NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard that Japan and Germany are major candidates for seats. I don't know about Japan, but I support Germany all the way. Anyways who should get a seat on the Security Council.

By seats you mean Veto power right? In any case when it comes to wishful thinking Germany, Japan and India would be the ones that spring to mind.

When it comes to reality? Haha. Not a chance. I don't think any of the current veto power countries would allow another country in with veto power. They'd all use their Veto power and put an end to it.

I've heard that Japan and Germany are major candidates for seats. I don't know about Japan, but I support Germany all the way. Anyways who should get a seat on the Security Council.

Don't you think that Europe is already represented enough in the security counsel? They have the UK, France and Russia. I think the other permenant members are China and America. I guess this means out of the options listed I would have to choose Japan.

It would be nice if there was a representitive of every continent. Then the security counsel would look something more like this:

Australia
Brazil
America
European Union
South Africa
China

And of course, who could forget the penguin representitives from Antartica? Actually, since a majority of that continent is claimed by Australia they'd be represented by the Australian representitive too. (Please note: I am not saying we own Antartica, but we do own the rights to a majority of it, that majority just happens to be the part without the mines and oil.)

Well Japan could have a problem with China there. I don't think Germany will have a problem though. In fact here's an article from the NYTimes

April 1, 2005

If 22 Million Chinese Prevail at U.N., Japan Won't

By JOSEPH KAHN

EIJING, March 31 - A grass-roots Chinese campaign to keep Japan out of the United Nations Security Council has gathered some 22 million signatures, increasing the chances that China will block Japan's bid to join the elite group, organizers and analysts said Thursday.

The petition effort, conducted through popular Chinese Web sites, enjoys tacit support from the government, which has allowed state-controlled media to cover the campaign prominently.

Japan is expected to be among several nations granted a permanent seat on a revamped Security Council under a plan that could come up for a vote in September. As one of the five existing permanent members, China has the power to veto the proposal. It has not said how it plans to vote.

If China were to prevent Japan's elevation, it would be the most direct confrontation between Asia's leading powers since they re-established diplomatic ties in 1972.

Relations between the countries have sharply deteriorated in recent weeks, strained by competition for energy resources, disputes over the way history textbooks assess Japan's role in World War II, Japan's pledge to aid the United States in defending Taiwan and the recent incursion of a Chinese submarine into Japanese waters.

By allowing millions of people to sign their names to a petition against Japan, Beijing's new leadership seems determined to show that recent Japanese actions have so inflamed popular sentiment that China has no choice but to adopt a tougher diplomatic line.

Officials may also see the petition as leverage to force concessions from Japan as the price of admission to the Security Council. It could also serve as cover for a veto, which would be one of the most bold assertions of Chinese authority in many years. But the campaign has the potential to restrict China's diplomatic leeway, making it harder to reach a quiet compromise. China could also feel pressured to veto the whole United Nations overhaul if the plan promotes Japan, an unusual position for a country that has rarely used its veto power to oppose an international consensus.

"China must vote no and not just abstain," said Tong Zeng, a longtime organizer of efforts to force Japan to recognize and apologize for World War II atrocities. "The government may not want to take the lead, but the Chinese people have taken the lead."

In Tokyo, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said, "The Chinese government has said the U.N. needs reform, so we believe that the Chinese and Japanese governments both have the same type of feeling and thinking on this issue."

"The petition itself is being conducted by private citizens and, according to press reports, the same petitioners' names keep appearing," the spokesman, Hatsuhisa Takashima, said. "So we just don't know how valid this petition effort is."

The effort to rally anti-Japan sentiment in China began in late February, when several overseas Web sites began circulating a petition directed at the United Nations, which is currently debating a blueprint for changing its governing structure.

It gathered momentum last week when leading Chinese Web sites, including portals like Sina, Sohu and Netease, advertised the drive with links on their main pages. Some sites allow users to register their names through text messages sent from mobile phones.

After initially aiming to collect one million signatures, organizers now say they think they can gather 30 million before they present the petition to Secretary General Kofi Annan. The New China News Agency reported Thursday that 22.2 million Chinese had signed the petition so far.

"The response was far beyond our expectations," said Lu Yunfei, who has led several grass-roots protests against Japan. "No one - not the United Nations nor the Chinese government - can ignore so many people expressing their views."

There was no way to independently verify whether 22 million people had in fact signed the petition or whether they all did so voluntarily. But many Web sites kept their own tallies of how many people had signed up through their portal, and there were no telltale indications that the effort had been centrally organized.

Chinese officials have not explicitly endorsed the petition, but they have offered supportive comments.

Liu Jianchao, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said this week that the effort reflected growing alarm about Japan's treatment of history.

"Japan has to take a responsible attitude toward history to build trust among the people of Asia, including China," he said. He added that China believed that the United Nations overhaul should mainly focus on increasing the power of developing countries rather than the rich industrialized ones.

Japan has the world's second-largest economy and is one of the largest financial contributors to the United Nations. The United States has backed Japan's demand to become a Security Council member.

Mr. Annan appeared to signal that Japan and Germany would be prime candidates for a revised Security Council lineup when he discussed plans to remake the governing structure last week.

The council should "increase the involvement in decision-making of those who contribute most to the United Nations financially, militarily and diplomatically, specifically in terms of contributions to United Nations assessed budgets," he told reporters.

Japan and Germany are by far the largest contributors that do not have permanent seats on the Security Council. Japan has said it will cut its contributions if it does not get a seat.

North and South Korea, which were colonized by Japan, have already said that they oppose Japan's bid. They argue that Tokyo has not done as much as Germany to atone for its imperialist abuses and that it cannot become a leading member of the international community unless it addresses the legacy of mistrust among its neighbors.

China, which has historically sought to keep relations with Japan on an even keel, has officially remained neutral. The two countries have a robust trading relationship. China last year replaced the United States as Japan's largest export market, and China's strong growth has helped pull the sluggish Japanese economy out of recession.

But Beijing has also encouraged anti-Japanese sentiment. Textbooks, newspapers and government-sponsored films emphasize China's suffering after the 1935 Japanese invasion. They largely gloss over the improvement in relations, including generous Japanese aid packages, that occurred after the two sides re-established relations.

China often uses public opinion as a diplomatic lever. Its news media stirred up an anti-American frenzy after a United States spy plan collided with a Chinese fighter and crash-landed on Chinese soil in 2001. But when the crisis passed, news coverage resumed a more neutral tone. Managing sentiment about Japan is trickier, partly because there is a deeper reservoir of resentment against Japan left over from the war. Mr. Tong, the organizer, says the police have begun allowing people to take part in small-scale anti-Japanese activities rather than repressing them in the name of social stability as they once did. But he said that did little to satisfy popular demands for a tougher approach to Japan.

"There has never before been a petition campaign of this magnitude in China," he said. "It will be much harder for the government to suppress in the future."

No Asian country wants Japan in the security council. China will veto the plan.

Perhaps the United States should be removed, and an African nation should replace it?

Brazil, South Africa

To represent continental interests.

By seats you mean Veto power right? In any case when it comes to wishful thinking Germany, Japan and India would be the ones that spring to mind.

When it comes to reality? Haha. Not a chance. I don't think any of the current veto power countries would allow another country in with veto power. They'd all use their Veto power and put an end to it.

Not necessarily Veto. Permanent seats could be awarded without veto power being given to these new permanent members.

No Asian country wants Japan in the security council. China will veto the plan.
Yeah China will almost certainly veto Japan's bid. I will be very surprised if they don't.

Again, i say, perhaps they could remove the United States, and put in North Korea, India, and Iran?

Seeing as how the US seems not to have any need for the UN anymore, why not let the nations described as the 'Axis of Evil' have their voices heared through the UN? Perhpas the world could get on their collective asses and protect them from American Imperialism!

Why can't I vote for more than one country? I mean, after all, they all wanna joint as far as I know. I voted for Germany though - a little bit of patriotism isn't wrong.

a little bit of patriotism is ok... just don't take it too far - we all know what happen the last time



:eek: (that was cold - im kidding)

how about some sweeping reforms istead of just adding new nations to complicate things.

Drop membership down to five nations, all have rotating seats (no permanent UNSC seats), you don't get a veto if you have a national interest in the current topic to be voted on.

I think that would actually make the UN do something useful for a change.

And of course, who could forget the penguin representitives from Antartica? Actually, since a majority of that continent is claimed by Australia they'd be represented by the Australian representitive too. (Please note: I am not saying we own Antartica, but we do own the rights to a majority of it, that majority just happens to be the part without the mines and oil.)
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050401/capt.sge.cvx48.010405074008.photo00.photo.default-384x289.jpg

The french seat should be replaced by India. There should not be two European countries on the permanent council. The UK seat should be consilidated into a EU seat. Russia should be nixed and probably given to Brazil

The french seat should be replaced by India. There should not be two European countries on the permanent council. The UK seat should be consilidated into a EU seat. Russia should be nixed and probably given to Brazil
That absolutely will not happen. Nobody is going to be crazy enough to give up any seats. India, Brazil, South Africa and Egypt should all get seats representing the important regions not yet represented. Japan and Germany are only getting seats because they pay so much towards the UN budget. Japan probably deserves it, but they are a power on the decline with a far smaller popluation than India, a rising superpower. Allowing both on I feel might make the UN a little Asia heavy, with 4 Asian countries if you count Russia.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050401/capt.sge.cvx48.010405074008.photo00.photo.default-384x289.jpg

All hail our penguin overlords! :D

All hail our penguin overlords! :D

*cowers in fear*

*cowers in fear*

Don't forget your offering of fish...

how about some sweeping reforms istead of just adding new nations to complicate things.

Drop membership down to five nations, all have rotating seats (no permanent UNSC seats), you don't get a veto if you have a national interest in the current topic to be voted on.

I think that would actually make the UN do something useful for a change.

Sweeping REFORMS? Okay...as you worded let's take a step back and look at the consquences of such actions.

Playing devil's advocate...what happened if the United States was going to invade France (absurd and somewhat comical situation to some). The United States would not be allowed to debate on the security council because it had to do with national interest. In fact, not even France could debate the issue because it too would have national interest involved. Even deeper, every nation that had trade with France would not be able to participate. Every nation that had trade with the United States could not discuss it.

You take out national interest and you have no UN!

The original point of the UN wasn't to bring the world into one big global despotic world goverment but to allow individual sovereign nations to peacefully discuss their national interest and reach compromises that benefitted everyone's national interest.

Whether the world likes it or not...the United States, China, France, United Kingdom, and Russia are the worlds predonimant military powers. Might I also add they pay the UNs budget (the US pays more than any other nation last I knew).

If you remove any of those nations from the security council you're asking for trouble. You remove their veto powers you are asking for trouble. The reason all five were granted veto power was to reassure the major military powers that if something was going down they detested they could prevent...averting war. Rather than having no veto power and them having to resort to armed conflict to stop something they could simply say no...

We might not always like the results...but whether you like it or not the veto power saves lives.

I agree...Japan would be a great addition...but I don't see China accepting it. I don't think Germany is a good idea because as someone pointed out Europe is well covered. As for Brazil? Since when is Brazil a major military power?

The only nation I could see maybe getting a spot is India...it is a nuclear power and it is not particularly an ally of anyone (meaning someone won't necessarily block them coming on just to avoid another current member from gaining too much power).

Either way...the point is...you take away national interest and there is no point for a security council or the UN.

Perhaps the United States should be removed, and an African nation should replace it?
That's a bad idea, since the US pours more money into the UN than any other nation.

I voted Germany :)

No more vetorights*. (should take it away from everyone). But more permanent members to Security Council. One from each continent. Or actually not from each continent but each big and quite similar area.
Nigeria from Africa
Brasil from South America
USA from North America (sorry Canada, I'd prefer you but sometimes one has to be realistic)
EU from Europe
Asia is difficult. Because of the size and population I'd say there has to be two permanent members from Asia. China and and and well I guess it has to be India.

and maybe Australia and Russia.

plus 7 others, 15 members all together.

No more vetorights*. (should take it away from everyone). But more permanent members to Security Council. One from each continent. Or actually not from each continent but each big and quite similar area.
Nigeria from Africa
Brasil from South America
USA from North America (sorry Canada, I'd prefer you but sometimes one has to be realistic)
EU from Europe
Asia is difficult. Because of the size and population I'd say there has to be two permanent members from Asia. China and and and well I guess it has to be India.

and maybe Australia and Russia.

plus 7 others, 15 members all together.

Good point the only problem is that I don't Australia deserve ones because oceania/australia have soo small population

That absolutely will not happen. Nobody is going to be crazy enough to give up any seats. India, Brazil, South Africa and Egypt should all get seats representing the important regions not yet represented. Japan and Germany are only getting seats because they pay so much towards the UN budget. Japan probably deserves it, but they are a power on the decline with a far smaller popluation than India, a rising superpower. Allowing both on I feel might make the UN a little Asia heavy, with 4 Asian countries if you count Russia.


I didnt say they would give them up. I say force them to give them up.

Perhaps the United States should be removed, and an African nation should replace it?


Yeah, that would be a brillant move. :rolleyes:

Good point the only problem is that I don't Australia deserve ones because oceania/australia have soo small population
True, and it's quite similar to Europe and North America. Indonesia would be more representative but I'm not eager to give them any power. But yes, you're right, Australia is out.

What about Russia? Can we afford not to have it as a permanent member?

Again, i say, perhaps they could remove the United States, and put in North Korea, India, and Iran?

Seeing as how the US seems not to have any need for the UN anymore, why not let the nations described as the 'Axis of Evil' have their voices heared through the UN? Perhpas the world could get on their collective asses and protect them from American Imperialism!


Trolling liberal i see. Keep trying, you might catch someone.

I think India deserves a seat the most. It has the 2nd fastest growing economy behind China, a huge population, and it's the largest democracy on the planet.

That's a bad idea, since the US pours more money into the UN than any other nation.
Which is exactly why we also have the UN constantly hounding us to actually pay the money that we've promised :rolleyes:

Which is exactly why we also have the UN constantly hounding us to actually pay the money that we've promised :rolleyes:
Name one other nation that contributes more to the UN than the US does.

North Korea.....The Juche ideals must live on ;)

Name one other nation that contributes more to the UN than the US does.
http://english.people.com.cn/english/200108/22/eng20010822_77973.html

Japan should get if for no other reason than to piss off the Chinese and Korean old fogies who won't let go of their anger over the war and also to counter the constant waves of browbeating emminating from both of those nations over the war.
I'm watching on the news recently about a territorial conflict between Japan and S. Korea over a couple of islands. The islands have a resident Japanese population and from what I have seen no Koreans living there. Every night we a treated to pictures of Koreans burning the Japanese flag and stamping on pictures of Kouizumi. On the other hand the Japanese people have been very calm and reasonable about it.
It is like the World Cup the was held in Japan and S. Korea. It was originally titled the Japan-Korean World Cup. Alphabetical order, guess who threw a fit and screamed imperialism? Hint, it wasn't the Japanese. Guess what happened to the name. . .Korean-Japanese World Cup. The Japanese people I met didn't give a damn either way (except for one nutcase who spent forty minutes of an English lesson venting his new found hatred for Koreans, way to go Korea! Make a crazy man hate you so you can have your name first!) It was just so childish and pathetic.
Yes, yes, I am biased by living in Japan but dammit, the ROKs have sooooooooo disappointed me. They're nothing more than apologists for their nutcase relatives up north these days. N. Korea kidnaps and murders a few Japanese? Well, we have to just forget about that so we can be lovy dovy with them, N. Korea makes most of its money by selling drugs, gotta just ignore that too! Can't upset fuzzy haired Great Leader, he might not enjoy his cowboy movies and 100 Beautiful Women (or whatever they're called).

now that felt good.

The US seat should certainly be scrapped and given to one of the more sensible American countries like Cuba or Venezuala.

The US seat should certainly be scrapped and given to one of the more sensible American countries like Cuba or Venezuala.

Heh heh, oh I agree one hundred and three percent. And, lets go a step further, lets eject the UN from US soil and lets pull the US out of the UN completely.

I think permanent members should be stripped of veto power. It gives them way too much power and makes the UN basically meaningless because nations in it are often against each other.

China should be taken off anyway. The republic was given that position, not the communist state that stole the government.

I think permanent members should be stripped of veto power. It gives them way too much power and makes the UN basically meaningless because nations in it are often against each other.

China should be taken off anyway. The republic was given that position, not the communist state that stole the government.
Stole the Government? Chang-Kai-Shek was no angel, he was nver popular with the people of China. The Communist won the civil war, how the hell did they steal the government?

I didnt say they would give them up. I say force them to give them up.
sweet dreams are made of these..

I think permanent members should be stripped of veto power. It gives them way too much power and makes the UN basically meaningless ...If they dont scrap the veto system...they should scrape the UN...

and create a new international Body..with no veto system.

I'm all for all three!

I was under the impression that Japan already has a seat in the security council.

I was under the impression that Japan already has a seat in the security council.
No, but they are bidding for one, though the chances of them actually getting a seat are pretty low.

No, but they are bidding for one, though the chances of them actually getting a seat are pretty low.
Last time I checked they had a two-year term till the end of 2006.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html And so it is true.

Last time I checked they had a two-year term till the end of 2006.
Ah I meant a permanent seat.