NationStates Jolt Archive

Lately, I've heard a lot of discussion on the United Nations, how it needs to be reformed, given more power, have power taken away, etc. But I want to foucs on just one issue (one that I feel is pretty neutral), and that is what should be done with the Security Council. Many people argue that it should be expanded to include more nations and/or that there should be more equitable representation of Security Council members. Personally, I know very little about this topic and hope that some [intelligent] discussion will yield some educational insight on this issue.

Simple summary: France wants Germany in, American doesn't, America wants Japan in, China doesn't. Nothing's going to change.

The security council was created to give the 5 major victors or WWII (the US, England, China, Russia, and France) a seat of power over the general UN. As the UN has grown, the position of these five over the rest of the world has grown as they have veto power in matters of UN military engagements. However, since WWII, the world has changed and certain members of the original five no longer have the political influence that they once did, and are less powerful overall than members not on the council. Attempts to reconcile this are what has caused conflict.

My ideal Security Council: None.

My more realistic Security Council: Add the Indians, the Germans, the Japanese and the Brazilians. Also someone from Africa, preferrably the Egyptians (they'd also represent the Arab World at the same time). Abandon the Vetoes.

My ideal Security Council: None.

My more realistic Security Council: Add the Indians, the Germans, the Japanese and the Brazilians. Also someone from Africa, preferrably the Egyptians (they'd also represent the Arab World at the same time). Abandon the Vetoes.

:D

My ideal Security Council: None.
We agree! :eek:
But probably for different reasons....

I suspect the key decision will be whether it's India, Japan, India and Japan, or India/Japan (alternating spells) who get the next permanent seat.

My more realistic Security Council: Add the Indians, the Germans, the Japanese and the Brazilians. Also someone from Africa, preferrably the Egyptians (they'd also represent the Arab World at the same time). Abandon the Vetoes.

i have to say "pip pip" to that one, best realistic idea i've heard about security council yet

:D
Hey, you deserve it, and in 50 years, the country will be an important power anyways.

Hey, you deserve it, and in 50 years, the country will be an important power anyways.

already is, i'd say. it's one of the most/the very most politically powerful countries in a region that's becoming more and more independant from big-power domination. brazil's a player, no "will be" about it :D

My ideal Security Council: None.

My more realistic Security Council: Add the Indians, the Germans, the Japanese and the Brazilians. Also someone from Africa, preferrably the Egyptians (they'd also represent the Arab World at the same time). Abandon the Vetoes.

An interesting plan, though I would question your additions. The Indians make sense (nuclear power with a HUGE population and a strong economy) for a permanant seat, as do the Japanese (important country economically, and a good balance against China). Adding Brazil (or really, any of the South American countries) seems a bit too inclusive as none of these countries are really the kind of major powers that already sit on the council. The same goes for adding an African nation. Adding German seems like grasping at the past. Germany was once a major world power, and it is still a player, but Europe is already well represented on the council. Any more European nations on the council would start to look like imperialism to the rest of the world.

As for Arab representation on the security council, I don't really think thats a good idea. First, any plan to put an Arab nation on the council would end with Israel whining its way in, too. Second, there is something to be said for having one's own house in order before you get to move up in power. Much of the Arab world is still in the developing stage. The economy of the region is at best a one trick pony and at worst severely criminal (look at the problems that Syria and Saudi Arabia have with human trafficking). There is also the problem of major political instability in the region that does not look to be letting up any time in the near future. Finally, the security council is supposed to be about major military powers stepping up to ensure the security of the world. With the exception of Pakistan, there are no major military powers in the Arab world and alot of the leaders of those nations are complacent in the activities of those who are not interested in peace or security.

You'll never get rid of the vetoes, they're too politically important. Russia and China want veto powers so they can keep the international community out of their backyards. The United States wants veto powers because they can be compelling political leverage. France and the UK both want veto powers because they feel (and I can't say wrongly) that they won the war, they built the system, and thus they've earned far more influence than say, whatever Congo is calling itself this week.

Hey, you deserve it, and in 50 years, the country will be an important power anyways.
already is, i'd say. it's one of the most/the very most politically powerful countries in a region that's becoming more and more independant from big-power domination. brazil's a player, no "will be" about it :D

Aww, you guys are so nice! :D *blushes*

already is, i'd say. it's one of the most/the very most politically powerful countries in a region that's becoming more and more independant from big-power domination. brazil's a player, no "will be" about it :D

I hate to say it but...big fish in a small pond. Look at the political power of the nations currently on the security council. France represents one of the two driving forces of the EU, the UK is one of the major powers in Europe. Even fractured, Russia is a serious player by virtue of nuclear force, natural resources, and sheer land mass. The US is the most powerful nation in the world. China is likely the second most powerful, and it is definately THE preeminent power in Asia (stronger than India, Russia, or Japan). Other countries that are being considered are all not only serious players in their region, but major players in the world. Germany hold tremendous power and influence in the EU, India is a new nuclear power that is likely to challenge China's dominance of the region within two decades, Japan is a major economic power. Brazil, while strong in it's region, hasn't yet reached the status of "major world power." Maybe 10 or 15 years out, but not quite yet.

Adding Brazil (or really, any of the South American countries) seems a bit too inclusive as none of these countries are really the kind of major powers that already sit on the council. The same goes for adding an African nation.
Maybe we have a different idea what the Security Council is supposed to do. I reckon if anything it should constitute a representation of the interests of humanity, power or not. That means that excluding entire continents is not a viable option.
But that's idealism speaking.

Adding German seems like grasping at the past. Germany was once a major world power, and it is still a player, but Europe is already well represented on the council. Any more European nations on the council would start to look like imperialism to the rest of the world.
Outside the US as well?
Fact of the matter is that Germany forks out a lot of money, and has a very good record as far as commitment to the UN is concerned.
And since neither Britain nor France are likely to give up their seat in favour of an EU one (which I would support), I think Germany should be on there.

With the exception of Pakistan, there are no major military powers in the Arab world and alot of the leaders of those nations are complacent in the activities of those who are not interested in peace or security.
Hmm, so Pakistan and India in the Council?

Maybe we have a different idea what the Security Council is supposed to do. I reckon if anything it should constitute a representation of the interests of humanity, power or not. That means that excluding entire continents is not a viable option.
But that's idealism speaking.

Likely the case. When it comes to world politics, I'm more of a realist/pragmatist. Sure, every continent holding hands to protect humanity would be wonderful, but it ain't gonna happen. C'mon, were talking about an organization that held a human rights summit in Tunis...

Outside the US as well?
Fact of the matter is that Germany forks out a lot of money, and has a very good record as far as commitment to the UN is concerned.
And since neither Britain nor France are likely to give up their seat in favour of an EU one (which I would support), I think Germany should be on there.

I think it would be more appropriate for Germany to hold France's seat but, again, ain't gonna happen.

Hmm, so Pakistan and India in the Council?

Well, whichever one wins the cold war they're posturing for. Three fast growing semi-expansionist powers like India, China, and Pakistan cannot survive next to eachother, at least someone is going to have to fold.

I hate to say it but...big fish in a small pond. Look at the political power of the nations currently on the security council. France represents one of the two driving forces of the EU, the UK is one of the major powers in Europe. Even fractured, Russia is a serious player by virtue of nuclear force, natural resources, and sheer land mass. The US is the most powerful nation in the world. China is likely the second most powerful, and it is definately THE preeminent power in Asia (stronger than India, Russia, or Japan). Other countries that are being considered are all not only serious players in their region, but major players in the world. Germany hold tremendous power and influence in the EU, India is a new nuclear power that is likely to challenge China's dominance of the region within two decades, Japan is a major economic power. Brazil, while strong in it's region, hasn't yet reached the status of "major world power." Maybe 10 or 15 years out, but not quite yet.

o.0 We're asphyxiating?