David Lammy’s Push for UN Security Council Expansion Threatens Britain's Global Influence

[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.  

[RichardColeman]

My home UK town is Marlow, lovely little riverside town in the green belt on the river thames - hugely expensive, There was recently a planning application to build a film studio of the green area next to the town, Our town voted against it and it was denied.

 

Then the national election happened and all the lefties living in my town filled the local FB sites with vote labour and tories not working. Many idiots supported that, but had voted down the film studio

 

And then , low and behold Labour are going to go against the vote to deny the studio and build it !!

 

You vote Labour at your own risk.

 

Good thing for me, is I can now fleece film studio crew for rent if it goes through as normal rents in my town per month will go from £1500 to £2000 a month ! And when I sell it to move up north and get the wife to the UK in 7 years, I can have a bigger house :)

 

 

 

 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, James105 said:

 

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.  

 

Thank you for proving my point. You are not critical of the policy per sec, just the fact that it is the Labour government which is trying to garner support for it.

 

If you can point me to where The Telegraph criticised this policy when it was proposed by the last administration I'll withdraw my criticism of them.

[James105]

19 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Thank you for proving my point. You are not critical of the policy per sec, just the fact that it is the Labour government which is trying to garner support for it.

 

My criticism was aimed at those blaming previous governments for the failings (perceived or otherwise) of the clowns currently occupying government in the UK.   I didn't actually criticise the clowns or their policy on this occasion.  I didn't even mention that Lammy is completely unsuited for this or any role in government even though I am continuously surprised by the accidents of circumstance that finds him in the highest levels of government rather than what feels like his appropriate level of a junior shoe shop assistant in Tottenham.  

 

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

If you can point me to where The Telegraph criticised this policy when it was proposed by the last administration I'll withdraw my criticism of them.

 

I never claimed that they did so I'm not sure why you want me to be your research assistant here.   If that is something you wish to know then I suggest you avail yourself with the services of google.   

[RayC]

1 hour ago, RichardColeman said:

My home UK town is Marlow, lovely little riverside town in the green belt on the river thames - hugely expensive, There was recently a planning application to build a film studio of the green area next to the town, Our town voted against it and it was denied.

 

Then the national election happened and all the lefties living in my town filled the local FB sites with vote labour and tories not working. Many idiots supported that, but had voted down the film studio

 

And then , low and behold Labour are going to go against the vote to deny the studio and build it !!

 

You vote Labour at your own risk.

 

Good thing for me, is I can now fleece film studio crew for rent if it goes through as normal rents in my town per month will go from £1500 to £2000 a month ! And when I sell it to move up north and get the wife to the UK in 7 years, I can have a bigger house 🙂

 

 

We need to build more homes in the UK and do more to attract business to the UK ... Just not in my backyard!

 

[JonnyF]

Lammy hates Britain.

 

There is a traitor in our midst. Surrounded by like minded traitors.

 

A dark period for Britain. 

 

Thank God I left when I saw the writing on the wall. I'm very grateful for the 70s and 80s and 90s but the place is done. 

 

Viva Thailand and it's nationalism. May all foreign Liberals living here return home.

Edited October 19 by JonnyF

[RayC]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

My criticism was aimed at those blaming previous governments for the failings (perceived or otherwise) of the clowns currently occupying government in the UK.   I didn't actually criticise the clowns or their policy on this occasion.  I didn't even mention that Lammy is completely unsuited for this or any role in government even though I am continuously surprised by the accidents of circumstance that finds him in the highest levels of government rather than what feels like his appropriate level of a junior shoe shop assistant in Tottenham.  

 

 

I never claimed that they did so I'm not sure why you want me to be your research assistant here.   If that is something you wish to know then I suggest you avail yourself with the services of google.   

 

Who is blaming the previous government in this instance? Not me and certainly not Lammy or Starmer as they have retained this Tory policy. 

 

Presumably while Sunak is leader, the Conservative Party will still support this policy? If The Telegraph considered this matter important, and were in any way interested in fairness, it would have levied - and would continue to levy - criticism at the Conservative Party for proposing and supporting this policy: The absence of any such criticism now or in November '23 speaks volumes.

 

Your own bias is clear for all to see.

 

(For the record, I am indifferent to this policy. Imo the UN SC is pretty much a waste of time. The permanent members have the right to individually veto any proposal and they use their vetos  frequently. Imo enlarging the SC won't make a blind bit of difference one way or the other).

[RayC]

32 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Lammy hates Britain.

 

There is a traitor in our midst. Surrounded by like minded traitors.

 

A dark period for Britain. 

 

Thank God I left when I saw the writing on the wall. I'm very grateful for the 70s and 80s and 90s but the place is done. 

 

Viva Thailand and it's nationalism. May all foreign Liberals living here return home.

 

Lammy might be a fool but to label him and others who don't share your opinion as treasonous is ridiculous, nonsensical hyperbole 

 

Ah yes. The halcyon days of the 70s and 80s: Slum dwellings with outside khazis and no baths; riots; 3-day weeks; rubbish piling up on the streets for weeks on end; unemployment at record highs, etc ... Yes, those were the days.

[JonnyF]

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Lammy might be a fool but to label him and others who don't share your opinion as treasonous is ridiculous, nonsensical hyperbole 

 

 

Giving away British territory without even a vote? He's a traitor. Labour is a traitorous government. They hate Britain and they hate the British that's why they are sending money overseas and freezing the pensioners, many of whom fought for the country.

 

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Ah yes. The halcyon days of the 70s and 80s: Slum dwellings with outside khazis and no baths; riots; 3-day weeks; rubbish piling up on the streets for weeks on end; unemployment at record highs, etc ... Yes, those were the days.

 

Lol. That bears no resemblance to the working class area I grew up in. You should get a  job writing songs for Billy Bragg. 

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

We need to build more homes in the UK and do more to attract business to the UK ... Just not in my backyard!

 

Do you also believe protecting the environment and eco system? Because that's not done by concreting over green fields. The UK has lost 60% of it's wildlife species since the 60's. 

 

I often hear liberal folk saying we need to build more houses, then in the next breath talking about protecting the environment. A total contradiction! 

 

We need to get control of immigration to slow down the UK population explosion, not destroy our countryside in order to house them all! 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

 

Giving away British territory without even a vote? He's a traitor. Labour is a traitorous government. They hate Britain and they hate the British that's why they are sending money overseas and freezing the pensioners, many of whom fought for the country.

 

More ridiculous hyperbole. The notion that any UK government could be collectively traitorous and hate their fellow countrymen is beyond ludicrous.

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Lol. That bears no resemblance to the working class area I grew up in. You should get a  job writing songs for Billy Bragg. 

 

Really? Then your working-class area was positively middle-class compared with mine.

 

Your area was exempt from the 3-day week in '74? The 'Winter of Discontent' in 1978/79 didn't affect your area? Riots? Take your pick of '81 or '84 in my working class area. Add in the fact that 10% of homes had an outside toilet and no bathroom at the beginning of the '70s, and it was pretty grim.

 

Maybe you should listen to Billy Bragg's lyrics a bit more closely.

 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Do you also believe protecting the environment and eco system? Because that's not done by concreting over green fields. The UK has lost 60% of it's wildlife species since the 60's. 

 

I often hear liberal folk saying we need to build more houses, then in the next breath talking about protecting the environment. A total contradiction! 

 

We need to get control of immigration to slow down the UK population explosion, not destroy our countryside in order to house them all! 

 

I think that the 60% figure is an exaggeration but you make some valid points.

 

https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/landmark-report-shows-uk-wildlifes-devastating-decline

 

Imo there needs to be a balance between protecting the environment and the requirements of the economy; there is a big difference between worrying about the destruction of the Amazon rain forest and its' effects, and spoiling the view of someone living in the English shires because a housing estate has been built.

 

The UK has always needed immigrants to supplement the domestic labour force. Controlling i.e. reducing immigration may slow economy growth.

[JonnyF]

21 hours ago, RayC said:

 

More ridiculous hyperbole. The notion that any UK government could be collectively traitorous and hate their fellow countrymen is beyond ludicrous.

 

 

Really? Then your working-class area was positively middle-class compared with mine.

 

Your area was exempt from the 3-day week in '74? The 'Winter of Discontent' in 1978/79 didn't affect your area? Riots? Take your pick of '81 or '84 in my working class area. Add in the fact that 10% of homes had an outside toilet and no bathroom at the beginning of the '70s, and it was pretty grim.

 

Maybe you should listen to Billy Bragg's lyrics a bit more closely.

 

You're the type of person who claims they walked to school and back and it was uphill both ways.

 

A real working class hero who never lets the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

 

Britain was fantastic until Blair got in. All downhill since then. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

You're the type of person who claims they walked to school and back and it was uphill both ways.

 

A real working class hero who never lets the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

 

Britain was fantastic until Blair got in. All downhill since then. 

 

Reduced to personal insults. You really don't like to be challenged about facts, do you?

 

The fact is that inner South London of the 70s and '80s was a deprived area and basically a <deleted>hole. 

 

Where did I mention anything about Blair being fantastic?

You're the one who brought 'working class' into the discussion: I'm no 'working class hero' from a deprived background. I was brought up in a working class household and environment, but I didn't live in poverty and I had loving parents, who pretty much managed to keep me on the 'straight and narrow'.  I couldn't give a rat's arse whether you believe me as your opinion in this regard, like your many nasty, insular, borderline racist, borderline xenophobic comments are of no consequence to me.