So far, the record is:
Norway
Sweden
Burma
Austria
Peru
Egypt
Ghana
I think that is striking. So why is it?
2006-12-12 03:48:19 · 4 answers · asked by Ejsenstejn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Irrelevance is defined as follows: If the entire nation would disappear tomorrow, it would take a while until someone noticed that.
Come on guys, lighten up ;)
2006-12-12 04:04:08 · update #1
To balance the power, these countries are not represented as strongly as the major ones. So they are cycled.
2006-12-12 03:51:12 · answer #1 · answered by bluedog 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is because the major world powers have their own agenda and what is more the will and power to push it through. This is worse if they are at the head of the United Nations. the point is to have a more levelheaded individual who does not come from a seat of power to keep the bigger nations under some form of control. This is why the security council in addition to the 5 permanent members always has a rotating membership, typically from smaller nations.
2006-12-12 11:52:57 · answer #2 · answered by phoenixbard2004 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By design, so the big boys can't run over the little guys. It balances the power of the Security Council, which is all big boys.
2006-12-12 11:55:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps you need to reword your question. No nation is 'irrelevant'. And Norway and Sweden are both substantially active nations in the international scene. Norway especially controls a substantial amount of natural gas reserves.
Word your question a little less ethnocentrically.
2006-12-12 11:57:00 · answer #4 · answered by michiganrocks 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋