NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4677545.stm

I agree with the US.

Why?

Brazil - What makes Brazil a very important country?

India - Probably use the UN security council to invade Pakistan.

Germany - Power hungry?

Japan - Besides the WWII atrocities, consider the island disputes with China and South Korea, Oil disputes, and the textbook that p***ed off many asian countries, especially China.

The so called "G4" wanted the council to be more balanced. But I believe they're out for more power.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4677545.stm

I agree with the US.

Why?

Brazil - What makes Brazil a very important country?

India - Probably use the UN security council to invade Pakistan.

Germany - Power hungry?

Japan - Besides the WWII atrocities, consider the island disputes with China and South Korea, Oil disputes, and the textbook that p***ed off many asian countries, especially China.

The so called "G4" wanted the council to be more balanced. But I believe they're out for more power.

Brazil is growing economically.
India. Hey! My uncle is in Parliament!
Germany. Please.
Japan. Their tentacle porn is rather disturbing...

You You double double posted posted this this thread thread..

But I disagee with the US. Other rising nations like Brasil and India, or current powers like Germany and Japan need to be recognized. I mean the world situation of 1945 doesn't adequatly reflect the current balance of power. And I'm more inclined to believe this was the US being powerhungry, not these other nations.

You You double double posted posted this this thread thread..

Sorry, I blame the server that run this forum or my local ISP in town. Grrrrrrrr... :mad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4677545.stm

I agree with the US.

Why?

Brazil - What makes Brazil a very important country?

Big. Biggest in South America. The idea is to give each major landmass one representative.

India - Probably use the UN security council to invade Pakistan.

Second biggest country by population, quickly rising in GDP, and if you seriously think that they're going to be able to invade pakistan through the UN, you have serious problems with intellectual integrity.

Germany - Power hungry?

...no. German should have a seat, if it wasn't for the fact that they were on the wrong side of WWII. I favor consolidating Britain's, France's, and a hypothetical german seat into one EU seat, but not relevent.

Japan - Besides the WWII atrocities, consider the island disputes with China and South Korea, Oil disputes, and the textbook that p***ed off many asian countries, especially China.

WWII atrocities are in the past, we've had our share as well, and really isn't relevent to the issue at hand now. Japan is one of the largest contributers to the UN peacekeeping forces and to the UN fund in general. They are the largest contributer without a seat on the council.

The so called "G4" wanted the council to be more balanced. But I believe they're out for more power.
Who isn't? You don't think that the current bunch don't want them on because they don't want their power diluted? Power is politics.

Well considering that the resoultion hinges on a 2/3 majority vote in the General Assembly, I'm guessing that the only major reason the U.S. is against the measure is likely because a lot of allies (both political and economic) are against it as well.

The UN, sadly, is not immune from such power games.

Personally, I think they should revamp the Security Council completely. What use is the Security Council now anyways?

Only the veto powers matter...and too many veto powers will just make things worse.

The whole system needs to be scrapped and replaced.

Any ideas? :p

I agree with the US.
I don't.

Why?

Brazil - What makes Brazil a very important country?5th largest country in the world, population and area wise, though the population matters. It's a big regional power in South America.

India - Probably use the UN security council to invade Pakistan.Bullshit. It would need a majority vote to do so and none of the P5 to veto, and considering that Pakistan is a good friend of the USA, that's not likely to happen. India also has the world's second largest population, it's only fair to give it a permanent seat.

Germany - Power hungry?Wouldn't matter really. Germany is the world's third most powerful economy and it plays a big role in development. It's also one of the biggest contributors in UN funding. It would only be fair to give the Germans a permanent seat.

Japan - Besides the WWII atrocities, consider the island disputes with China and South Korea, Oil disputes, and the textbook that p***ed off many asian countries, especially China.The Chinese handled the text book situation in a way reminiscient of the Nazi party's early days. That was equally disgusting. And considering it's the world's second largest economy, it would only be fair to give them a seat too.

The so called "G4" wanted the council to be more balanced. But I believe they're out for more power.Of course they're out for more power. They want to balance the power over regions. India and Japan are there for Asia, Brazil for the Americas, Germany for Europe, which frankly plays a major role in international politics, and the two seats for African countries, which you failed to mention. There hasn't been a decision which countries will take that position, but as far as I heard Egypt, S. Africa, Senegal, and Nigeria are favorites.

*bump*

I personally think the 5 winning allied nations should stay on the security council. The next permanent members should be India, Japan, Brazil and S Africa or Nigeria. Make it 9 permanent members. Have the rotating seats as been in the past.

I personally think the 5 winning allied nations should stay on the security council. The next permanent members should be India, Japan, Brazil and S Africa or Nigeria. Make it 9 permanent members. Have the rotating seats as been in the past.
What are your arguements for not giving Germany a seat and only having one African one?

What are your arguements for not giving Germany a seat and only having one African one?

Well If you want to take away Frances seat and give it to Germany. Im not opposed to that. But I just dont see how Europe can justify three votes. I would also be up for maybe two seats in Africa. But the council needs to be an odd number for one. Just to break ties if no nations abstain from voting.

...no. German should have a seat, if it wasn't for the fact that they were on the wrong side of WWII. I favor consolidating Britain's, France's, and a hypothetical german seat into one EU seat, but not relevent.

That’s funny. Because I’m for consolidating those countries into one irrelevant seat. :D

Personally, I think they should revamp the Security Council completely. What use is the Security Council now anyways?

Without the security council, dictators who routinely deny basic human rights would have more power that the US.

Thread's been up two hours, and no one's mentioned the plan that will do most to improve prosperity, and security, not to mention human rights.

Dissolve the UN, and sell the place to a property developer.

Adding new members to the SC won't solve the UN's problems (corruption, total lack of accountability, pandering to dictators), in fact they could be made worse (Nigeria for example has a notoriously corrupt government).

Considering the damage the UN has done, I hope that SC reforms help to paralyse the UN, as such, I support more countries on the SC, with vetoes.

Dissolve the UN, and sell the place to a property developer.

Brilliant!

Without the security council, dictators who routinely deny basic human rights would have more power that the US.

Is that really any different from now? You have mass murders in Africa and all they do is nitpick at gitmo...sorry im not even American, in fact im muslim (pro american though) and I can tell the UN is anti-American....though that is understandible..because there are 2 powers in the world...the UN and the US. and the UN sucks more then US.

I think the G4 would settle for a permanent seat sans veto, since I don't see a situation where 3 countries ( + Russia in a way) in Europe having vetos and China will oppose Japan's veto aspirations. US and China are not ready to concede veto to India. Brazil had no chance anyway to begin with since US would never allow another player in their backyard to get a veto.

But this is last chance for fast greying Germany and Japan. If not now, they will lose their only hopes to be a prominent power in the future.

India and Brazil will make it anyway by the sheer size and population and growth potential. If not now, then by another two decades nobody can ignore these two countries. I am not really bothered if India fails to become a veto power at this juncture.

I think the G4 would settle for a permanent seat sans veto, since I don't see a situation where 3 countries ( + Russia in a way) in Europe having vetos and China will oppose Japan's veto aspirations. US and China are not ready to concede veto to India. Brazil had no chance anyway to begin with since US would never allow another player in their backyard to get a veto.

But this is last chance for fast greying Germany and Japan. If not now, they will lose their only hopes to be a prominent power in the future.

India and Brazil will make it anyway by the sheer size and population and growth potential. If not now, then by another two decades nobody can ignore these two countries. I am not really bothered if India fails to become a veto power at this juncture.The veto deal is something Germany for instance is willing to go into, but it seems the US doesn't want any change in the SC and China doesn't want Japan in period.

Well If you want to take away Frances seat and give it to Germany. Im not opposed to that.
:rolleyes:
unless you can justify it somehow...

But I just dont see how Europe can justify three votes.
"Europe" at this point in time is still made up of nationstates - everyone of which (namely Britain, France and Germany) pays a lot of money to the UN. That's the justification.
What's your justification for eliminating these nations from the decisionmaking process?

The veto deal is something Germany for instance is willing to go into, but it seems the US doesn't want any change in the SC and China doesn't want Japan in period.
If I had to make a guess, I have to say the US doesn't want to expand the SC because of the old slippery slope argument.

Why exactly should anyone be given veto power? What is the purpose of it, and why is it fair?

Thread's been up two hours, and no one's mentioned the plan that will do most to improve prosperity, and security, not to mention human rights.

Dissolve the UN, and sell the place to a property developer.

Adding new members to the SC won't solve the UN's problems (corruption, total lack of accountability, pandering to dictators), in fact they could be made worse (Nigeria for example has a notoriously corrupt government).

Considering the damage the UN has done, I hope that SC reforms help to paralyse the UN, as such, I support more countries on the SC, with vetoes.

Actually I would propose that the US simply withdraw from the UN and announce that all current member states were free to stay, however their diplomatic immunity would expire in 8 hours. Then a simple matter of collecting up the rats while they are trying to make their getaway.

Veto = power politics.

Unfair, but that is reflective of the current world order. Well, not the current world order, but the world order as it was after WW II.

http://www.hindu.com/2005/07/13/stories/2005071318651200.htm
23 co-sponsors for G-4 resolution

NEW DELHI: Twenty-three countries — Afghanistan, Belgium, Bhutan, Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, France, Georgia, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Kiribati, Latvia, Maldives, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Ukraine — have been listed as co-sponsors of the G-4 resolution tabled in the United Nations General Assembly on Monday.



It seems that China has played the card of North Korean talks in exchange for a no_change_in_UNSC card.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/Jul/12-58043.html
U.S. Ambassador Tahir-Kheli says time is not yet right for vote :rolleyes:

Proceedings here

http://i-newswire.com/pr35944.html

Actually I would propose that the US simply withdraw from the UN and announce that all current member states were free to stay, however their diplomatic immunity would expire in 8 hours. Then a simple matter of collecting up the rats while they are trying to make their getaway.

The NYPD could collect enough in unpaid traffic tickets to give New Yorkers a 2 year total tax cut!

Chinese general talks of nuking US..

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html
Top Chinese general warns US over attack
By Alexandra Harney in Beijing and Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.


“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”

Gen Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles. But his threat to use nuclear weapons in a conflict over Taiwan is the most specific by a senior Chinese official in nearly a decade.

But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan.

Chas Freeman, a former US assistant secretary of defence, said in 1996 that a PLA official had told him China could respond in kind to a nuclear strike by the US in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. The official is believed to have been Xiong Guangkai, now the PLA's deputy chief of general staff.


US making the right moves !

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050714&fname=seema&sid=1

India can’t count on American support at the United Nations. It is clear that the United States is the latest member of the "Coffee Club" run by its key ally Pakistan and frequented by its rival China. On the eve of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington, the Bush Administration has made a strident statement saying it opposes expansion of the Security Council because it is the wrong move at the wrong time.

The gloves are off and it doesn’t look pretty. Sadly, the Bush Administration’s blow will alienate public opinion in India, a country where a surprising majority supports this administration. In a world where anti-Americanism is on the rise, Indians have found reason to support Bush’s agenda mainly because they saw he was willing to defy conventional wisdom. But by slamming the G-4 resolution (did he know about it?), he has gone back into the box.

If he can’t move forward on an issue with little political cost, what can India expect in areas that require real wrestling and even bureaucratic shoot-outs. How will he push nuclear cooperation with India? Or anything that requires a change in US policy? Singh and Bush have to convert words into action and action into results.

But not the kind of action seen at the United Nations.

Not only did the US oppose the G-4 resolution, it advised others to vote against it. This "opposition plus" policy is surely different from the comforting words of Nick Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, who laboriously walked around the issue, making optimistic noises. So far this columnist read progress in the gradual evolution in the American position, from zero to one with Condoleezza Rice saying in New Delhi earlier this year that India had to be accommodated in international organizations. Then Burns revealed the US was amenable to adding one or maybe two permanent members to the Security Council apart from Japan. He listed the criteria for admission and the criteria seemed to fit India.

But then came the July 12 US statement as delivered by Shirin Tahir-Kheli, a special adviser to Rice on UN reforms. Tahir-Kheli seemed to speak with both ends of her mouth – the US supports expansion but not now, the US considers the G-4 its "friends" but will do everything to oppose their framework resolution, the US is against the proposed ideas but will offer no alternate resolution. Tahir-Kheli, a Pakistani American who has worked for both Bush senior and the current president, categorically declared that no resolution on expansion should be voted upon at this time because it would be divisive, require amending the UN Charter and decrease the efficiency of the Security Council. In other words, it is our way or the highway.

Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran may say he is "not disappointed" because the "US position has been well known for some time," but he is, as are many Indians, by this gratuitous slap. The Bush Administration has shown little flexibility on the issue. It is clear it will not spend political capital to help India’s case. In fact, it has joined the ranks of China and Pakistan – so far the two loudest opponents of reform – to actively block the process and kill the momentum. The reasons given are improbable and incomprehensible. That they need more time -- if 12 years of debate on the issue is not enough, what is? That they want consensus – an impossible demand on a family of 191 nations. That they want an efficient Security Council – efficiency comes when decisions are supported by a larger number of countries. That reforms must be acceptable to the current permanent members – meaning they must serve their interests and not the wider interests.

Manmohan Singh must decide how he will respond to the American manoeuvre as he flies to the US this weekend. He has a lot to think about before he meets and negotiates with Bush. The welcome mat in Washington just shrank. If he goes back with feel-good announcements which require little/no give on the American side, this whole Indo-US dance will start to feel just that. A dance.

The only one I really agree with is Germany. That way, europe is pretty well represented(Certainly, not all countries agree with britain or france). The Veto should be kept to a low number of people, though it is important to keep. India and japan, while growing, still need to prove themselves in important areas. Japan has a pretty weak military, especially for its size, and its resources are low, as they have always been. India's economy, especially for its size, is pretty crappy. To be considered important enough, it really needs to improve there. Brazil, both economic and military.

The only one I really agree with is Germany. That way, europe is pretty well represented(Certainly, not all countries agree with britain or france).


So Europe with 12 % of world's population should have 3 representatives , just because .. luxembourg does not agree with Uk or France ? ;)

India and japan, while growing, still need to prove themselves in important areas.

like ?

Japan has a pretty weak military, especially for its size,

Primarily due to its constitution written by the US.

India's economy, especially for its size, is pretty crappy. To be considered important enough, it really needs to improve there

India recently joined top 10 economies (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/07/13/world.gdp.reut/)

And China had an even crappier economy when it joined UNSC.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/07/13/un.reform.reut/index.html
Annan urges U.N. expansion, reform
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the 15-member Security Council needed to be expanded because it was no longer democratic, despite U.S. warnings the time was not ripe for change.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/13/1120934303989.html?oneclick=true
Japan stands up to US over UN seat
By Mark Coultan
New York
July 14, 2005


G4 countries, including Japan, are thought to almost have the numbers to expand the Security Council.

Japan will press on with its fight to expand the United Nations Security Council, despite a firm rejection by the US yesterday.

Japan, Brazil, Germany and India — the so-called G4 — have introduced a UN resolution to add six permanent seats to the Security Council, but the US yesterday urged the 191 UN member states to reject the proposal.

"We will work with you to achieve enlargement of the Security Council, but only in the right way and at the right time," Shirin Tahir-Kheli, adviser on UN reform to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, told the General Assembly.

"We urge you, therefore, to oppose this resolution and, should it come to a vote, to vote against it."

However, Japan's chief cabinet secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said Tokyo felt the US position was not final and there had been extensive discussions with Dr Rice in Tokyo on Tuesday.

"Many developments are possible, so at this time we don't believe the US way of thinking is fixed," he said. "We, along with the other nations, would like to have it decided soon."

The proposal would expand the council by 10, including six extra permanent seats, from its present five permanent and 10 non-permanent members. It sidesteps the issue of whether new permanent members should have a veto by postponing a decision for 15 years.

The two extra permanent seats would go to Africa, a measure designed to garner support on the continent whose votes could determine the result.

UN observers believe the G4 is close to having the two-thirds majority required to pass the proposal in a General Assembly vote expected next week.

If it succeeds, it would still require two-thirds of the world's parliaments to ratify the change to the UN Charter, a process that could take years.

There would also have to be another UN vote to decide which countries would fill the seats.

Primarily due to its constitution written by the US.

Hey, the Japanese were allowed to... make suggestions ;)
So, just so we're clear, you mean the constitution that says:
CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.


Sorta makes having a large, small, or average army "for its size" a moot point, doesn't it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4677545.stm

I agree with the US.

Why?

Brazil - What makes Brazil a very important country?

India - Probably use the UN security council to invade Pakistan.

Germany - Power hungry?

Japan - Besides the WWII atrocities, consider the island disputes with China and South Korea, Oil disputes, and the textbook that p***ed off many asian countries, especially China.

The so called "G4" wanted the council to be more balanced. But I believe they're out for more power.

India and Brazil need to be given permanent seats immediately. It is a gross imbalance that these two - two of the most important nations on the planet - are not, when Britain and France are.

I agree that if Europe unite there should only be one conjoined seat.

One from each continent, except Asia, which should have both India and China due to it's sheer population size.

So Europe with 12 % of world's population should have 3 representatives...
Right now, Europe is still a set of independent nations. Some of those, like the UK, France and Germany, are among the most important and most powerful in the world. Whether they are from the same region is irrelevant really - and if population is a factor, then I wonder why Indonesia doesn't have a seat just yet.
No, Germany has paid a lot of money to the UN over the years, and always helped when there was something to be done. Denying them a seat on the basis of "there are already to many seats in your region" is stupid.
Otherwise, same goes for Japan (which is probably the biggest problem with the whole China-business).
India - of course!
Brazil - up and coming country with a lot of people, so I say they should get a seat.
Africa - I am for a seat for them, maybe even two. May I suggest Nigeria and Egypt? But they need to decide first, and hurry up with it.

And shouldn't there be a member of the Arab League there as well? With today's situation, their input would be sorely needed in the decision-making process.

Right now, Europe is still a set of independent nations. Some of those, like the UK, France and Germany, are among the most important and most powerful in the world. Whether they are from the same region is irrelevant really - and if population is a factor, then I wonder why Indonesia doesn't have a seat just yet.
No, Germany has paid a lot of money to the UN over the years, and always helped when there was something to be done. Denying them a seat on the basis of "there are already to many seats in your region" is stupid.
Otherwise, same goes for Japan (which is probably the biggest problem with the whole China-business).
India - of course!
Brazil - up and coming country with a lot of people, so I say they should get a seat.
Africa - I am for a seat for them, maybe even two. May I suggest Nigeria and Egypt? But they need to decide first, and hurry up with it.

And shouldn't there be a member of the Arab League there as well? With today's situation, their input would be sorely needed in the decision-making process.

I am not against Germany getting a seat per se. I was commenting on the "The only one I really agree with is Germany. That way, europe is pretty well represented" part.

If Europe should be "pretty well represented" with 3 seats for 12 % Population, who will be representing the 16 % Indians (plus the other south asian countries like SriLanka, Nepal, Bhutan ) and the South Americans and Africans ?

There is no one factor to go by.

Population, economy, military power, position among other nations, contributions to UN , outlook towards world, future potential and I am sure there are more.

-snip-
If the world was to ask me, I would get rid of the Security Council, give nations votes on the basis of population, economical strength and willingness to help implement UN decisions - and then let the majority decide.
That way you get the entire world to say their bit and no single nation can just block something "because they don't feel it's in their political interest".

So Europe with 12 % of world's population should have 3 representatives , just because .. luxembourg does not agree with Uk or France ? ;)



like ?



Primarily due to its constitution written by the US.



India recently joined top 10 economies (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/07/13/world.gdp.reut/)

And China had an even crappier economy when it joined UNSC.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/07/13/un.reform.reut/index.html
Annan urges U.N. expansion, reform
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the 15-member Security Council needed to be expanded because it was no longer democratic, despite U.S. warnings the time was not ripe for change.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/13/1120934303989.html?oneclick=true


Japan, regardless, has a weak military, and while some of the best things come out of it(technology wise), it doesnt have the power to really harm certain countries.

India has a smaller economy than nations with 1/20th of its population. It can work on its GDPPC alot, before it really deserves a UNSC position.

Population isnt the only thing that matters. Europe has many differing, seperate nations.

Japan, regardless, has a weak military, and while some of the best things come out of it(technology wise), it doesnt have the power to really harm certain countries.


Forgive me for asking, are nations to be judged solely on their power to "harm" others?

Japan is a top donor to UN and apart from UN has been a big donor to third world countries and has the second biggest economy and likely to stay there for atleast 3 or 4 decades more.


India has a smaller economy than nations with 1/20th of its population. It can work on its GDPPC alot, before it really deserves a UNSC position.



India is the 4th largest economy in the world on PPP terms. PPP should also be taken into account when evaluating a nation's economy. A dollar gets me more in India than in the US. A person can live a "rich" life in India with a salary of $ 600. You cannot go by GDP in dollar terms alone.

And you forgot the point about China being admitted to UNSC when its economy was even crappier.


Population isnt the only thing that matters. Europe has many differing, seperate nations.

Is it other nation's problems that Europe is fragmented?

For ex, India has roughly the same land mass of western Europe and despite Europe like diversity has managed to stay a single nation.

There is something fundamentally wrong in more than a billion people ( 1/6 th) going unrepresented in a global forum.

updates,
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_1738091,00.html

'Africa is flexible on UN'

United Nations - Africa is willing to compromise on expanding the United Nations Security Council, Nigeria's foreign minister said, clearing room for a deal with four nations seeking permanent seats on the powerful decision-making body.

Oluyemi Adeniji's comments on Thursday exposed a sharp public rift between some African nations and Algeria, whose UN ambassador, Abdallah Baali, took the floor of the General Assembly on Tuesday and angrily said Africa would not compromise on its vision for council reform.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4677545.stm

I agree with the US.

Why?

Brazil - What makes Brazil a very important country?

India - Probably use the UN security council to invade Pakistan.

Germany - Power hungry?

Japan - Besides the WWII atrocities, consider the island disputes with China and South Korea, Oil disputes, and the textbook that p***ed off many asian countries, especially China.

The so called "G4" wanted the council to be more balanced. But I believe they're out for more power.


Actually, about 5 years ago, the idea came to me that the UN Security council should be expanded to 21 total members, and add Japan and Germany as permanent members with veto powers. I mean, after all, the only reason that they're NOT permanent members is because they were on the losing end of the WWII stick.

But as far as the points you made on the following countries...

Brazil: Brazil is the leader of South America...there are NO South American countries with any status on the SC, so adding Brazil would simply help bring balance to the Security Council.

India: You can't "use the security council to invade." You simply can't. India would have just as much chance of using the security council to invade Pakistan irregardless of SC status. Fact of the matter is, the United States (not to mention, SC perms) would simply Veto India's motion...because the US is currently getting assistance (minimal, but assistance nonetheless) from the Pakis (yes, I realize there is no such thing as Pakistan is a mixture of 4 different ethnicities...) in the war on terror. If someone is going to invade Pakistan, it's going to be the US, and you can't change that (even if you removed the US from the SC). So....India can't harm the Security Council...I'm not entirely convinced they'd have something to add however.

Germany: World leader...should've been added in 1945.

Japan: See Germany.

Germany: World leader...should've been added in 1945.

Yes. That would have been peachy.

Aside from the fact that they were currently being "occupied" by four nations and weren't really a nation until 1989, they had already been the primary "enemy" of two world wars, one which they had just started not years after pulling out of the League of Nations.

1945, no. 2005, yes.

In my most humble of opinions....

The UN is and will continue to be the most retarded organization to ever hit the face of the Earth. Since it's inception, I will agree that the idea behind a global, unified body of nation-states is something we need more of, not less. While I am very proud to be a citizen of the United States, it pains me to see us having to invade Iraq for causes both just and unjust.

In my opinion, we should have backed down when the UN gave the no-go on the war. In my opinion, however, the UN should not have given the no-go. Hell, in my opinion, the UN should have said, "We'll do it," because it should have an army. It should have the best equipped military in the world, receiving a fair share of cash from ALL nations, not Daddy Sambucks in the US.

Sanctions are not an adequate punishment. Saddam Hussein made $28 million when the UN stuck sanctions on Iraq. Sanctions are the worst damn "punishment" I've ever heard. For one, it's far too easy for UN leaders to stick sanctions on a country, and then delude themselves into thinking, "Boy, we suuure got them." They didn't. Saddam Hussein continued his acts... and made $28 million more whilst doing so.

Then, completely omitting the fact that we were going to remove a known tyrannical dictator who has committed verifiable acts of genocide, the "human rights guardian" of the Earth slaps the US request to invade Iraq down. Gee. I love this planet.

I would support the introduction of anything that brings both independance and balance to the UN, both of which it desperately needs. What kind of world do we live in where countries can join the UN but simply ignore the policies they don't like? The fact is, the UN should have been the driving force behind the Iraq war, not the US and UK, and that should only have been considered as a course of action after an extended period of negociation to attempt to resolve the situation without having to kill anyone.

The fact that voting in the UN is disproportionate to the number of citizens per country could be viewed as a good thing, as it prevents any loony big countries from passing crazy bills that would not benefit other countries.

The UN is a very complex issue but it is certain that to survive it must have more power to enforce the Acts it passes in member countries. Only then will the world be fairer.

Europe is not a federated country.
Throughout history, European countries have been totally different and independent from each other, fighting against each other and otherwise having huge disagreements. London and Paris are only 300 kilometres away from each other (186 in the old measure) - that's like Sydney to Newcastle. Newcastle is on Sydney's CityRail network, shares Sydney's fibre-optic network and the two cities sometimes share water when one is short and the other is in excess. London and Paris have very different languages, have been waring against each other for millennia and have different races of people.
This goes for most European countries. The differences between European countries are deep-rooted and diverse. Having a "Europe" seat on the Security Council is pure stupidity.

I think the U.N. is a great thing, and just because it requires the U.S. to recognise that it isn't its own universe and has to share this planet with other countries with different belief structures, doesn't mean it should be dissolved and ignored.
International diplomacy is the only way to achieve some level of international peace and overcome environmental and social problems in the world. It should not be ignored simply because it tries to stop America from being the global bully it is.
All countries should have a strong representation in the U.N., with the top 10 in the world a greater level of representation, as per the Security Council. The countries represented in the Security Council should be held to greater responsibility for their actions on a global level than non Security Council countries, not less.
EVERY conflict between two (or more) countries should be taken to the United Nations and sorted out through humanoid talking and problem-solving, not lower primate-esque beating your opponent over the head with a large stick.

I don't think China should have a seat on the Security Council. China is the only developed country on Earth that would be more irresponsible and dangerous as a global superpower than the U.S. If they clean up their act and demonstrate a commitment to workable and corruption-free communism, then they could be a valuable member of the Security Council. As it stands, countries like China are the reason the Security Council is so important in global politics.

So Europe with 12 % of world's population should have 3 representatives , just because .. luxembourg does not agree with Uk or France ? ;)

Four. Russia.

I think the U.N. is a great thing, and just because it requires the U.S. to recognise that it isn't its own universe and has to share this planet with other countries with different belief structures, doesn't mean it should be dissolved and ignored.

There are people arguing that Europe needs four representatives on the Security Council while three entire continents and 1 billion people on a subcontinent need no representation, and you say that the US needs to recognize that it isn't its own universe?

There are people arguing that Europe needs four representatives on the Security Council while three entire continents and 1 billion people on a subcontinent need no representation, and you say that the US needs to recognize that it isn't its own universe?
Who argues for Germany but against India?

I really don't know how much good these additions will do. If you give that many more nations the ultra-abused veto power, you're just bringing that many more agendas to the table. Brazil is not devoid of conflict or dispuites nor is India or Japan.

You've also got the problem of WW2 history, and the nations that have not yet forgiven and forgotten. It may sound bad, but it is a very real consideration. China is VERY likely to take offense if Japan is admitted.

If there was some way of getting rid of the whole damn veto system without destroying the balance of power on the council, there'd be something to talk about. As it is, its highly likely the the security council would become even less effective, with so many more potential vetos out there, SOMEONES toes will be stepped on, and there will be a veto.

-snip-
Under the most likely plan to be implemented, the new permanent members wouldn't have a veto, right?

Under the most likely plan to be implemented, the new permanent members wouldn't have a veto, right?

Hm...I'm not familiar with any new developments in that regard. Perhaps so.

Again, the problem lies with the existing vetos as much as any new ones. Adding 20 new members won't make a difference if one can wave a wand and it all disappears.

Its just an ineffective body right now. Perhaps it should at least be ineffecient, considering its supposed to be a council of widely divergent interests strugging to agree on which member's dirty laundry is the most smelly...

Under the most likely plan to be implemented, the new permanent members wouldn't have a veto, right?Under the most likely plan to be implemented, there won't be any new members... the only "plan" there is would grant veto powers to the new permanent members, but Germany for instance is willing to accept not getting one. There was a proposal not to use the new veto powers for 7 or 10 years, but no favorable reaction came out of it.

-snip-
Hmmm, looks like you're right. Oh, well.
I for my part can't wait to see how the various Veto-Powers are going to wriggle themselves out of this...

Hmmm, looks like you're right. Oh, well.
I for my part can't wait to see how the various Veto-Powers are going to wriggle themselves out of this...
If you mean the P5 ones, the US is just going to block the whole thing and blame it on the UN for not reforming. Unless Merkel gets elected. Then Bush might let it happen, though I'd think that would be a pretty high price to pay for a permanent seat... :(

Who argues for Germany but against India?

Didn't someone argue that Germany and Japan should get seats, but not India and Brazil, based on their economies? Maybe I'm thinking of a different thread; there have been like five on this subject, after all.

Didn't someone argue that Germany and Japan should get seats, but not India and Brazil, based on their economies? Maybe I'm thinking of a different thread; there have been like five on this subject, after all.
Nah, I think it's the same one that just doesn't want to die.

Nah, I think it's the same one that just doesn't want to die.

I seem to recall a significantly longer one.

I seem to recall a significantly longer one.
I could be wrong, of course... for once in my life :p

I could be wrong, of course... for once in my life :p

I've been known to be wrong on the rare occasion as well.

So...the objective of the rejections is to keep the SC filled with only those with nukes? :rolleyes: so, let's just make it equal and add Israel... [/sarcasm]

The SC would be better served without the US on it, especially since the US doesn't follow the UN on rulings - read: "anti-American". If North American needs representation; send Canada and Mexico... :D

But from those recommended?

I see no problem with Germany and Japan. They are signficant world powers.

And South American and Africa are both lacking SC represenation...

The SC would be better served without the US on it, especially since the US doesn't follow the UN on rulings



/agree

The suggestion that France and Britain should have their seats amalgamated into a single EU seat made me laugh out loud. Britain and France are two completely different states, and the suggeston that they could somehow share power is absurd.

Americans please note: There is no such thing as a European identity, or consensus. They are things that are fantasised about by EU commisioners, and have no basis in reality.

Forgive me for asking, are nations to be judged solely on their power to "harm" others?

Japan is a top donor to UN and apart from UN has been a big donor to third world countries and has the second biggest economy and likely to stay there for atleast 3 or 4 decades more.


Not ability to harm, but their power. If you recieve a place on the UN security council, you really should have the ability to project your power unto others.


India is the 4th largest economy in the world on PPP terms. PPP should also be taken into account when evaluating a nation's economy. A dollar gets me more in India than in the US. A person can live a "rich" life in India with a salary of $ 600. You cannot go by GDP in dollar terms alone.

Watch me

And you forgot the point about China being admitted to UNSC when its economy was even crappier.

I thought I had replied to it. Well, that was 1945, this is 2005. I dont care what happened 60 years, I care about whats happening now. If you want to be in the UNSC, you need to be a big player in world politics. Germany barely makes it, with a strong army, strong economy, etc. Force projection is weak, but all four of those suggested have weak power projection.


Is it other nation's problems that Europe is fragmented?

It doesnt matter who's "fault" it is. India isn't going to represent pretty much anybody but india. Pakistan hates them, southeast asia, afaik, isnt exactly buddy-buddy with them. I dont see India being seriously under-represented. Asia already has two UNSC members. Europe has many different countries, and germany would well represent the ones who are under-represented.

[QUOTE=Aryavartha]For ex, India has roughly the same land mass of western Europe and despite Europe like diversity has managed to stay a single nation.

Landmass and population aren't the only important things.

There is something fundamentally wrong in more than a billion people ( 1/6 th) going unrepresented in a global forum.

They arent unrepresented. They have their delegation. They just aren't worthy of a veto power.

So...the objective of the rejections is to keep the SC filled with only those with nukes? :rolleyes: so, let's just make it equal and add Israel... [/sarcasm]

The SC would be better served without the US on it, especially since the US doesn't follow the UN on rulings - read: "anti-American". If North American needs representation; send Canada and Mexico... :D

Not a bad idea at all. The US should resign its seat on the SC and its membership in the UN, kick them out of NYC and let them find some base in Geneva or Brussels. Then we'll truly see how relevant the United Nations is in the world today. To compensate for the abrupt departure of its sponsor, Israel should be given a SC veto so it can protect itself from the rampant anti-Zionism at the UN. Or maybe it should just pick up and leave as well. Who needs the UN?

Not ability to harm, but their power. If you recieve a place on the UN security council, you really should have the ability to project your power unto others.

<snip>

all four of those suggested have weak power projection.


Per your argument, what is France's ability to project power and when has it seriously intervened in any conflict after WW II ?


It doesnt matter who's "fault" it is. India isn't going to represent pretty much anybody but india. Pakistan hates them, southeast asia, afaik, isnt exactly buddy-buddy with them. I dont see India being seriously under-represented. Asia already has two UNSC members. Europe has many different countries, and germany would well represent the ones who are under-represented.


:rolleyes:

Pretty much half of the world hates America. So?

Somebody will always be hating somebody. Look into the reasons. Cuba's hatred of US does not make Cuba's objections to US legitimate. Chinese paranoia about Japan does not , in itself, make Chinese objections on Japan legitimate.

Asia has 44 countries and assorted island dependencies.
Europe has 46 countries, and a few dependencies, territories and regions.

Russia is primarily a European power. Other than owning barren wastelands of Asian Tundra and physical borders with many Asian countries it has little in common with Asian culture, society etc. Russians are not considered Asians.

Thus according to you 46 countries of Europe should have 3 (+Russia) seats whilst Asia should have 1 seat ( Commie China) ?

Per your argument, what is France's ability to project power and when has it seriously intervened in any conflict after WW II ?

France has the third strongest navy in the world, after USA and Russia. It has a large air transport and naval transportation sector. Not comparable to US, but few people are these days. Relative to most other nations, France has a very capable power projection, especially with its airforce.

France has intervened in:Indochina, Algeria, Korea, Gulf war 1, multiple african countries including somalia, afghanistan, etc. To be fair, it only had a few hundred in korea, but it has Algeria. Since ww2, how much more has any nation been in war? Russians in afghanistan, US in vietnam, French in Algeria and Indochina... Chinese in korea, you could say. None of the ones suggested to be in have really been in conflict, except maybe india(not sure just how hot things have gotten between them and pakistan since ww2).

Asia has 44 countries and assorted island dependencies.
Europe has 46 countries, and a few dependencies, territories and regions.

Russia is primarily a European power. Other than owning barren wastelands of Asian Tundra and physical borders with many Asian countries it has little in common with Asian culture, society etc. Russians are not considered Asians.

Thus according to you 46 countries of Europe should have 3 (+Russia) seats whilst Asia should have 1 seat ( Commie China) ?

No. Russia is Asian. So europe would have 3/4, and Asia would have 1/2. If you want another asian one, fine. But not India. For true representation, there should be a Middle eastern UNSC member before india. Iran maybe, or Saudi Arabia.

or Saudi Arabia

YAY.

:headbang:

I am sorry to have engaged you. Please carry on.

Well If you want to take away Frances seat and give it to Germany. Im not opposed to that.cant take away...

Russia is Asian :headbang:

They just aren't worthy of a veto power.

In who's opinion? The opinion of someone WITH veto. Well that's great...

Why not abolish vetos full stop?

Oh, yeah, it wouldn't let you knock out everything you didn't like. Understand this if nothing else. Majority rule. If it's good enough that 51 can terrorize 49 in your country the world can do it too.