Rejected Seat on U.N. Panel Is Considered by Jordan – NYTimes.com

An update on the open Security Council seat where Saudi Arabia took a pass:

It was the first time that any country had rejected one of the 10 nonpermanent Council seats. The five permanent seats are held by Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

The Saudi decision, which could only have been ordered by King Abdullah, reflected his unhappiness over American policy in the Middle East, most notably the embrace of diplomacy in the Syrian conflict and the move toward rapprochement with Iran, Saudi Arabia’s rival.

King Abdullah also was said to be upset over American criticism of the Egyptian military takeover in July that toppled Mohamed Morsi, the Islamist who was that country’s first freely elected president; and with faltering American efforts to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

via Rejected Seat on U.N. Panel Is Considered by Jordan – NYTimes.com.

Advertisements
Tagged ,

8 thoughts on “Rejected Seat on U.N. Panel Is Considered by Jordan – NYTimes.com

  1. trawson7 says:

    I think the United States is walking a fine line at the moment; we need to be more careful about which countries we choose to upset. We’ve upset much of Western Europe, and I think we should try to not upset the Saudis too. However, I also think Saudi Arabia is crazy to reject this Security Council seat. Perhaps Jordan should get it instead. A Middle Eastern voice on the SC would be beneficial, undoubtedly. I just wish the United States didn’t have to risk our relations with all of the countries we’re allied with.

  2. eebashaw says:

    Currently America is making a bit of a mess with its international relations. Not intentionally necessarily, but everything just seems to be falling apart at once. I think it would be a good motion for Jordan to take the seat. As the Middle East is the center stage for current world politics, the region should be represented on the Security Council. Jordan is one of the more peaceful countries in the Middle East and so would be a good pick to put on the Security Council. Saudi Arabia would have of course been a good pick as well, but it makes sense that Saudi Arabia is a little frustrated with America. I think it was a bit of a ridiculous move on their part as it is a little counterproductive towards possible eventual peace in the region, but it makes some sense. I think having Jordan on the Council would save the situation somewhat, but America needs to start playing its cards right. The western and eastern world is all mad at the United States right now and so they must start making peace. America has long been known as a super power in the world, but that does not mean the United States can flaunt it walking all over other countries.

  3. jmmorgan242 says:

    While I also think that giving up the security council seat is counter productive to Saudi Arabia’s end goal, it is definitely helping to focus the world’s attention on the country’s discontent with America’s current behavior towards it. This is probably partially due to Saudi Arabia’s less than positive opinion of how the United States handled the Syria issue. They probably feel abandoned, and forced to support the Syrian rebels on their own.

  4. dbudeiri says:

    I don’t think that middle eastern countries and Saudi Arabia in specific would support Jordan if it happens and Jordan decides to accept the seat they are offered and replace Saudi Arabia as Jordan’s current situation doesn’t differ from Saudi Arabia’s. The reason for which Saudi Arabia decided to reject the seat they were offered is supposed to be Jordan’s as well.

  5. Given the UN’s reputation as an ineffective and often corrupt organization, I think that Saudi’s rejection of the temporary seat in the Security Council speaks much louder as a political statement about its disapproval of US foreign policy in the Middle East than it does Saudi’s naïveté in turning down such a prominent and coveted position. Ok, maybe Saudi would have had more of a say in international security affairs with a seat in the Security Council than she would have otherwise, but HOW MUCH of a say, and how much of it would really make a difference, especially when the permanent members of the council can veto any decision and create impasses on any flows of decision making processes? Maybe by saying this I’m only revealing my own naïveté in these matters, but the more I learn about the UN, the more ineffective an organization it appears to be, and the more I understand that a state’s influence within it can only go so far.
    While Jordan may be just as disapproving as Saudi Arabia of US’s diplomacy in Syria and Iran, the Hashemite Kingdom may see the opportunity cost of turning the seat down as much greater than Saudi did. But as was mentioned in the article, it is not certain how the decision to fill the seat will be made, and Saudi hasn’t officially sent in their rejection notice, so the outcome is still uncertain.

  6. mckaycorbett says:

    I don’t want to sound extreme but I blame this on Obama. American presidents have ruined relationships with allies before but in this case it could easily have been avoided by a little foreshadowing. I don’t think it would take a genius to know that making deals with Iran and Syria would upset some people.
    I’m not saying that the US should do everything it’s allies want them to do or even think they should do but I do think that some discussion should have been had with allies before hand. For example Kerry or some other diplomat should have been sent to Saudi Arabia BEFORE this happened. Now it seems like we are begging for forgiveness.

  7. alexkhirst says:

    Because Jordan is an incredibly peaceful country in the Middle East, it would be very beneficial for the country to take the Security Council seat. Unfortunately, because relations are difficult with Saudi Arabia, it would be better for Jordan to participate on the council. However, I don’t necessarily think that the US needs to cater to the needs of Saudi Arabia. Yes, it’s one of the most oil wealthy countries in the world, which the US seems to gravitate toward. That doesn’t mean that the US needs to deal with the country’s tantrums. The US needs to be seeking alliances with more peaceful countries, such as Jordan anyway. Saudi Arabia has never been known as a loyal country and the US could probably do without their alliance.

  8. araujophm says:

    What a surprise that King Abdullah would even consider rejecting a seat in the security council. It is understandable that they want to make a point and show disapproval of American foreign relations in the Middle East, but there is so much that they could monitor and be involved in if they only accepted to be a part of the security council. Saudi Arabia is the most powerful economy in the Middle East, and they have influence over their neighbors, but they need more international recognition to be able to have a more prominent role in world decisions. As time goes by, King Abdullah will realize that they need a seat in the security council to be able to have a say in the international community.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: