simultaneously weakening support for Israel’s right to self-defense. An expanded council could also enable China to push its own aggressive agendas. As the largest trade partner for over 120 UN member states, China holds considerable sway over their voting patterns, making the West’s ability to challenge China on critical issues like Taiwan even more difficult.

 

Lord Collins of Starmer’s administration argued that permanent African representation on the UNSC is urgently needed, believing it would help address conflicts like Sudan’s civil war and Somalia’s struggle with al-Shabaab. However, critics see this as overly simplistic. The selection of a single African representative, particularly one who may not align with the interests of key regional powers, could foster discord rather than unity. The alignment of Russia, China, and other non-Western powers with authoritarian regimes could further paralyse the UNSC and stifle the West’s ability to support human rights.

 

In this era of increasing threats from authoritarian regimes, the international order is under siege. David Lammy’s push for UNSC expansion risks diluting Britain’s global influence and weakening its ability to counter these destabilizing forces. Instead of solving the world’s crises, an expanded UNSC could exacerbate existing divisions, leaving Britain and its allies more vulnerable.

 

Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-19

 

 

 

[Thingamabob]

10 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

As the world grapples with growing challenges from authoritarian regimes, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has championed the expansion of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a move met with sharp criticism. During a lecture at the Bingham Center for the Rule of Law, Lord Hermer, the attorney general for England and Wales, declared, "We will advocate for reform of the Security Council to ensure that those with seats at the top table truly represent the global community." This vision suggests adding Germany, Japan, India, Brazil, and Africa to the UNSC.

 

While British Foreign Secretary David Lammy acknowledged that Lord Hermer’s proposal aligns with existing UK policy, criticism of this stance has intensified. In November 2023, British deputy permanent representative to the UN, James Kariuki, put forth a similar plan to expand both permanent and non-permanent members of the council, raising the total from 15 to the mid-20s.

 

Despite this continuity, Starmer’s Conservative critics are outraged. Sir Iain Duncan Smith warned that UNSC expansion would result in a “dramatic weakening” of Britain's global standing. Former Defense Secretary Grant Shapps sarcastically added, "When Sir Keir Starmer told us he’d bring change, he failed to mention it would involve shrinking Britain’s global responsibility."

 

Post-Brexit, Britain's seat on the UNSC has become a crucial marker of its global influence, with London playing a key role in humanitarian crises like those in Myanmar and Sudan. However, critics argue that expanding the council would weaken Britain's authority, providing opportunities for illiberal regimes to gain more influence.

 

Russia, in particular, has manipulated UN votes to project an image of international support, despite its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has lobbied Global South countries to abstain from voting on resolutions that back Ukraine, aligning with its broader goal of polarising the international community. Expanding the UNSC would grant Russia additional allies in this pursuit, particularly as countries like India, Brazil, and African nations have adopted ambiguous stances on the conflict, often justifying their neutrality as a form of peace advocacy.

 

The creation of a Russia-China-India-Brazil-Africa bloc within the UNSC could further undermine the council’s mission to uphold state sovereignty and prevent military aggression. Such an alliance would allow arguments like Russia's justification for invading Ukraine to go unchallenged, while simultaneously weakening support for Israel’s right to self-defense. An expanded council could also enable China to push its own aggressive agendas. As the largest trade partner for over 120 UN member states, China holds considerable sway over their voting patterns, making the West’s ability to challenge China on critical issues like Taiwan even more difficult.

 

Lord Collins of Starmer’s administration argued that permanent African representation on the UNSC is urgently needed, believing it would help address conflicts like Sudan’s civil war and Somalia’s struggle with al-Shabaab. However, critics see this as overly simplistic. The selection of a single African representative, particularly one who may not align with the interests of key regional powers, could foster discord rather than unity. The alignment of Russia, China, and other non-Western powers with authoritarian regimes could further paralyse the UNSC and stifle the West’s ability to support human rights.

 

In this era of increasing threats from authoritarian regimes, the international order is under siege. David Lammy’s push for UNSC expansion risks diluting Britain’s global influence and weakening its ability to counter these destabilizing forces. Instead of solving the world’s crises, an expanded UNSC could exacerbate existing divisions, leaving Britain and its allies more vulnerable.

 

Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-19

 

 

 

Brits need to wake up. They are being betrayed from within.

[RayC]

So 'The Torygraph' are criticising the Labour government for espousing a policy initiated by the previous Tory government? Pathetic.

 

Perhaps 'The Telegraph' should turn its' attention to the UK's position as a permanent member of the Security Council which is coming under increasing scrutiny now that we are no longer a member of the EU, and - unlike France - cannot automatically call on the support of 26+ other European nations to support our position.

[James105]

13 minutes ago, RayC said:

So 'The Torygraph' are criticising the Labour government for espousing a policy initiated by the previous Tory government? Pathetic.

 

Perhaps 'The Telegraph' should turn its' attention to the UK's position as a permanent member of the Security Council which is coming under increasing scrutiny now that we are no longer a member of the EU, and - unlike France - cannot automatically call on the support of 26+ other European nations to support our position.

 

You seem to be confused.   The Tories are not in power and they didn't implement this which is why the article is referring to the current clowns occupying the big top.   Labour are the current government and have the power to implement policies.   The Tories do not.   Labour have proven that no matter what the previous government initiated they have the majority to overturn it just as they did with the Rwanda policy.  

 

I know the clowns in government like to blame everything on the previous government but you are not in government so you can be better than they are and not lower yourself to their embarrassing level.   

[RayC]

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

You seem to be confused.   The Tories are not in power and they didn't implement this which is why the article is referring to the current clowns occupying the big top.   Labour are the current government and have the power to implement policies.   The Tories do not.   Labour have proven that no matter what the previous government initiated they have the majority to overturn it just as they did with the Rwanda policy.  

 

I know the clowns in government like to blame everything on the previous government but you are not in government so you can be better than they are and not lower yourself to their embarrassing level.   

 

I'm not at all confused. I am well aware that Labour were overwhelmingly elected at the last UK general election.

 

I am also well aware that this particularly policy originated from the last Tory administration. If - as appears to be the case here - the current Labour government believes that some policies initiated by the previous Tory administration are worth continuing with, why shouldn't they do so? That seems to be an eminently sensible and pragmatic course of action. Indeed, to ditch policies for no other reason that the other party thought of it first would be childish and worthy of criticism.

 

I suspect that the reason that 'The Telegraph and you now decide to criticise the policy is - as you correctly point out - simply because a Labour Administration is now in government. Whether it is good policy or not is immaterial.

 

If you are so against this policy, why weren't you more vocal with your criticism of it last November?

[James105]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I'm not at all confused. I am well aware that Labour were overwhelmingly elected at the last UK general election.

 

I am also well aware that this particularly policy originated from the last Tory administration. If - as appears to be the case here - the current Labour government believes that some policies initiated by the previous Tory administration are worth continuing with, why shouldn't they do so? That seems to be an eminently sensible and pragmatic course of action. Indeed, to ditch policies for no other reason that the other party thought of it first would be childish and worthy of criticism.

 

I suspect that the reason that 'The Telegraph and you now decide to criticise the policy is - as you correctly point out - simply because a Labour Administration is now in government. Whether it is good policy or not is immaterial.

 

If you are so against this policy, why weren't you more vocal with your criticism of it last November?

 

Once again it seems you are a little bit confused.   Perhaps you could point out where I did in fact criticise the policy in my comment as I am not aware I did so.   My observation was that blaming the previous government for actions of the current government is silly as you have no way of knowing what the final result would have been if these clowns hadn't taken over the big top, nor do you know if the telegraph would not have criticised the Tories for the same as it didn't happen under their watch.