NationStates Jolt Archive

Are the current UN Security Council arrangements really fair in a twenty first century world? At present, the 'big five' nations (China, France, Russia, UK, US) have a permanent presence on the Council. But these are arrangements that have their basis in the aftermath of the Second World War; the end of Imperialism and the beginning of the Cold War.

Can they still be justified today, when so many other nations might claim to be powers? Why are Britain and France, for example, considered to be more important than India, a country with a population many times their combined size? Is it right that any nation has a permanent veto over the will of the International community?

Perhaps it is time for fundamental reform of the UN.

Scrap the whole UN while we're at it. Replace it with the League of Nations (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2003/12/03/160324.html) (see explanation in link)

Replace it with the League of Nations (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2003/12/03/160324.html) (see explanation in link)
Because the League of Nations was honest about catering to superpowers? :confused:

The UN needs reforming, not removing.

And having the five biggest arms dealers in the world making up the security council is screwed up.

Because the League of Nations was honest about catering to superpowers? :confused:
No...it permits entrance upon the member nations meeting certain criteria, as opposed to the UN which has no criteria for entry whatsoever. Thus the potential applicant nations have to improve their criteria (democratic rights and the like) to in order to enter.

No...it permits entrance upon the member nations meeting certain criteria, as opposed to the UN which has no criteria for entry whatsoever. Thus the potential applicant nations have to improve their criteria (democratic rights and the like) to in order to enter.

So that you can only enter the conversation if you pretty much agree with everyone else. Seems a touch pointless.

So that you can only enter the conversation if you pretty much agree with everyone else. Seems a touch pointless.
Yes, and no. The only thing you have to agree on is a committment to democratic rights (ok, so rotating the Human Rights Cmte helps prevent abuse, but it's a touch pointless itself if the thing is at one point headed by nations like China, Libya, and Suday)

Scrap the whole UN while we're at it. Replace it with the League of Nations (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2003/12/03/160324.html) (see explanation in link)

History Lesson: The League of Nations withered away because- surprise- the United States wanted to be More Equal than others. As long as countries wants to dominate the world politics then no global symposium will ever be effective in the long term.

History Lesson: The League of Nations withered away because- surprise- the United States wanted to be More Equal than others. As long as countries wants to dominate the world politics then no global symposium will ever be effective in the long term.
There are times though, when it seems like the UN isn't even trying to be global - I honestly can't think how, if it does think of itself that way, it defends the status of the permanent members. If every nation is sovereign and equal, then why, as you say, should some be considered 'more equal than others?'

Are the current UN Security Council arrangements really fair in a twenty first century world? At present, the 'big five' nations (China, France, Russia, UK, US) have a permanent presence on the Council. But these are arrangements that have their basis in the aftermath of the Second World War; the end of Imperialism and the beginning of the Cold War.

Can they still be justified today, when so many other nations might claim to be powers? Why are Britain and France, for example, considered to be more important than India, a country with a population many times their combined size? Is it right that any nation has a permanent veto over the will of the International community?

Perhaps it is time for fundamental reform of the UN.
I agree; it's silly that the permanent security council is still the victory parade from WWII. France should be replaced by Brazil and the UK should be replaced by Germany. India should be added. I say Germany because I want a permanent EU prescense there.

I agree; it's silly that the permanent security council is still the victory parade from WWII. France should be replaced by Brazil and the UK should be replaced by Germany. India should be added. I say Germany because I want a permanent EU prescense there.
By surely you're just replacing one set of nations who don't really have any more of a right to a permanent presence than everyone else with another set of nations? Why not remove permanent members altogether, and make the current members rotate with everyone else?

Incidently, if we're just going to replace the nations on the Council, I would say that Russia should really come out as well.

History Lesson: The League of Nations withered away because- surprise- the United States wanted to be More Equal than others. As long as countries wants to dominate the world politics then no global symposium will ever be effective in the long term.

Dead wrong. The League fell because it was utterly inept.

The League of Nations had no power whatsoever to enforce it's rulings. This was demonstrated by Mussolini when he invaded Ethiopia. The Italians had a relatively weak, untrained force - but they were a modern army against a third world nation.

Had any major power stepped in, Italy would have been stopped. But the League couldn't even convince it's members to put economic sanctions on.

The US never joined the League of Nations, but neither did it ever do anything against it. The US was in one of it's insular periods, and pretty much ignoring the rest of the world.

The US never joined the League of Nations, but neither did it ever do anything against it. The US was in one of it's insular periods, and pretty much ignoring the rest of the world.
Don't tell me you expect something to function when the guys who innitiated it leave it from the very beginning! Look it up: America changed principles of interntl. relations, and then retreated into the 19th century - leaving everyone at it.
Plus, the Italians had been tripping the League system since the Trieste-"Carnaro" thingie - the Treatty of Rapallo was the first major sham, and they did it only because no one was watching them. Also note that the first out-in-the-open aggressor not to be sanctioned by the League system was Turkey, way back in 1923. All these early things are connected with, of several things, America voting itself out.

And having the five biggest arms dealers in the world making up the security council is screwed up.

Bad logic. At least three of the major arms dealers on the council(the US, Russia, and China) are major arms producers because they are major military powers, export of military technology is an economic side effect of that status. As far as I know, neither Britain nor France produce much in the way of small arms.

Still, having the big five as major voices in the UN makes sense. The US, Russia, and China have a disproportionate amount of power because they are major military players whose influence extends far beyond their own borders. When it comes to security in Asia, China is a larger factor than Brunei or Laos. France and the UK also deserve a greater degree of influence on the council because they are major sources of manpower for UN peacekeeping missions.

I agree; it's silly that the permanent security council is still the victory parade from WWII. France should be replaced by Brazil and the UK should be replaced by Germany. India should be added. I say Germany because I want a permanent EU prescense there.

You know, I've heard that before and it has always made me wonder, why Brazil? As a nation it isn't particularily influential in international politics, it doesn't have an unusually strong military, what makes it special? I understand that it is one of the more stable South America nations but I still don't understand why it deserves a spot more than say, Mexico.

By surely you're just replacing one set of nations who don't really have any more of a right to a permanent presence than everyone else with another set of nations? Why not remove permanent members altogether, and make the current members rotate with everyone else?

Because all nation aren't equal. Unlike the rest of the UN, the security council wields a fair amount of power. Having Libia heading the Human Rights council might be a farce, but having that same country even on the Security Council without some kind of controls in place could be a disaster. Permanent members of the security council exist to make the council less likely to do something drastic. When it comes to international policy, ALL of the permanent members are quite conservative. The veto power wielded by each of those members makes security council actions likely only in cases of broad support.

Incidently, if we're just going to replace the nations on the Council, I would say that Russia should really come out as well.

I'd be tempted to agree if it wasn't for the fact that Russia's new turn towards totalitarianism is likely to make them a bit more stable and a lot more powerful over the next few decades.