NationStates Jolt Archive

Please, let's not turn this into another pro- or anti-UN tirade. I simply want to know, what does NSG think on the issue? Should more permanent members be added to the Security Council, and if so, how many, and who?

yes.

let us add Japan and India to the list if permanent members.

No. It should be eliminated. No single nation should have veto power.

Very much yes.

Japan, India and Germany all should be added.

No. It should be eliminated. No single nation should have veto power.

*laughs at the UN having "power"*

No. It should be eliminated. No single nation should have veto power.

QFT

*laughs at the UN having "power"*

Could someone who has knowledge of what all the U.N. does please inform Steel Butterfly why this laughter is inappropriate?

As for my opinion, I agree with Jello man: no nation should have veto power.

Could someone who has knowledge of what all the U.N. does please inform Steel Butterfly why this laughter is inappropriate?

As for my opinion, I agree with Jello man: no nation should have veto power.

Question is how well is taking away veto power going to go over with the current security council. They would simply veto that amendment.

The veto power is important because it insures the involvement and cooperation of the more powerful countries. Without it they would have very little reason to involve themselves in the UN. Many of them would leave, it would only take a couple leaving to lower the sense of legitimacy the UN has, and more countries would go their separate ways, very similar to what happened to the League of Nations. The list does need to be updated though, there are more powerful countries which deserve inclusion. As the number grows the veto will become more of a hindrance as more countries have the power to use it, and it will need to be revamped. However the more powerful countries should still recieve a benefit, even a substantial benefit.

Could someone who has knowledge of what all the U.N. does please inform Steel Butterfly why this laughter is inappropriate?

Yes, please "inform" me. :rolleyes:

The U.N. does many wonders such as make peace in Iraq, ohh and Israel too they've done a wonderful job there and finally Darfur that must be applauded, if they were any more effective they might save someone.

P.S. I love the idea of the UN, but the nations like mine (US) are so scared of losing national soverignty, that it's become seemingly useless and when they do act they never act with enough force to do anything but put their own soldiers at risk from my small amount of knowledge from classes.
I won't take offense to being corrected,
and sorry I don't know enough about who should have veto powers, but Japan and India and Germany all seem fine choices to give veto power too.
QUOTE: "Could someone who has knowledge of what all the U.N. does please inform Steel Butterfly why this laughter is inappropriate?

As for my opinion, I agree with Jello man: no nation should have veto power."

Question is how well is taking away veto power going to go over with the current security council. They would simply veto that amendment.

...I have no idea. I was simply weighing in on my opinion, not suggesting alternatives.

Steel: I would, but I've not educated myself on what all the U.N. does, hence the request for someone else to do so, as I believe you are one of those Americans who seems to have this odd idea in their head that the U.N. is compeltely useless. Am I correct?

Steel: I would, but I've not educated myself on what all the U.N. does, hence the request for someone else to do so, as I believe you are one of those Americans who seems to have this odd idea in their head that the U.N. is compeltely useless. Am I correct?

I think claiming one extreme or another is rather ignorant. Nothing is either perfect or ultimately worthless. "Useless" is the wrong term. "Ineffective" or perhaps "Corrupt" would be better.

The U.N. is a decent idea, and they do some decent humanitarian work, but ultimately they hold little real power or influence. It's just another choaking beaurocracy in the modern world.

I'd like to see Japan, Germany, India or Brazil added, or even all four...

...too bad it will never happen.

I'd like to see Japan, Germany, India or Brazil added, or even all four...

...too bad it will never happen.

Why wouldn't it? If the Security Council is to remain, all four of those countries would be wonderful additions. We should add Iran while we're at it.

China would never stand for either India or Japan getting a permenant seat as they are it's main rivals for regional power and influence and only fool empowers his enemies (they aren't enemies in the conventional snse, but there's no love lost and they are rivals). Hell, most of Pacific nations would freak out if Japan was seriously offered such power, the hatred for Japan in that region is truly remarkable.

I don't see why any of those nominated here deserve to have a veto vs many other countries....why Japan? vs S Korea....Germany why not Italy?...Brazil better than Argentina?...India better than Pakistan?

IMO if the UN is ever to be an effective world body the Veto needs to be eliminated and countries need to abide by it's rules and resolutions...

China would never stand for either India or Japan getting a permenant seat as they are it's main rivals for regional power and influence and only fool empowers his enemies (they aren't enemies in the conventional snse, but there's no love lost and they are rivals). Hell, most of Pacific nations would freak out if Japan was seriously offered such power, the hatred for Japan in that region is truly remarkable.

And not unjustly deserved either, as we all know from our history. But that's all in the past right now. What we need is to get more of the powerful countries involved with U.N. activities and, as stated, one of the only ways to do that right now is through the Security Council. Frankly I'd love it if the veto power was dissolved, but until we have a better way of keeping them interested, it's what we have to use.

Socialist: As stated, it's due to their power, be it economic, militarily, or both. It's a method of keeping them interested, as the U.N. doesn't exactly offer them as much as it should. Really, it should be its own body, with its own military and government and all that, rather than the patched up confederation it is right now, but we need the interest of all the powerful countries for anything like that to be even possible.

I don't see why any of those nominated here deserve to have a veto vs many other countries....why Japan? vs S Korea....Germany why not Italy?...Brazil better than Argentina?...India better than Pakistan?

IMO if the UN is ever to be an effective world body the Veto needs to be eliminated and countries need to abide by it's rules and resolutions...

That's exactly why veto power is there (that and as a reward for winning WWII). The UN isn't a world government and was enver meant to be one regardless of what the Tin Foil Hat Brigade and the far left would have you believe. It was meant to be a forum where nations could resolve their differences through diplomacy, unfortunately the rampant corruption and moral bankruptcy (regardless of what the UN says dictatorships like Cuba or Zimbabwe are not the equals to democracies like New Zealand or Belgium) have rendered it largely impotent. Besides, adding more vetoes means even less gets done because now the UNSC can't act against the interests of another nation. One reason the UN has failed to act in Darfur is that China, Russia, and France all have a vested interest in keeping the current Sudanese government in power and don't want sanctions or troops

China, Russia, and France all have a vested interest in keeping the current Sudanese government in power and don't want sanctions or troops

...wait, what? What possible interests could any of them have in keeping the current Sudanese government in power?

Only if veto power is removed, otherwise it'll get even less done.

If we add India we should add Pakistan.. If we add Brazil we should add Argentina. etc etc.

So here is my revised list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries#A)...

Only if veto power is removed, otherwise it'll get even less done.yes.. we need to kiss the stupid "veto" good-bye.

...wait, what? What possible interests could any of them have in keeping the current Sudanese government in power?

China is the single largest investor in Sudanese oil fields and Idoubt they want those rights threatened.
Russia is Sudan's single largest arms supplier and given how dependent they are on arms sales for hard currency.
France is less inclined, the main reason being that French oil giant Total controls Sudan's single largest oil field.

Bear in mind these aren't the only reasons no action has been taken in Darfur, but to claim they don't influence things would be wrong.

China is the single largest investor in Sudanese oil fields and Idoubt they want those rights threatened.
Russia is Sudan's single largest arms supplier and given how dependent they are on arms sales for hard currency.
France is less inclined, the main reason being that French oil giant Total controls Sudan's single largest oil field.

Bear in mind these aren't the only reasons no action has been taken in Darfur, but to claim they don't influence things would be wrong.

...Sudan has oil fields?

I really need to read up on Africa more often, huh?

Well, I can understand Russia's position at least, but you'd think that China and France would have more of an interest in keeping the country stable to protect their interests. Having a stable, secure Sudan with the genocide ended would certainly be better for business, I would think.

...Sudan has oil fields?

I really need to read up on Africa more often, huh?

Well, I can understand Russia's position at least, but you'd think that China and France would have more of an interest in keeping the country stable to protect their interests. Having a stable, secure Sudan with the genocide ended would certainly be better for business, I would think.

Sudan currently exports between 363,000 barrels a day. Since the oil fields are located in mostly stable, Arab dominated regions China and France could care less about the Darfur fighting at least as far as their oil interests go.

From http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aMLLjle4kbM8&refer=us

Oil

Sudan is Africa's sixth-biggest oil producer. It had proven oil reserves of 563 million barrels as of January 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Sudan's oil ministry expects to boost output 38 percent to 500,000 barrels a day by the end of May from 363,000 barrels a day now.

Oil exploration in most of Darfur has been hampered by the civil war, and while experts expect oil will be found there, nobody knows for sure.

Sudan's Block 6 oil concession, 95 percent owned by China National Petroleum Corp., stretches west into South Darfur state from the adjacent region of Kordofan. The Fula field in Block 6 produces about 40,000 barrels a day and may reach 80,000 barrels a day, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

The top foreign investors in Sudan's oil industry are CNPC, Malaysia's state-owned Petroliam Nasional Bhd, or Petronas, and ONGC Videsh Ltd., a unit of India's Oil & Natural Gas Corp. Decade-old U.S. sanctions prevent American companies from investing in Sudan, which started exports seven years ago.


The more I think about it the more I think we should have invaded Sudan instead of Iraq.

That's exactly why veto power is there (that and as a reward for winning WWII). The UN isn't a world government and was enver meant to be one regardless of what the Tin Foil Hat Brigade and the far left would have you believe. It was meant to be a forum where nations could resolve their differences through diplomacy, unfortunately the rampant corruption and moral bankruptcy (regardless of what the UN says dictatorships like Cuba or Zimbabwe are not the equals to democracies like New Zealand or Belgium) have rendered it largely impotent. Besides, adding more vetoes means even less gets done because now the UNSC can't act against the interests of another nation. One reason the UN has failed to act in Darfur is that China, Russia, and France all have a vested interest in keeping the current Sudanese government in power and don't want sanctions or troops

well that doesn't fly....France gets the Veto because they were rewarded for winning WW2? bull...how does being an occupied country get you the Veto? the major allies in WW2 were USA, GB, USSR, China and...Canada...so why didn't Canada get the VETO?.....because the Security Council was a private Status Quo club of the big 3 Imperial powers and the two Communist powers...the Veto club had a interest in keeping the world under their perpetual control...

France gets the Veto because they were rewarded for winning WW2?
Read up on your French history.

Today's government traces itself to de Gaulle and the Free French, not the Vichy Government.

And the Free French troops fought and won.

well that doesn't fly....France gets the Veto because they were rewarded for winning WW2? bull...how does being an occupied country get you the Veto? the major allies in WW2 were USA, GB, USSR, China and...Canada...so why didn't Canada get the VETO?.....because the Security Council was a private Status Quo club of the big 3 Imperial powers and the two Communist powers...the Veto club had a interest in keeping the world under their perpetual control...

At the end of WWII the major Allies were the US, UK, and USSR. China played a bigger part in the war then most people realize, they tied down the bulk of Japanese Army and took horrendous losses in the process. The French were basically just tossed a bone since they were a major member of the Allies before they fell and the Free French were on the winning side. Notice the lack of Axis powers or neutral nations on UNSC and tell me it wasn't a WWII victory party.

Very much yes.

Japan, India and Germany all should be added.

On what basis throes three?

I personally think the UN should be abolished (or at least, American membership should be terminated), but if the Security Council were to be expanded, I think the additions should be Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria (or South Africa), Egypt, and Australia.

I personally think the UN should be abolished (or at least, American membership should be terminated), but if the Security Council were to be expanded, I think the additions should be Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria (or South Africa), Egypt, and Australia.

Why American membership terminated? Is not the idea to represent all (or as many as possible) countries?

I have a feeling that terminating their membership wont solve any real problems with the problems the UN suffers from, so I guess I dont see the reasoning

Why American membership terminated? Is not the idea to represent all (or as many as possible) countries?

I have a feeling that terminating their membership wont solve any real problems with the problems the UN suffers from, so I guess I dont see the reasoning

Sovereignty reasons. For the same reason, I think we should pull out of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, NATO, etc.

On what basis throes three?

Economically, all three of those nations rank quite highly in the scale of countries on the globe. Militarily India and Germany are both quite strong, and both possess nuclear weaponry. Japan would probably also continue to possess a strong military if circumstances were different. They are all nations that are rather important on a global scale, all things considered.

Sovereignty reasons. For the same reason, I think we should pull out of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, NATO, etc.

Ah thought you were going for the angle of solving problems in the organizations rather then potential problem of the organizations on the US

Economically, all three of those nations rank quite highly in the scale of countries on the globe. Militarily India and Germany are both quite strong, and both possess nuclear weaponry. Japan would probably also continue to possess a strong military if circumstances were different. They are all nations that are rather important on a global scale, all things considered.
Fair enough but we also see major players in the military field from places like Turkey and Brazil that are in the range as well ...

I guess I see a disadvantage of making this a nuclear party club only as well as far as a PR situation goes. Adding additional political ramifications and power to an already physical power effect may not be what we should be encouraging

Maybe its just me

Economically, all three of those nations rank quite highly in the scale of countries on the globe. Militarily India and Germany are both quite strong, and both possess nuclear weaponry. Japan would probably also continue to possess a strong military if circumstances were different. They are all nations that are rather important on a global scale, all things considered.

Germany has been rather isolationist since the end of the Cold War, they really aren't threatened by anyone and as a result don't see much interest in foreign affairs.
As for India and Japan I've already elaborated on the considerable opposiiton to their ascension to the UNSC.

Fair enough but we also see major players in the military field from places like Turkey and Brazil that are in the range as well ...

I guess I see a disadvantage of making this a nuclear party club only as well as far as a PR situation goes. Adding additional political ramifications and power to an already physical power effect may not be what we should be encouraging

Maybe its just me
I agree with you. I think that if we add Japan, India, and Germany, we should add Turkey, Brazil, Iran, Argentina, and Italy, while we're at it.

Tolvan: Aye, aye. This is mostly speculative rather than based in reality.

I say destroy the whole damned UN!

I agree with you. I think that if we add Japan, India, and Germany, we should add Turkey, Brazil, Iran, Argentina, and Italy, while we're at it.

Tolvan: Aye, aye. This is mostly speculative rather than based in reality.

Personally I have been toying with the idea of removing permanent members all together and having only non-permanent

Maybe something like regions and voting within the regions (2-4) for non perm positions, it may make people a bit happier for the real effect it has ...

Please, let's not turn this into another pro- or anti-UN tirade. I simply want to know, what does NSG think on the issue? Should more permanent members be added to the Security Council, and if so, how many, and who?

Permanent membership in the SecC has to go away forever. If a country wants to stay in the SecC, it can apply for re-election at the UN general assembly.
The veto system doesn't work at all. How many times have permanent members of SecC acted outside or against the bounds set by the UN?
The UN assembly should act like a parliament and create a Code of International Laws, so that any country that acts against the Code is automatically acting against the UN, and, as such, is going to suffer sanctions, like fines, embargo, suspension from the UN.
On the european side, I think that the EU countries should abandon their individual seats and have just a single EU seat at the UN; this would create the need for a common EU foreign policy.

Militarily India and Germany are both quite strong, and both possess nuclear weaponry.
Not really. The only nukes Germany has are US nukes which are meant to be delivered by the Luftwaffe.

Personally I have been toying with the idea of removing permanent members all together and having only non-permanent

Maybe something like regions and voting within the regions (2-4) for non perm positions, it may make people a bit happier for the real effect it has ...

Yep, Italy in the last decade was working at something like that, with some support from big regional powers like India and Brazil.

Not really. The only nukes Germany has are US nukes which are meant to be delivered by the Luftwaffe.

Really? And here I was thinking West Germany developed nuclear weapons during the Cold War and kept them when it recombined with East Germany.

Risottia: While I disagree with your European suggestion, I agree with the other ideas, so long as the elections for the security council don't end up as idiotic political smile and wave sessions like most elections in democratic countries.

China played a bigger part in the war then most people realize, they tied down the bulk of Japanese Army and took horrendous losses in the process. The French were basically just tossed a bone since they were a major member of the Allies before they fell and the Free French were on the winning side. Notice the lack of Axis powers or neutral nations on UNSC and tell me it wasn't a WWII victory party.

Actually the seat was offered to and held by RoC lead by Chiang Kai Shek in Taiwan and not the PRC led by CPC regime in Beijing. It was initially thought that Chiang would win back the mainland and oust the communists. But that was not to be and the charade was finally ended in 1971 when Taiwan was voted to be replaced by China.

Read up on your French history.

Today's government traces itself to de Gaulle and the Free French, not the Vichy Government.

And the Free French troops fought and won.

screw that, you read up on your French history...Canada was a country of only 11 million people by the wars end it had the third largest navy, the fourth largest air force and an army of six divisions better than anything the free french and it's colonial empire put together...

Not really. The only nukes Germany has are US nukes which are meant to be delivered by the Luftwaffe.

The Bundeswehr is perfectly suited for its mission, to defend Germany and to take part in peacekeeping operations. As a result their power projection capability is fairly modest but is improving.

screw that, you read up on your French history...Canada was a country of only 11 million people by the wars end it had the third largest navy, the fourth largest air force and an army of six divisions better than anything the free french and it's colonial empire put together...

Read your Canadian history, Canada didn't gain full independence until 1982 at the end of WWII was still thought by many as nothing but a largely autonomous part of the British Empire. In a way the British seat went to the whole British Empire, even though it's collapse accelerated shortly after the end of the war.

screw that, you read up on your French history...Canada was a country of only 11 million people by the wars end it had the third largest navy, the fourth largest air force and an army of six divisions better than anything the free french and it's colonial empire put together...
And I find that in my French history, do I? :p

Seriously though. Canada wasn't making independent policies at the time. They had only gained legislative autonomy in 1931, and in foreign affairs basically acted much like they had in WWI...as a British puppet. They didn't get that sort of confidence to actually ask to be considered until a few years later.

Plus, Canada didn't have a Charles DeGaulle.

Really? And here I was thinking West Germany developed nuclear weapons during the Cold War and kept them when it recombined with East Germany.
Nope. I'm pretty sure they signed various treaties which forbid them to have any.

Which isn't to say that they might have made a few in secret, the industry and expertise was certainly there. But if they did, it never came out.

The Bundeswehr is perfectly suited for its mission, to defend Germany and to take part in peacekeeping operations. As a result their power projection capability is fairly modest but is improving.
Oh well, they've got a bit of improving left to do yet. ;)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,435368,00.html

Nope. I'm pretty sure they signed various treaties which forbid them to have any.

Which isn't to say that they might have made a few in secret, the industry and expertise was certainly there. But if they did, it never came out.

Why build your own when the US will pay to build and maintain a stockpile of 150 B61s for you to use if you're ever attacked?

Oh well, they've got a bit of improving left to do yet. ;)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,435368,00.html

I'm no expert on the German military but one issue is that the Army is still heavily mechanized, 3 of 5 divisions are mech/armor, and those units are of little use in Afghanistan or Kosovo. As a result all the burden falls on the light infantry units while the heavy forces continue to consume lots of resources (tanks and IFVs are expnsive to build and maintain, light forces are much cheaper to equip and don't burn all that fuel and spares in training) but contribute little to operations. Not to say mech forces are obosolete but if I were the German Defense Minister I'd reevaluate my force structure.

Read your Canadian history, Canada didn't gain full independence until 1982 at the end of WWII was still thought by many as nothing but a largely autonomous part of the British Empire. In a way the British seat went to the whole British Empire, even though it's collapse accelerated shortly after the end of the war.

:upyours: Canadian independence was long established....1982 was a technicality, it took that long for Canadians to agree on the constitution it had fuck all to do with GB...the important date for Canadian political independence was 1931....

Dec 11, 1931- Statute of Westminster / Founding of "Commonwealth":
-British Parliament can no longer make laws for Canada.
-Canada can modify or repeal past British-made legislation
-Canada has right to it's own foreign policy.
-Political independence from Britain

:upyours: Canadian independence was long established....1982 was a technicality, it took that long for Canadians to agree on the constitution it had fuck all to do with GB...the important date for Canadian political independence was 1931....

Dec 11, 1931- Statute of Westminster / Founding of "Commonwealth":
-British Parliament can no longer make laws for Canada.
-Canada can modify or repeal past British-made legislation
-Canada has right to it's own foreign policy.
-Political independence from Britain

Canadian politics aside during WWII Canada fought almost exclusively as part of the British Empire. Canadian troops served under British command, Canada's industry produced whatever the US and Britain fell short on, and pretty much fought as a junior partner. Canada didn't truly go on a seperate course until after the war, deal with it.

Even if you accept Canada as fully independent thy were nowhere near as powerful as any other nation on the Security Council, except maybe for France immediately after the war and the Chinese who were fighting a civil war at the time.

The problem with Germany having a permanent seat is that it further over represents Europe. Therefore if Germany were in the SC then France sould be out. Its already been said about China not wanting Japan or India in but i don't reckon Russia would be all that happy.

The U.N. does many wonders such as make peace in Iraq, ohh and Israel too they've done a wonderful job there and finally Darfur that must be applauded, if they were any more effective they might save someone.

P.S. I love the idea of the UN, but the nations like mine (US) are so scared of losing national soverignty, that it's become seemingly useless and when they do act they never act with enough force to do anything but put their own soldiers at risk from my small amount of knowledge from classes.
I won't take offense to being corrected,
and sorry I don't know enough about who should have veto powers, but Japan and India and Germany all seem fine choices to give veto power too.
QUOTE: "Could someone who has knowledge of what all the U.N. does please inform Steel Butterfly why this laughter is inappropriate?

As for my opinion, I agree with Jello man: no nation should have veto power."

You only highlight one aspect of the UN's roles (peace keeping, in which it is a general faillure).

An example where it has been much more effective at wiping out or massively reducing the prevalence of certain diseases, such as small pox across the globe.

Economically, all three of those nations rank quite highly in the scale of countries on the globe. Militarily India and Germany are both quite strong, and both possess nuclear weaponry. Japan would probably also continue to possess a strong military if circumstances were different. They are all nations that are rather important on a global scale, all things considered.

Germany does not have nuclear weapons, only power.

If the permanent members of the security council are to be the most powerful countries in the world then the three listed makes sense. Though that still means 3 continents are not represented (South America, Africa and Oceania) on the security council apart from by temporary membership.

No.

Why Brazil, Japan, India, and Germany? Why them and not, let's say, Australia, Argentina, Nigeria, Italy, or Canada? IMHO, we don't yet have a definite criteria for eligibility. And with those veto powers, if we increase those veto-holding members to nine, then all we would probably have is a lame duck UNSC.

I find the UN not that democratic. Its permantent members are France, the UK, the US, Russia and China. All these five, yet only these five, have a veto right. Four of these five permanent members are Western countries.

One of these five permanent members (China) has recently reached an agreement with Sudan concearning oil. In exchange of 4/5 of Sudans oil production, China will use its veto in the UN, for the UN not to intervene in the Darfur crisis (where tousands of civilians are hunted, murdered, raped and tortured)

If the Western countries start wars in the name of democracy, perhaps we should try to create a democratic world organisation, in wich decisions are made by voting, not by the use of a veto.

I say make every country a permanent member, or none at all.

No. I want Japan to get out of the UN and persuade the US to do the same (there goes 40% of the UN's budget). But I know this will never happen, so instead I would like to see both countries dramatically reduce their contributions to and participation in the UN. Why am I anti-UN? Because one permanent member of the UNSC is a security threat to Japan and all of Asia that also happens to provide the greatest support to the largest security threat in the region while seeking to keep Japan out of the UNSC as a permanent member.

The veto power is important because it insures the involvement and cooperation of the more powerful countries. Without it they would have very little reason to involve themselves in the UN. Many of them would leave, it would only take a couple leaving to lower the sense of legitimacy the UN has, and more countries would go their separate ways, very similar to what happened to the League of Nations. The list does need to be updated though, there are more powerful countries which deserve inclusion. As the number grows the veto will become more of a hindrance as more countries have the power to use it, and it will need to be revamped. However the more powerful countries should still recieve a benefit, even a substantial benefit.

Truth.

Large nations are making a sacrifice by joining the UN and "Playing by the rules". You must make this sacrifice palatable to these states if you wish them to join the club, and add their massive resource pools to it.

No.

Why Brazil, Japan, India, and Germany? Why them and not, let's say, Australia, Argentina, Nigeria, Italy, or Canada? IMHO, we don't yet have a definite criteria for eligibility. And with those veto powers, if we increase those veto-holding members to nine, then all we would probably have is a lame duck UNSC.

The existing Permanent members were the major powers of the allied alliance of the Second World War. They were the "Great Powers" of the time. It's easily argued that Japan and Germany have both ascended to the status of "Great Powers", and that India and Brazil are on their way.

The important countries get on the UNSC, not the tertiary ones.

The existing Permanent members were the major powers of the allied alliance of the Second World War. They were the "Great Powers" of the time. It's easily argued that Japan and Germany have both ascended to the status of "Great Powers", and that India and Brazil are on their way.

The important countries get on the UNSC, not the tertiary ones.

Italy and Canada ain't great? Why, they're in the G8!

The question is, who decides who the "Great Powers" are? What if Pakistan nukes every "Great Power" capital, then who is great? What if OPEC stops oil exports to the "Great Powers", then who is great? The truth is, 'greatness' depends on how you look at it.

Italy and Canada ain't great? Why, they're in the G8!

The question is, who decides who the "Great Powers" are? What if Pakistan nukes every "Great Power" capital, then who is great? What if OPEC stops oil exports to the "Great Powers", then who is great? The truth is, 'greatness' depends on how you look at it.

Thats obvious, the Great Powers decide who are the Great Powers :p

My idea for an enlarged Security Council is as follows:

1. Permanent membership needs to be expanded in order to be more representative of the world at large. The current five are not representative of the world at large and are no longer the only world superpowers. I would suggest:

1. UK
2. USA
3. China
4. France
5. Russia
6. India (on the basis of a peaceful settlement with India over Kashmir)
7. Pakistan (on the basis of a peaceful settlement with India over Kashmir)
8. Japan
9. Brazil
10. Germany
11. South Africa
12. Up for debate, I thought 12 to be a nicer round number. Possibly Nigeria, Mexico, or a country from SE Asia. I don't see many suitable Middle Eastern states, yet, although that would be advantageous to ensure representation from all the world's regions.

2. Elected membership to be expanded to 12, giving a total of 24. Instead of being individually elected by a 2/3 majority by the Assembly, members could be elected in groups of 4 (with a 2/3 majority) which could be more helpful in finding compromise.

3. Decision making would be revamped, with a 2/3 majority of Permanent members and a majority of all members replacing the veto.

4. Assembly reform: the Assembly would be elected by the Legislature of each member (unlike the Council) and would be made more (but my no means fully) proportional to population.

Could someone who has knowledge of what all the U.N. does please inform Steel Butterfly why this laughter is inappropriate?

Iraq 2, Somalia, Bosnia, and Israeli-Palestinian conflict, India-Pakistani Conflict, I could go on so yea. They don't have that much power to do jack shit.

I don't see why any of those nominated here deserve to have a veto vs many other countries....why Japan? vs S Korea....Germany why not Italy?...Brazil better than Argentina?...India better than Pakistan?

IMO if the UN is ever to be an effective world body the Veto needs to be eliminated and countries need to abide by it's rules and resolutions...

Good luck with that last bit. You will always have nations that will not abide by the rules or resolutions if it suites their purposes. What do you do with those that don't? Look at Iran for example.

...wait, what? What possible interests could any of them have in keeping the current Sudanese government in power?

Economic interest.

well that doesn't fly....France gets the Veto because they were rewarded for winning WW2? bull...how does being an occupied country get you the Veto? the major allies in WW2 were USA, GB, USSR, China and...Canada...so why didn't Canada get the VETO?.....because the Security Council was a private Status Quo club of the big 3 Imperial powers and the two Communist powers...the Veto club had a interest in keeping the world under their perpetual control...

You forgot Poland :D

I personally think the UN should be abolished (or at least, American membership should be terminated), but if the Security Council were to be expanded, I think the additions should be Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria (or South Africa), Egypt, and Australia.

MEXICO!!!!???? For what? They have anarchy, is completely unstable and is runned by drug lords. Brazil and possibly South Africa and Australia but not Mexico and Nigeria. *shudders*

I find the UN not that democratic. Its permantent members are France, the UK, the US, Russia and China. All these five, yet only these five, have a veto right. Four of these five permanent members are Western countries.

Actually 3 out of the 5 are Western Countries. Russia is not in Western Europe. Its in Eastern Europe.

One of these five permanent members (China) has recently reached an agreement with Sudan concearning oil. In exchange of 4/5 of Sudans oil production, China will use its veto in the UN, for the UN not to intervene in the Darfur crisis (where tousands of civilians are hunted, murdered, raped and tortured)

France and Russia will use their veto as well for economic reasons stated here already.

If the Western countries start wars in the name of democracy, perhaps we should try to create a democratic world organisation, in wich decisions are made by voting, not by the use of a veto.

Our president as the right of veto.

I say make every country a permanent member, or none at all.

All members are permanent members of the UN. :D

Let us be glad that the next contender for hegemonic power is already a permanent member of the SC, for it is unlikely to change any time soon.

The current non-permanent members of the Security Council are, by the way: Belgium, Italy, Qatar, the Republic of the Congo, Panama, Slovakia, Ghana, Peru, South Africa and Indonesia.

You have just read today's piece of pointless information. Thank you.

My idea for an enlarged Security Council is as follows:

1. Permanent membership needs to be expanded in order to be more representative of the world at large. The current five are not representative of the world at large and are no longer the only world superpowers. I would suggest:

1. UK
2. USA
3. China
4. France
5. Russia
6. India (on the basis of a peaceful settlement with India over Kashmir)
7. Pakistan (on the basis of a peaceful settlement with India over Kashmir)
8. Japan
9. Brazil
10. Germany
11. South Africa
12. Up for debate, I thought 12 to be a nicer round number. Possibly Nigeria, Mexico, or a country from SE Asia. I don't see many suitable Middle Eastern states, yet, although that would be advantageous to ensure representation from all the world's regions.


So China was given UNSC seat after its peaceful settlement of Taiwan and so it was with the USSR after its peaceful settlement of east Germany and other occupied lands...

oh wait...:p

I used to think that a UNSC seat is vital for India's ascendancy...not anymore. It has done just fine without it and will continue to do fine without it. You can either have us outside the tent pissing in or inside the tent pissing out. :D

Italy and Canada ain't great? Why, they're in the G8!

The question is, who decides who the "Great Powers" are? What if Pakistan nukes every "Great Power" capital, then who is great? What if OPEC stops oil exports to the "Great Powers", then who is great? The truth is, 'greatness' depends on how you look at it.

The G8 are the economic powers, a Great Power, though, requires global military reach as well as economic capability.

Beyond that, the Great Powers decide who the Great Powers are. It's a natural sorting system.

Please, let's not turn this into another pro- or anti-UN tirade. I simply want to know, what does NSG think on the issue? Should more permanent members be added to the Security Council, and if so, how many, and who?

I'll have to answer with a qualified yes. More should be added provided that the veto power of all permanent Security Council members is discarded. It is dangerously undemocratic and a perfect tool of superpower hegemony.

If I had to remake the council, I would make it as follows:

Asia:
China
India
Japan

Europe:
Germany
United Kingdom
France
Russia

North America:
United States
Canada

Middle East:
Turkey


I would essentially double the number of permanent members on the council.

If I could add more, Brazil, Egypt, Australia, Indonesia and Iran

So China was given UNSC seat after its peaceful settlement of Taiwan and so it was with the USSR after its peaceful settlement of east Germany and other occupied lands...

oh wait...:p
Well, if you want to be pedantic about it the UN Security Council members were drawn up before the PR China even existed and all of Europe was under then necessary occupation by the Allies anyway. However, I didn't choose the previous five Security Council members, so I hardly think it relevant.

I used to think that a UNSC seat is vital for India's ascendancy...not anymore. It has done just fine without it and will continue to do fine without it. You can either have us outside the tent pissing in or inside the tent pissing out. :D
Do you not feel there would be an inherent problem with admitting India, Pakistan, or both, without a resolution over Kashmir?

Oh, and just to be clear, having a solution over Kashmir is not, I repeated, not, an attempt to prevent India's growth and deny her future. On the contrary, I simply feel that it would be a good opportunity to solve this international problem while ensuring that all the Council members do not have outstanding disagreements which could divide the Council.

The EU wants to develop a unified foreign policy front when it finally gets its constitution together. Once the EU is that tightly integrated, having individual EU countries would be equivalent to having individual US states (membership for California?). So we simply combine the European nations into a unified UN representation.

This frees up one permanent seat on the Security Council to go to India – they are an up and coming nation with the second largest population in the world and a rapidly growing economy.

Japan has the second largest economy in the world (though if counting the EU as a single entity it falls to third) but it has a negligible footprint in terms of international security. Until it becomes militarily influential again it does not deserve a permanent seat.

This little shuffle puts the council a little closer to representing the modern world order.

I think the veto is a good idea, as it keeps major players from being pushed around by insignificant dictatorships. It does need one slight modification though – unanimous votes from the other 4 perm members should override a veto.

Currently one nation can get away with committing horrid atrocities and there is absolutely nothing the UN can do about it. China could embark on a campaign of ethnic cleansing throughout Asia and the UN could do nothing. Or even more unbelievable, Israel could carry out a campaign of collective punishment and appropriating land outside its borders in flagrant disregard of international law, and never be held accountable because the US gives it unconditional support. ;)

This sort of toothlessness makes the UN no better than the League of Nations.

Some of the countries others have suggested are simply not very significant on the international stage.

Pakistan – its only claim is that it has nukes. That’s it. It has no ability to project power outside of Kashmir.

Brazil – surely the biggest economy in South America, but still not powerful on a global scale. It simply lacks the international gravitas.

Canada – actually… is fairly well under-represented. However it doesn’t exactly throw its weight around internationally and thus doesn’t seem like it would be very important to have on the council anyway. It pretty much just falls in with the UK and US when it gets involved at all. Sorry to say, but it just punches below its weight.

South Africa? I mean seriously people… I know you want to have every continent represented but geography is less important than actually being a worthwhile nation.

Nigeria? Mexico? Might as well suggest the Grand Duchy of East Fenwick.

Please, let's not turn this into another pro- or anti-UN tirade. I simply want to know, what does NSG think on the issue? Should more permanent members be added to the Security Council, and if so, how many, and who?

No, none, and no one

Expanding permanent seats makes consensus even more an improbability.

Burgeoning bureaucracy is not the answer. The status quo operates on an even keel today, any change would unnecessarily upset the balance.

Italy and Canada ain't great? Why, they're in the G8!
Yeah, well, Canada only represents a fairly small part of the world's population...and Italy isn't exactly the role model in terms of political stability. I'm not sure I want a country to have veto power in which the average government term is measured in months rather than years.

----------

As for the UNSC, I'm thinking that maybe every region should get veto power. And then the regions have their own councils in which every country from that region is nominally represented equally. But since there'd be an election for the representative of that region in the SC, de facto the regional powers would be dominant.

So perhaps North America would be the US, South America Brazil or Argentina, Europe could be any one of them (probably the EU to decide), Asia would be a battle between India, China and Japan, the Middle East between Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran and so on.

I'm just wondering what to do with Russia. They're likely to miss out most of the time no matter whether you put them with Europe or with Asia.

This little shuffle puts the council a little closer to representing the modern world order.

The UN body is a representation of the nations. The permanent security council seats are not. The five victorious Allied powers after WWII were determined to prevent another Hitler...thus, the permanent seats on the security council were deliberately intended to be quite unrepresentative of the world body as a whole. Domestic security and projection capability are critical in effecting the policing that the SecCouncil was designed to do.



Currently one nation can get away with committing horrid atrocities and there is absolutely nothing the UN can do about it. China could embark on a campaign of ethnic cleansing throughout Asia and the UN could do nothing. Or even more unbelievable, Israel could carry out a campaign of collective punishment and appropriating land outside its borders in flagrant disregard of international law, and never be held accountable because the US gives it unconditional support. ;)

This sort of toothlessness makes the UN no better than the League of Nations.


Which is the essence of the UN itself--it is a voice of international opinion, not an enforcer. This is why military action is discouraged in the United Nations. Diplomacy should be the primary focus of international guidance (read: not governance). If the UN condemns an action, it on its own can do nothing to stop it...would you have an body with that kind of power? Even multinational organizations can make mistakes. But more than this, every member of the UN must be represented; this includes balancing the interests of every member. Forcibly altering the dynamics of international politics is not the purpose, nor should it be, of the United Nations.

Other than those points, I agree with your post :)