NationStates Jolt Archive

Quote:
Brazil, Germany, Japan and India have launched a joint bid for permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
"The Security Council must reflect the realities of the international community in the 21st Century," their joint statement said.
The four states pledged to back each other's case and said similar status should be given to an African nation.
The Council's five veto-wielding permanent members are Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.
The 10 other Council members are chosen for two-year terms by regional groups.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is known to favour an expansion of the Council, to enable it to command greater respect - especially in the developing world - and to make it more effective.
The joint statement was issued after talks between Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York.
The statement noted that there has been a nearly four-fold increase in the UN membership since it was founded after World War II in 1945, including a sharp increase in the number of developing countries.
"The Security Council, therefore, must be expanded in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, including developing and developed countries as new permanent members," the joint statement said.
"It must be representative, legitimate and effective."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3678736.stm

That probably wouldn't be a bad idea, as long as they get rid of the stupid permanent member veto power.

That probably wouldn't be a bad idea, as long as they get rid of the stupid permanent member veto power.

Well in that case then, this will never occur because thoses nations would want to keep their veto power though I do agree with you.

I think of those 4 candidates, the only one that should be admitted as a permanent member is Brazil. India has a worthy case but acceptance would lead to massive implications for peacefull relationships with Pakistan. I dont think Germany has a case as its interests are looked after through its close relationship with UK and France. 3 EU members with permanent seats is perhaps too many. As for Japan, its hard to justify their inclusion in the security council when their constitution prohibits them from applying military force outside of Japan.

That probably wouldn't be a bad idea, as long as they get rid of the stupid permanent member veto power.
I would love to see the removal of the veto power cause then the UN could finally censure Israel over its human rights abuses.

The "veto rule" of the Security Coucil is a fundemental flaw of the U.N. and I'm not certain why the Security Council even exists any more. Ideally, resolutions should be passed by the entire UN body, as we are past the days of Cold war confrontation

The only problem I have is Japan wanting to join. They have no real military, and no real role in security issues. As far as that goes, they are pretty much a US protectorate.

The only problem I have is Japan wanting to join. They have no real military, and no real role in security issues. As far as that goes, they are pretty much a US protectorate.
I could be wrong but dont Japan have one of the biggest navies in the world.

I could be wrong but dont Japan have one of the biggest navies in the world.
Sort of. They have a giant coast-guard like fleet, and keep it very well funded, but they rely on the US for their naval needs. After all, in all honesty, no country even comes close to US dominance of the seas, at least not since the end of the Cold War.

I think of those 4 candidates, the only one that should be admitted as a permanent member is Brazil. India has a worthy case but acceptance would lead to massive implications for peacefull relationships with Pakistan. I dont think Germany has a case as its interests are looked after through its close relationship with UK and France. 3 EU members with permanent seats is perhaps too many. As for Japan, its hard to justify their inclusion in the security council when their constitution prohibits them from applying military force outside of Japan.

I completely agree with you.

Though the remaining 10 members are traditionally rotated such that there is a sort of regional balance, with members serving 2-year terms.

Current non-permanent members:

Chile, Germany, Pakistan, Phillipines, Romania, Spain, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Brazil.

I'd say a good solution would be to simply increase the number of members by 5 and extend the terms to 3-years each. Nations like Germany or Brazil that want to argue that they represent the better interests of a bloc (though you are right, France and Germany are politically extremely close), would only have to do so once every third year.

Edit: Here (http://www.germany-un.org/peace/council/council.html) is Germany's current justifications for its current seat.

They should be get the seats. Germany and Japan are the two main contributors. India will soon have the largest population. And Brazil is the second largest country on the American continent.

That Is Very Good.

Cool. I hope all four get in.

They should be get the seats. Germany and Japan are the two main contributors. India will soon have the largest population. And Brazil is the second largest country on the American continent.

Actually, Brazil is the third largest country behind the US and Canada.

I'm pretty sure he means second by population size.

Yes...just what we need, more countries with veto powers...
The UN needs a massive overhaul, unfortunately how likely is it that those five permanent members will be willing to give up their current power for any kind of lovely reform that theorists propose...

Though, why not consolidate France and Britain and create a seat for the EU...then Germany would be represented by that...

Though technically, the only state that actually still deserves a permanent seat on the Security Council is the US, it being the only superpower left out of the five. With the permanent seats meant to be reflective of the great powers rather than being properly representative...I'm certainly not advocating that as a result though.

The permanent memberships were granted on the basis that those were the five nations that won WWII, not as a reflection of their military might.

The "veto rule" of the Security Coucil is a fundemental flaw of the U.N. and I'm not certain why the Security Council even exists any more. Ideally, resolutions should be passed by the entire UN body, as we are past the days of Cold war confrontation


Interesting that you should mention the cold war, because it was during those days, when the Security Council was effectively non-functional, that the General Assembly asserted its ability to reccommend enforcement action against states when the Security Council is deadlocked through the Uniting for Peace Resolution.

But now that the Security Council is up and running again...

The permanent memberships were granted on the basis that those were the five nations that won WWII, not as a reflection of their military might.

Well, yes because they were the superpowers...they were the victors, they won the war, they set up the UN...but if you want to be truly reflective in that context on the question f who should be the permanent members, you need to look at who the victors would be now.

Well, yes because they were the superpowers...they were the victors, they won the war, they set up the UN...but if you want to be truly reflective in that context on the question f who should be the permanent members, you need to look at who the victors would be now.
I wouldnt call China in 1948 a superpower, yet they managed a seat on the security council. Thats really what the rationale of giving those five countries veto power was based on.

If the same countries went to war again, there would be no winners. Thats the whole point of the nuclear deterrent. By extension, other undefeatable countries would include Israel, India, Pakistan and anyone else with a couple of decent warheads would warrant a permanent seat on the security council.

I wouldnt call China in 1948 a superpower, yet they managed a seat on the security council.


okay, you have me there :)

I think in fairness, a predominantly Islamic country should be represented. Indonesia perhaps? It is secular, after all.

Of those four, I think that only Brazil should get a permanent spot. Japan, India and Germany would mean three or four nations each from Europe or Asia, creating a bit of an imbalance. A nation from Africa would be a good idea, but the question is, who is a good leader for Africa? Maybe South Africa, or possibly Nigeria or Egypt. I would suggest South Africa above the other two.

Does Cuba ever get a look in?

I wouldnt call China in 1948 a superpower, yet they managed a seat on the security council.

Same thing can be said about France, neither a superpower nor a winning party in WWII and hence a country that has no good reason to be on the security council to start with. A bitter vindictive nation that through it's extreme retribution claims after WWI (where it also took a good beating) can be claimed to have been a big factor contributing to the rise of Nazi-Germany.

With the ever growing importance of the EU one could ask if a sole European place shouldn't be held by that political body rather than any of the member countries. Not that the UK or France would be willing to give up their respective veto power.
<hr>
As far as the self nominated countries goes, here are my views:

Germany: Europe's greatest economical power. As far as international politics goes though, Germany is and will continue to be a relative minnow. Germans are reluctant to go into international conflics due to Germany's history and the federation that it is is really more concerned with internal issues than external. There really is no good reason to give Germany a permanent seat in the security council unless one has a political agenda to further block any UN military interventions.

Japan: Pretty much the Asian equivalent to Germany with one major difference; there is no freedom-loving nation in Asia on the security council. Communist-China is now Asia's only powerful vote in the Security council, is that something we are satisfied with?

India: The sub-continent of India (oh, how massive it sounds - and is). Seven times Japan as far as population goes, and almost as big an economy. Is that enough though? Permanently on the brink of war with its neighbour Pakistan, and often enough in conflict with China. Personally I wouldn't want to see this state as a permanent member of the security council, but it has a good case and really is a strong regional power in all fields. Tough to say no to if any state is to be promoted to permanent SC-status.

Brazil: About the same size as Japan as far as population goes, a third of it as far as size of economy goes. Brazil may be a big country in South America, but that isn't enough, it just isn't big enough a power to warrant it a permanent seat on the SC.

Big African Nation: The fact that this group couldn't find one to team up with says it all, as there is none. Like the case is with Brazil for South America, many apperantly feel that each continent (bar Australia) should have a permanent seat on the SC. That's naive though, political power isn't evenly divided, that's the whole point with the permanent members in the SC. Maybe though, maybe, South America and Africa are underrepresentated in the SC, but that could be remedied by adding another non-permanent seat to those continents, which the countries can compete for as they do now with the term-restricted seats.
<hr>

As for those saying that the veto should be abolished, please! Do you really think that the few massive states that fund and run the UN as it is now would happily continue to do so unless they had a fairly firm grip on what the UN does? Read up on your League of Nations history if so.

I'm pretty sure he means second by population size.

Well he should've put that then huh :p

I don't know who suggested everything should go via the General Assembly, but I don't see how 160 countries are ever going to agree on anything. Look at the WTO...
But agreed the Security Council could do with an overhaul. I mean basically the Permanent Members are: "guys who won WWII", except when China had the revolution it got locked out for a while until the UN recognised the Peking government as the one that should have the UN seat (for a while in the early 50s Taiwan had the Chinese seat, and the USSR refused to participate in the SC as a protest, which was why the UN was able to fight the Korean war, since the USSR didn't sit in on the meeting and so didn't veto it).

After communist China got back in it became: "guys with nuclear weapons", which also made a kind of sense. Of course, by those rules you'd nowadays have to give permanent seats to people who have broken the non-proliferation treaty like India, Pakistan, Israel and even North Korea (over the USA's dead body on that last one, I suspect).

So what criteria should you choose for Permanent Members? If it's population, India is a shoe-in. If it's contribution to UN coffers, then Japan and Germany are the biggest contributors after the US (and they aren't behind on their donations, either...). If it's on contribution to UN peackeeping forces, countries like Australia, Canada and Pakistan have some claim. There are no simple answers on that. Many people have argued that it would be good to have a single EU seat, combining the UK and France. Of course, to do that the resolution would have to be passed by the Security Council, and at the moment France and the UK would probably veto it because they don't want to lose influence. [One of the reasons Britain sends out so many peacekeepers as part of UN operations is to try and justify its continued seat at the top table].

The veto power is an interesting one. It makes decision making more difficult. On the other hand, it stops a nuclear power from being railroaded against its will - in that sense it probably helps to stop war by preventing everyone ganging up on a major power. But it does easily paralyse the council. Trouble is, it's America that is probably the country most firmly wedded to its power of veto (especially over Israel).

One solution we came up with in a multi-player international polticial game was to increase the SC to 20, increase the number of permanent members to.. 8? With the inclusion of India, Brazil and Japan. And to say that a resolution could only be blocked by the use of TWO vetoes. As the US player I went for it on the grounds that I thought I could almost certainly convince the British to go along with me [I'm a Brit - I have a low opinion of my own government].

The only problem I have is Japan wanting to join. They have no real military, and no real role in security issues. As far as that goes, they are pretty much a US protectorate.

Japan should be admitted because they are the second largest economy in the world. India should be admitted because they are a nuclear power and a democracy.

Japan should be admitted because they are the second largest economy in the world. India should be admitted because they are a nuclear power and a democracy.

Steph, I can actually agree with you but I don't see why India should be admitted based on their nuclear capabilities personally. If you let them in because they have nukes, then your going to have to admit Israel, NK, Pakistan, and anyother nation that has nukes.

Steph, I can actually agree with you but I don't see why India should be admitted based on their nuclear capabilities personally. If you let them in because they have nukes, then your going to have to admit Israel, NK, Pakistan, and anyother nation that has nukes.

Well, Israel, Pakistan and NK are all guilty of human rights abuses. Now I know so is China, yet since they are already there I can see little to do to get them off the SC without causing a major diplomatic problem with PRC. I doubt any one wants to start a fight with China.

Also there is more then one factor with India, yes nukes, yes democracy, but also India is emerging quite rapidly. I have little doubt they will be one of the largest economies within the next 10-20 years. Not to mention they represent one of the world's largest populations.

I'll fight China on behalf of NS...but I'm not promising a victory.

Well, Israel, Pakistan and NK are all guilty of human rights abuses. Now I know so is China, yet since they are already there I can see little to do to get them off the SC without causing a major diplomatic problem with PRC. I doubt any one wants to start a fight with China.

Also there is more then one factor with India, yes nukes, yes democracy, but also India is emerging quite rapidly. I have little doubt they will be one of the largest economies within the next 10-20 years. Not to mention they represent one of the world's largest populations.

As I said, I can agree but nations that have nukes would want to be on the Security council since the major powers all have nukes and are permenant members.

I wouldnt call China in 1948 a superpower, yet they managed a seat on the security council. Thats really what the rationale of giving those five countries veto power was based on.
If the same countries went to war again, there would be no winners. Thats the whole point of the nuclear deterrent. By extension, other undefeatable countries would include Israel, India, Pakistan and anyone else with a couple of decent warheads would warrant a permanent seat on the security council.
Well, if you follow that logic you would actually suggests that more countries should get nukes. South Korea and Japan are (technologically) fully capable of developing nuclear weapons. So, should they do it?
I think the entire UN system is collapsing anyway.
The world is changing and the UN isn´t and it won´t change. It is unreformable. I think the UN system is likely to collapse. It can remain as some kind of Red Cross - but for anything else it isn´t usuable anyway.
I think that there won´t be an UN reform - they never was a major one after 1945, all attempts after the end of the Cold War failed and I don´t see a reason why any other major reform proposal - and that includes alternative suggestions by others - is going to be successful anyway.
I see it as a waste of time to debate this issue.
The attempt of the "gang of four" is a pure PR-campaign, designed at their domestic ordinance.
It has no chance anyway.

I think of those 4 candidates, the only one that should be admitted as a permanent member is Brazil. India has a worthy case but acceptance would lead to massive implications for peacefull relationships with Pakistan. I dont think Germany has a case as its interests are looked after through its close relationship with UK and France. 3 EU members with permanent seats is perhaps too many. As for Japan, its hard to justify their inclusion in the security council when their constitution prohibits them from applying military force outside of Japan.
Actually Japan has sent troops to Iraq, though. Japan has made certain legal changes. And it spents more on defense than Germany for example. Though both countries belong in the top 10 group of military spending. There spending is small compared to the US - but compared to the US even the spending of the UK is small, though. And the Federal Republic of Germany has also changed its policy in that respect in the 1990s. Today it participates on missions in the Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Enduring Freedom (Dschibouti, Meditareanean).
It is true that Germany and France are close. However both countries have sometimes disagreements. France has a more provocative approach in its policy towards the US and is more eager to use its veto. That is even more the case towards Israel - while Germany usually doesn´t vote for anti-Israel resolutions.
And if we talk about closeness one could argue why Britain should have its own seat since it is represented by the US.
However than France would loose its claim on its seat as well, since it is too small.
If we speak about 21 rst century politics the main players are outside Europe anyway: the US, China, India and potentially (due to its size and its resources) Russia.
But since it is unrealistic to throw the others out of the council - and a distribution to continents (like one seat for Europe, one for Africa, two for the two Americas, three for Asia (counting Russia as Asian in this) is not realistic it is most likely that nothing changes anyway.

They should be get the seats. Germany and Japan are the two main contributors. India will soon have the largest population. And Brazil is the second largest country on the American continent.

Third largest. If only one can get it, it should be Brazil. Maybe India for population, as you say. But I think that European interests are too well represented already and Japan is basically looked after by the US.

Japan should be admitted because they are the second largest economy in the world. India should be admitted because they are a nuclear power and a democracy.
But economical size doesn't parallel how vital a nation is to security. Until recently, China had a miserable economy, yet they were pernamently onboard. As for India, sure they are a democracy and a nuclear power. But they have no real reason to conduct security operations outside of Southern Asia. All of the other pernament members had their power felt globally. Russia doesn't anymore, but they're on now, and it'd be impossible to kick them off.

Third largest.
Third largest what?

I think of those 4 candidates, the only one that should be admitted as a permanent member is Brazil.Well...Japan and Germany are the second ant Third largest Donors...They give more than 4 current members...

Third largest. If only one can get it, it should be Brazil.why only Brazil...let them all join...

But economical size doesn't parallel how vital a nation is to security. Until recently, China had a miserable economy, yet they were pernamently onboard.
In fact security doesn't even parallel how vital a nation is to the Security Council. For a long time, Taiwan sat on the council even though they could not project any power, and was merely a puny stooge of the United States.

As for India, sure they are a democracy and a nuclear power. But they have no real reason to conduct security operations outside of Southern Asia. All of the other pernament members had their power felt globally.
The Republic of China certainly did not have their power felt globally, and neither did the People's Republic of China for a long time after they were admitted. You have not offered a valid standard by which to judge whether a nation should be included or excluded from the Security Council.

The standards of the Security Council today are not the standards set by the founders of the UN. Back in 1945 the only purpose of the UN was to perpetuate the military victory of the Allies over the Axis. The world has changed a lot since then and today the UN is infinitely more complex. The main services the UN has to the world are the various humanitarian projects and it is good sense to have the big donors Germany and Japan onboard while having India and Brazil will give more feedback from the main recipients of the UN's missions - developing nations.

In fact security doesn't even parallel how vital a nation is to the Security Council. For a long time, Taiwan sat on the council even though they could not project any power, and was merely a puny stooge of the United States.
The Republic of China certainly did not have their power felt globally, and neither did the People's Republic of China for a long time after they were admitted. You have not offered a valid standard by which to judge whether a nation should be included or excluded from the Security Council..
It is very simple. There are now standards for it. It was decided in 1945 that way - for historic reasons - and it is going to remain that way.
And to put it quite frank. While it can be argued that at that time Russia, Britain, France and the US were world powers (since Britain and France still had most of their colonies) it can´t be said for China. They were and still are a regional power. They are likely to develop into a world power though.
But I see the same prospect for India. Indias population growth is higher than the one of China. In 15-20 years it is going to be the country with the highest population. And also economically India is on the rise.

Since the UN is unreformable I think it is going to decline even more. Probably even the UN system ends.
In the economic field the G8 is already leading. That could be enlarged to a G10 (including China and India). They could also use that forum for security policy.
Regarding decision making. Since many countries don´t care about resolutions anyway I don´t see that as crucial. The UN is pretty irrelevant.
It doesn´t depend on resolutions but on the will of the permanent members and others to enforce them.
That the current system doesn´t work is obvious. It would actually even worse if there be four new veto powers additionally. A reform would make sense - but only if it includes a reform of the veto right. But that is not going to happen, since none of the current permanent members wants limits on its veto right. Therefore a substantial reform won´t happen. I see the policy of "the gang of four" rather as a PR-campaign, directed at their domestic ordiance in the sense: Look, we try to do something.
When it fails they could start to do UN-bashing as well. And I mean: Why not. The UN is not a good instituition anyway.

It is very simple. There are now standards for it. It was decided in 1945 that way - for historic reasons - and it is going to remain that way. And to put it quite frank. While it can be argued that at that time Russia, Britain, France and the US were world powers (since Britain and France still had most of their colonies) it can´t be said for China. They were and still are a regional power. They are likely to develop into a world power though.
But I see the same prospect for India. Indias population growth is higher than the one of China. In 15-20 years it is going to be the country with the highest population. And also economically India is on the rise.

So uh what are the standards?


Since the UN is unreformable I think it is going to decline even more. Probably even the UN system ends.
In the economic field the G8 is already leading. That could be enlarged to a G10 (including China and India). They could also use that forum for security policy.
Regarding decision making. Since many countries don´t care about resolutions anyway I don´t see that as crucial. The UN is pretty irrelevant.
It doesn´t depend on resolutions but on the will of the permanent members and others to enforce them.
That the current system doesn´t work is obvious. It would actually even worse if there be four new veto powers additionally. A reform would make sense - but only if it includes a reform of the veto right. But that is not going to happen, since none of the current permanent members wants limits on its veto right. Therefore a substantial reform won´t happen. I see the policy of "the gang of four" rather as a PR-campaign, directed at their domestic ordiance in the sense: Look, we try to do something.
When it fails they could start to do UN-bashing as well. And I mean: Why not. The UN is not a good instituition anyway.

The high profile Iraq war was botched but the UN has participated in many positive security and peacekeeping initiatives. The UN also provides many services that are low profile but consistently effective... World Health Organization for example has facilitated information sharing, and innovations in health care techniques.

The veto power is an interesting one. It makes decision making more difficult. On the other hand, it stops a nuclear power from being railroaded against its will - in that sense it probably helps to stop war by preventing everyone ganging up on a major power. But it does easily paralyse the council. Trouble is, it's America that is probably the country most firmly wedded to its power of veto (especially over Israel).

One solution we came up with in a multi-player international polticial game was to increase the SC to 20, increase the number of permanent members to.. 8? With the inclusion of India, Brazil and Japan. And to say that a resolution could only be blocked by the use of TWO vetoes. As the US player I went for it on the grounds that I thought I could almost certainly convince the British to go along with me [I'm a Brit - I have a low opinion of my own government].
I really like the two-veto idea. It would prevent unilateral blockage of the U.N. SC by one nation digging its heels in.
But, like others have said, the U.N. SC may be done for anyway. It's not keeping up with the changing situation in the world; it probably helped to prevent global thermonuclear war, but that's not the threat now.

So uh what are the standards?
.
There are none. And that is the problem. The UN is just not credible. And it is impossible to agree on standards. It is the same like the definition of terrorism. There never will be a consensus of all on it.


The high profile Iraq war was botched but the UN has participated in many positive security and peacekeeping initiatives. The UN also provides many services that are low profile but consistently effective... World Health Organization for example has facilitated information sharing, and innovations in health care techniques.
It is useful as a bigger Red Cross actually. The other things could be taken over by Nato and the G8 - which could be expanded to a G10 (including China and India).

I really like the two-veto idea. It would prevent unilateral blockage of the U.N. SC by one nation digging its heels in.
But, like others have said, the U.N. SC may be done for anyway. It's not keeping up with the changing situation in the world; it probably helped to prevent global thermonuclear war, but that's not the threat now.
I don´t think that France, Britain, Russia, China and the US would support the two-veto idea. Neither of the five are willing to give up anything. It is just unrealistic. The UN is unreformable.

I don´t think that France, Britain, Russia, China and the US would support the two-veto idea. Neither of the five are willing to give up anything. It is just unrealistic. The UN is unreformable.
Why should their lack of support derail reform? Does the permanent member veto apply to U.N. reform as well as SC resolutions? Reform should be a matter for the General Assembly.
If the Big Five can each unilaterally veto reform, the U.N. is definitely doomed.

Why should their lack of support derail reform? Does the permanent member veto apply to U.N. reform as well as SC resolutions? Reform should be a matter for the General Assembly.
If the Big Five can each unilaterally veto reform, the U.N. is definitely doomed.

Welcome to the dilema. The UN General Assembly has no power. All of their resolutions are NON-BINDING! Only the UNSC Resolutions are Binding. Any reform would probably have to go through the UNSC for approval.

The UN is a pussy cat that wont ever be able to act on anyting without a massive support from its members, not only the five veto-equipped members of the SC. So either people will have to accept that the old world order where every country is free to oppress its own citizens or a new world order where freedom loving nations interfere with other countries affairs.

Have your pick what you prefer, but the UN will be obsolete either way.

Why should their lack of support derail reform? Does the permanent member veto apply to U.N. reform as well as SC resolutions? Reform should be a matter for the General Assembly.
If the Big Five can each unilaterally veto reform, the U.N. is definitely doomed.
It is a matter for the General Assembly (I think that it would however need a two-third majority). BUT: IT CAN BE VETOD BY ANY PERMANENT MEMBER OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL. Thus far Britain and France have pledged support for the gang of four - however only under the condition that their veto right remains untouched.
Russia, China and the United States have not officialy declared any position. But it seems to be the case that the three oppose the idea. Whether they would use their veto is an open question - but it would only be relevant if the "gang of four" manages to get their majority - and that is somehow unlikely because their is opposition against any of them. Japan is unpopular in Asia, Germany in parts of Europe, India in Pakistan and other parts of the muslim world, Brazil in other parts of Latin America and the African countries complain that there is no African nation in the group.
Therefore I see this rather as a PR-campaign by the four.
If it the UNSC is however only enlarged and gets four new permanent members (with veto power) it would make things even more difficult - since it would mean 9 veto powers instead of five. Because of that the UN would become even more inefficent and irrelevant.
Therefore I think it isn´t a good idea if it isn´t linked with a substantial reform of the UNSC. But since that is not going to happen because the five won´t allow it, it is not going to happen. The UN is unreformable.
I think it is pretty irrelevant and it is going to lose relevance even more. It is likely that the UN system is going to collaps some day.
Probably it would be better to smach it and to found a new system since the current one is unreformable.
In the economic field there is the G8 - which could be enlarged to a G10 (including China and India). And in the Security field Nato or bilateral and multi-lateral alliances and talks outside the UN can play a central role. The six-party talks in Bejing (which take place outside the UN umbrella) is a model for such a system which wouldn´t need the UN.
The UN is already pretty irrelevant. The world would not be much different if it wouldn´t exist.

That probably wouldn't be a bad idea, as long as they get rid of the stupid permanent member veto power.

I totally agree. Vetoes are abused and its just unfair for the power of the UN to be in the hands of a few powerful nations while the powerless remain powerless.

All forms of governing bodies should be representative of those who are a part of it, so the permanent members should reflect a good division of the different religions/geographical regions/economic standings/political philosophies/whatever in the world. Of course this brings up the sketchy issue of should there be a regional veto or should there be no vetoes at all and just deal with motions depending on the number of votes for or against.

I totally agree. Vetoes are abused and its just unfair for the power of the UN to be in the hands of a few powerful nations while the powerless remain powerless.

All forms of governing bodies should be representative of those who are a part of it, so the permanent members should reflect a good division of the different religions/geographical regions/economic standings/political philosophies/whatever in the world. Of course this brings up the sketchy issue of should there be a regional veto or should there be no vetoes at all and just deal with motions depending on the number of votes for or against.
Welcome in global politics. It always was that way, it is that way and it is going to be remain that way. Every thing else is naive. None of the permanent members is going to give up.
And to put it rather plain: Global policy without the US is not possible. And the United States and the other four permanent members won´t give up their individual veto right.

the SC is already a collasal waste of time, money, people and space

if adding four more countries might make it better then go for it

its not like we have something to loose

the SC is already a collasal waste of time, money, people and space

if adding four more countries might make it better then go for it

its not like we have something to loose
Since it would mean four more Veto powers it would make the UN even more inefficent. So, it doesn´t make sense without a reform of the Veto right. And since that is not going to happen since the five current Veto powers aren´t going to give up on their Veto rights the UNSC should not enlarge the number of its permanent members in my view.

Since it would mean four more Veto powers it would make the UN even more inefficent. So, it doesn´t make sense without a reform of the Veto right. And since that is not going to happen since the five current Veto powers aren´t going to give up on their Veto rights the UNSC should not enlarge the number of its permanent members in my view.

Yes, I agree enlarging the UNSC by including more veto wielding countries would be a receipe for complete deadlock.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the UN, much like the EU, needs to address its democratic deficit more clearly. To me, the general assembly should take precedent over the UNSC and there should be no country with a veto power. Perhaps some decisions might require a two-thirds majority in the general assembly though.

However, of course, the country veto-holding countries (especially USA, China, Russia) would probably never agree to losing their vetos. However, maybe they could be convinced to an increase in the number of permenant members if the new permenant members don't hold a veto power. I think it would be fair for Japan and Germany at the very least to have permenant seats, and I can also see the case for an African country and a South American country.

Yes, I agree enlarging the UNSC by including more veto wielding countries would be a receipe for complete deadlock.
Personally, I am of the opinion that the UN, much like the EU, needs to address its democratic deficit more clearly. To me, the general assembly should take precedent over the UNSC and there should be no country with a veto power. Perhaps some decisions might require a two-thirds majority in the general assembly though..
The problem however is that unlike in the EU most countries of the world are authoritarian governments and many are dictatorships. Even two permanent members with veto power - China and Russia - have more or less authoritarian governments.
Therefore it is usually deadlooked. The Kosovo intervention for example would not been possible if Nato had gone to the UNSC for it.
Furthernmore: not all countries have the same power and are of the same importance. Therefore the UNSC exists. I agree with you that it is possible to imagine other solutions. But that would require to have weighted votes - like we have in the EU. The double-majority - majority of states and population (EU solution) is however not an option. China and India would than dominate the UN - in the EU no country dominates by this solution - well - Turkey would be the main player in the future, but it wouldn´t be able to dominate it either. Probably the money paid to the UN should depent the weight of once vote. That system could make the UN also more efficent since countries would have more interests in paying for it if they have an equivalent say in it.
And in order not to have a few countries dominate it we could make a double majority as well: majority of votes and majority of states.
But that is all unrealistic - since the UNSC would be able to veto such suggestions even if they get a majority in the General assemble - which isn´t the case anyway.

However, of course, the country veto-holding countries (especially USA, China, Russia) would probably never agree to losing their vetos. However, maybe they could be convinced to an increase in the number of permenant members if the new permenant members don't hold a veto power. I think it would be fair for Japan and Germany at the very least to have permenant seats, and I can also see the case for an African country and a South American country..
You forget Britain and France. They don´t want to loose their veto either.
Regarding your non-veto suggestion for the four members: That is rejected by the gang of four (Brazil, India, Japan, Germany), since it is seen as a discrimination among permanent members.
So, the four want to go for the full thing - and they will fail with that. This is clear. I see it as a PR-manoveur.
I agree with you that an African country should have been included - to a gang of five. But the Africans can not agree on one. South Africa and Nigeria are both interested. I favour South Africa since it is more stable.
But since they can´t agree on one it it won´t happen. And since there is no consensus who should be in it and how it should be reformed it won´t be reformed. This discussion already existed in the 1990s without any results. And it won´t have results this time, since there is no will.
The UN is going to fall apart one day. It is only a matter of time.

But economical size doesn't parallel how vital a nation is to security. Until recently, China had a miserable economy, yet they were pernamently onboard. As for India, sure they are a democracy and a nuclear power. But they have no real reason to conduct security operations outside of Southern Asia. All of the other pernament members had their power felt globally. Russia doesn't anymore, but they're on now, and it'd be impossible to kick them off.
There is another argument one should not look over. In 1945 - and that is the time we have to refer to since the UNSC was created that way and hasn´t change its structure since then - France and Britain were still world powers (with huge colonial empires). And there were two super-powers: the US and the USSR. China was in that round an exception actually (Chinas seat was held by the Republic of China (Taiwan) till 1970. That Taiwan was a world power can´t be said. Though, the PRC (which already was a nuclear power at that time) is certainly a regional power with high prospects).
Though the world has of course changed since 1945. Britain and France have lost their colonies and Russia lost Eastern Europe and the other Soviet Republics. There is just one super power left: the United States.
The current justification of the seat-distribution can only be linked to one thing: and that is the nuclear issue. The five permanent members used to be the first nuclear powers. Though with the proliferation of WMDs this has changed as well.
None the less: the bit of four would be the first chance in the structure of the UNSC since 1970. And it would be the inclusion of non-nuclear powers.
So, it can be argued that this is against the principal of security policy to include non-nuclear powers into the club.
On the other hand: there are already nuclear powers outside the club: India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea have gotten nukes. Iran is pushing a nuclear program.
Probably it is really time to consider whether that should be a criteria or not.

bump

"Not really. Its organisation may be the one of 1945, but in reality, the members are well aware of that.
See how much veto were used in the last 20 years by UK or France.
Most of the time, the members of the UNSC do gather support before using their veto power and rarely use it unilateraly.
I'd say most of the members of the UNSC are pretty democratic and responsible with their power."

And how many votes were avoided because of an alleged veto? I just mention Kosovo in 1999.
Your argument is moot. The UN was a very inefficent organisation during the Cold War and it hasn´t changed since then. That is the truth.

bump

Though, why not consolidate France and Britain and create a seat for the EU...then Germany would be represented by that....
Because that would require a common foreign and defense policy of the European countries. And France and Britain conduct different policies and have different preferences in many areas.
So: it will not happen, as Britain and France stand for different philosophies.