follow up

September 25, 2004

so i posted this on my diary at dailykos, with some additional dialogue:

there comes a time when we have to ask ourselves, are we stopping nuclear proliferation or perpetuating it? too soon, every major industrialized nation in the world will acquire weapons because it is neccessary for their countries survival. otherwise they will have no bargaining power.

we invaded iraq on the grounds that saddam was building the bomb (which was a lie). meanwhile the rest of the world is in fact doing just that. i don’t think we will invade any of these nations because the stakes are too high. no sane person wants a nuclear confrontation. that said, i don’t think bush is sane.


and i got this comment:

what would be the problem with brasil getting on the security council?

anyone have a link to the countries that are on the SC? are any of them from south america? it seems like we ignore that part of the world unless we’re trying to overthrow democratically-elected governments.

so i feel the need to clarify:

i have no problem with Brazil getting on the security council. i think their stance is what the council needs. what scares me is the spread of nukes and how they are used as leverage. i don’t want to see Brazil follow that same path. i don’t want to see a nuclear south america. i hope Brazil finally gets a voice in world affairs, but on their own merit.

i think my snarkness came off wrong. not enough coffee. i am a big supporter of south american growth, as my other diary entries will show. sorry for the confusion.

this is the follow up info i posted:

here is a good article giving insight into the brazilian president’s stance on the war on terror.

Brazil’s Lula: War Is Not the Answer to Terror

With reference to terrorism, Lula declared that terrorism cannot be fought exclusively by military means. “We have to develop strategies combining solidarity and firmness that are rigidly within the rule of law,” said the President of Brazil.

He added that Brazil is opposed to “interfering in the affairs of other nations, but at the same time could not remain indifferent to problems that affect other nations.”

also, here is an article about reforming the security council and how it affects Brazil.

Brazil’s Rocky Road to a Security Council Seat

Reform proposals that simply dress the current structure in new clothes and do not provide for an increase in the number of permanent members are manifestly insufficient. The difficulties inherent to any reform process must not make UN Member States lose sight of its urgency.

Many high representatives specifically mentioned the expansion of the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories, and the inclusion of countries like Brazil as permanent members as a first step in the process of making the United Nations a truly representative body.

i hope that clears things up a little. for more brazil news, go here.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: