Turkey, Austria and Japan have just won the three open non permanent United Nations Security Council seats. The effort was not without contention and raises questions about the UN SC seats allocation.

Two of the three open seats are reserved for European nations. Although Iceland campaigned aggressively for a seat, it was outmanuevered in the General Assembly by both Turkey and Austria for both the European rotating seats. Iceland’s economic troubles (the nation is short of declaring bankruptcy) did not aid its efforts.

Turkey won 151 votes and Austria 133 out of 128 votes required for approval out of the 192 member voting General Assembly (128 is two-thirds).

Japan won the single available Asian rotating seat. The two contenders were Iran and Japan and Japan got 158 votes to Iran’s 32 out of the 193 votes, of course.

These nations will now join Uganda, holding the single Africa rotating seat, and Mexico for the 15-member rotating component of the Security Council for the 2009-2010 sessions.

A few questions to Instablogs readers:
1) Why is there two rotating European seats while only one Asian seat and only one African seat and only one Latin American seat and no Arab rotating seat? Consider also that Europe is already disproportionately represented with Britain and France on the permanent 5-member Council. When one adds these two in the 5 Council and the 2 rotating sates, in a Council of 20, Europe has 4 seats. Is this really fair and reflective in this day and age? Is not the UN outdated? Latin America has more people than Europe and yet they have no permanent seats and only one rotating seat.

It is time the UN gets out of its WWII era world power structure and recognize that if it is to be a truly legitimate global body it must proper pay homage to the rest of the World.

They join Uganda, for Africa, and Mexico in taking up the five rotating seats on the 15-seat Security Council for the 2009 and 2010 sessions.