Admission to the General Assembly of the UN is not open to all. The Palestinian Territories are just one of several regions without a seat at the world's top table.
Palestine's bid for statehood and international recognition is making the political geography definition for state all the more relevant? What is a state and what is not? What function does UN membership play in the process of statehood and sovereignty?
Kendra King's insight:
In order to be recognized as a sovereign entity from the UN the country must have the full vote of the UN acknowledging that the state exists. However, given the set up of the security counsel, that makes becoming a state really hard. Currently, China & Russia oppose Europe and the United States' desires and vice versa. As the article shows, the countries seeking statehood outside of Palestinian all seem to have one member of the team on board, but not the other. As such, I don't foresee recognition in the future anytime soon.
The whole limbo status, is astonishing to be. I find it weird that a place, like Palestine, can have a flag and a national language, and many other elements of most countries, but not be a country as the article mentioned. From this angel, it amperes international acceptance is the most important factor. This made me wonder, even if the security counsel did have similar interests would accepting any of the nations in would be a good idea? Many of the countries that want to be admitted are from the former soviet union block, which as mentioned in class is often shattering among ethnic groups. However, due to all of the different ethnicity and people within the region, how many smaller countries should be carved out when these were accepted? Also, at what point does this just create further instability?
As much as I don't agree with the UN security counsel excluding the voices of the developing world, the current set up does block hastily adding new countries to the world. Given the present too many new nations could set in unstable regions, this might be better for the world. Or I could be wrong because skirmishes could continue until someone recognizes a party. Since I don't want to keep play the what if game, I am just going to end by saying that if the security counsel is ever change, the geopolitical consequences would need to be analyzed heavily. This situation alone is case and point.