Permanent SC Seat for Japan?

[:) Smiley]

Why did the US let Red China on the council in the 70s anyway? UN would be in full American control today had that not been done.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
"any more"?

They're more influential now than they have been in the past 60 years.

1944?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DanS
France is slightly better equipped. The UK is by far the best equipped to do so from Europe.

UK's striking power is very similar to that of France.

[KrazyHorse]

Barely. They were collapsing rather quickly by August 1944.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Barely. They were collapsing rather quickly by August 1944.

Don't you think they still were influential though?

[DanS]

UK's striking power is very similar to that of France.

I think if you look at Kosovo, that opinion is proven to be not quite true. The UK was the only European country to be able to hang with the US.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Don't you think they still were influential though?

Not particularly. Nobody was listening to them. They were just being bombed to high hell.

[KrazyHorse]

Mixed metaphor, but I'll leave it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
By choice and history, Germany is incapable of doing so. France is slightly better equipped. The UK is by far the best equipped to do so from Europe. Japan is starting to step up to the plate, but I wonder how many capabilities they will actually develop.

If you go by history and intent, Japan definitely is in the negative marks area.

They are violating their own constitution right now by having troops outside of their territory.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Smiley
Why did the US let Red China on the council in the 70s anyway? UN would be in full American control today had that not been done.

Russia is in US control? France is in US control?

I realise Chen is in Uncle Sam's pocket, still, how is a small island with a tiny fraction of the population represent China?

[The Vagabond]

No. Unless they drop that ridiculous claim to those tiny islands, they are not ready to be a permanent member.

[The Vagabond]

Why should the permanent seat be necessarily equivalent to the veto power? We can grant permanent seats to Germany, India (and perhaps eventually Japan) without granting them the veto power, which should remain the exclusive prerogative of the current big five.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Or the British with the Germans?

Given the UK foreign policy is indistinguishable from the US's nowadays that seems appropriate.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
(on French and German similarities)
Worlds of difference. The Germans would never approve of certain French actions regarding former colonies, for instance.

Oh come on. The French and German's were talking about a European seat, because their governments agree that much. When it comes to the Middle East peace process, the criticising of Israel, opinions towards Europe, etc. The UK and the US disagree strongly. Just because they both went to Iraq doesn't mean they have the same foreign policy now. Unlike the French and German's who want to integrate until they *do* have the same foreign policy.

IMHO, there should be one seat for the core European Union nations (either France or Germany), the US, Japan, the UK, Russia and China - all influenctial countries that donate donate a lot to the UN. Japan needs a seat, but we don't want to add too many, since with the veto, nothing would then pass.

Or you could make 8 perminant members (adding Germany , Japan and Canada) but only have vetos for The US, the EU and China. That way all the major contributors get a vote at every resolution, but there are only 3 vetos.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Verto
So Israel may officially declare it's nuke capability?

Well, they could anyway, but it being illegal even the US can't officially recognise it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
They should replace France with Japan, make a precedent for having a max of 5 permanent members. Germany isn't as globally influential as Japan, and France is just a spoiled little kid that should never have had a permanent position anyway.

I think the US and Russia take the biscuit when it comes to acting like a spoilt child wrt the veto. Vetoing anything that could criticise Israel for having nukes that it's not allowed to have, or violating the boundaries the UN set for it, or any of the other things that have come up.

Yep, France are the ones who misuse the veto. It's why they use it less than the US and Russia.