UN Security Council Permanent Members: What a BS idea

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
US
EU
Russia
China
India
Japan
Arab League?

I think EU is too far from a common foreign and security policy to hold one seat, and I dont want to lose the unique UK voice on the council. Arab league is much farther from a common foreign policy than EU, and most of its members are not democracies. I think at this point its time to establish that any new Perm members must be democracies. Couldnt do that in '45, and theres no guarantees a country will stay one, but if the UN does not move in that direction it will certainly lose even more respect in the hyperpower. I would suggest Indonesia as the first Islamic perm member, but i dont think theyre ready yet.

[Atahualpa]

U.N. troops should be respected all over the world.

Its not easy life for their soldiers. They are allowed to shoot only in self defense and they get placed in critical areas. Show a bit more respect for these guys okay?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
U.N. troops should be respected all over the world.

Its not easy life for their soldiers. They are allowed to shoot only in self defense and they get placed in critical areas. Show a bit more respect for these guys okay?

According to a recent resolution, it has become a crime of war to attack UN personnel. However, the resolution had to exclude a passus about the Hague Tribunal to avoid a US veto.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well the idea of veto power does make sense. Why? We have to look at history. There is an argument that the League of Nations really failed when the US refused to join. It basically made the organization look like a joke when you had a world power not a part of this 'worldwide body'. It'd be like the People's Republic of China refusing to join the UN today.

In order to entice the great power to join and maybe give up some of their power, they had to offer them veto power. Otherwise, why bother?

[Nubclear]

But the veto makes the UN a joke. The veto-holder can just, well, veto anything they don't like.

It really is stupid.

[Jon Miller]

having weighted votes might be better, but would only occur if nations like the US and China were weaker relative to the rest of the world than they are currently (and were at the UNs formation)

as it is right now, both nations would be foolish to join the UN without veto power

(weighted votes would have to depend upon population, economy, and military)

Jon Miller

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the veto makes the UN a joke. The veto-holder can just, well, veto anything they don't like.

Perhaps, but without the veto, the UN doesn't exist. And the UN HAS done some very good things in its time. The Convention on the Law of the Seas, Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, educational aid, mediation, etc.

[Sandman]

Give a permanent seat to every country with more than 100 million population.

China
India
US
Indonesia
Pakistan
Russia
Bangladesh
Nigeria
Japan
Brazil
EU

[Verto]

At least give Japan a seat. They are(or were) paying the 2nd or 3rd highest dues to the UN. Surely that should get them SOME kind of special treatment.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But the veto makes the UN a joke. The veto-holder can just, well, veto anything they don't like.

Perhaps, but without the veto, the UN doesn't exist. And the UN HAS done some very good things in its time. The Convention on the Law of the Seas, Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, educational aid, mediation, etc.

Yes, thats true.

If only we could put our politics aside for the good of humanity

Let's give any nation with a population above 5000 a seat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If only we could put our politics aside for the good of humanity

Our politics may BE what we think is for the good of humanity . After all, you believe that a more socialist world is better, I think a more capitalist world is better, and all that is politics.

Let's give any nation with a population above 5000 a seat.

Nation or State?

And seat as a Permanent Member? Do you mean with all veto powers and everything?

Please clarify.

[Q Classic]

Solution - require 2 negative votes by perm members to block a resolution. US wouldnt agree to this, so give them as a "hyperpower" super veto, so that US veto by itself blocks a resolution. Add Germany, Japan, and India making 8 permanent members.

US should go along,as of course the new perm members. For France and UK its preferable to being forced into an EU seat. Only real objections from Russia and China. Oh, and the islamic world, which still doesnt get a permanent member - but who would be theres - Indonesia is best bet, but still a long way from the power level of the others.

the problem is, if the balance of power should ever change--say, like india becoming a hyperpower in the next century through some divine miracle--the "hyperpower veto" would prohibit any sort of change or rebalancing of the power in the security council.