NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, I apologize if this topic has already been touched upon, but I checked the last 7 pages and remember nothing similar from before then, so bleh...

There has been quite a bit of discussion in the international community about reforming the UN Security council. The aspect which particularly interests me, is the addition of more permanent seats. So, in your opinion, which countries, if any, should get these positions? In September, Germany and Japan already announced their wish to become permanent members.

Personally I believe that the Russian Federation should be booted altogether and the seats given to Germany, Japan, India and other developed nations that are willing.

I'd love to see all the permanent members except the USA booted, but that's not going to happen. Realistically, I'd like to see Russia and China removed. They've been instrumental in blocking action on the Darfur crisis.

Hm... U.S., Germany, Japan, Britain, China.. who else ought to be on the Security Council? I say China not because it's a bulwark of human rights, but because it's simply HUGE and POWERFUL and INFLUENTIAL and should have a place in the U.N. that kind of power accords to it.

Hm... U.S., Germany, Japan, Britain, China.. who else ought to be on the Security Council? I say China not because it's a bulwark of human rights, but because it's simply HUGE and POWERFUL and INFLUENTIAL and should have a place in the U.N. that kind of power accords to it.

I agree that China should retain its place. The Security Council should first and foremost be a forum for the world's most influential nations, not just a "world benchmark" civil rights club.

The security council should be expanded to include nations from all continents, and veto rights be taken away, and decisions be taken by majority.

I agree that China should retain its place. The Security Council should first and foremost be a forum for the world's most influential nations, not just a "world benchmark" civil rights club.
What's wrong with allocating permanent seats based on civil rights? It would help ensure that the UN will do the right thing regardless of it's member's business interests.

What's wrong with allocating permanent seats based on civil rights? It would help ensure that the UN will do the right thing regardless of it's member's business interests.

This would only serve to further decrease the UN's influence. Were the SC nations selected solely based on their civil rights record, their word would not hold much weight. Right now we are fortunate that most permanent members are are liberal democracies and I don't expect this to change. China and Russia are exceptions, but in China's case, things will most likely improve over time.

Keep the current ones, add on : India, China, Brazil, and an African Nation (and a Muslim one, but which?)

UN reform?! Don't get me started on the UN....

Keep the current ones, add on : India, China, Brazil, and an African Nation (and a Muslim one, but which?)
The only muslim nation I could see adding would be Indonesia. They're the most populous muslim nation, they have a decent GDP and their government is pretty civilized and moderate.

Yeah, that seems pretty logical, large military too, hence deserving of a place on the security council.

One thing I think should be done is abolishing the Veto, isn't it enough to have a permanent seat, and these nations have enough influence anyway.

Keep the current ones, add on : India, China, Brazil, and an African Nation (and a Muslim one, but which?)

Yes let's add China, and give them two seats :rolleyes: India, yes, Brazil and an African nation, why? The african and muslim nation part just sounds like political correctness.

IMO membership of the permanent part of the UN security council should be based on military and economic strength, not on a desire to have everyone represented.

It's a flawed idea from the start. Each nation will serve it's own economic interests rather than seek justice and peace.

I agree that China should retain its place. The Security Council should first and foremost be a forum for the world's most influential nations, not just a "world benchmark" civil rights club.

Actually the primary responsibility of the Security Council has nothing to do with civil rights or humanitarianism. Its members should include nations that have a vested interest in maintaining __international__ peace.

I personally feel China has just as much a right to a permanent seat *and* veto as the United States.

Germany actually has near representation via France, as those two governments are politically fairly close now. What is lacking from the UK, US, China, Russia, France mix is representation from a Latin American, an African, and Central Asian / Middle Eastern seat.

The remaining 10 seats are traditionally rotated out on 2 sets of regional schedules. It might not be a bad idea to expand the council to include a new category: long-term members without vetoes. A new set of 10 seats could be added with 10-year terms, giving the council 25 votes, 5 of which still retain vetoes. The longer term seats should be awarded to nations that have a demostrated record of securing international cooperation and peace ... basically "mediators". And the shorter term seats should be voted upon directly by regional interests, i.e. the US would be discourage or prevented from having any say on who might represent Latin America, Asia, and Africa (not to mention the European and Pacific seats).

I'd love to see all the permanent members except the USA booted.
.

Yes let's add China, and give them two seats :rolleyes: India, yes, Brazil and an African nation, why? The african and muslim nation part just sounds like political correctness.

IMO membership of the permanent part of the UN security council should be based on military and economic strength, not on a desire to have everyone represented.

Brazil has a valid claim. It is economically more powerful than France (a current member) it is the leading force in an unrepresented area, and has the most world cups. (The last point being, of course totally irrelevant.)

I believe that the nations involved are not so much a problem as the system. I would rather shift to a simple majority vote for human rights issues (Sudan) due to their imminence and military action/sanctions require a larger 2/3 vote to help reduce the risk of making a mistake of any kind and encourage deliberation. The veto held back the UN from intervening during the Cold War because vetoes would be guaranteed by the two superpowers when their "spheres of influence" were threatened. I would also compose the council by influence on a continental level, so all continents would have equal representation while still ensuring the most powerful nations have due influence.