UN Security Council Reform: Who should be the Permanent Members and have the vetoe?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Depending on how you measure these things we are the 2nd richest country of the five, we have links with more countries than any other member and we aren't French so we should stay.

But there is no difference in the Brit position and the US position. Besides:

Wealth - depends. What do you measure with?
Links - not including the Commonwealth, what links do you have?

[KrazyHorse]

Why not including the commonwealth?

They've got us (another G8 country) the Australians (almost as big) and then some more tenuous links with India, Pakistan and the African countries...

[aaglo]

But then Australia gets a seat and that would look slightly ridiculous

Why it would look ridiculous? What's so funny with crocodile dundee in a suit... ok, gotcha.

[Nivek]

One seat for the EU?

We'd never be able to agree which country would provide the representative.

[Alexander's Horse]

Should the permanents be voted on periodically?

Japan has a very strong case to be made permanent. Its hard for Germany to make a case with Britain and France already there.

[MikeH]

Not including the commonwealth? Why?

That's like saying without counting half your marbles, how many marbles do you have?

[Richelieu]

Lets have

The US
China
India
Europe

There has to be some representation for South America and Africa, but i don't see any one country that could represent their interests.
Org. of African states and the equivalent South American org. perhaps ?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MikeH
Not including the commonwealth? Why?

So we can get The Queen along to spice up Security Council sessions?

She could appoint Prince Philip her UN Ambassador and he'd have world war III started in a matter of days.

[MikeH]

Wouldn't you want your head of state represented?

[CerberusIV]

Two thoughts.

If you give a permanent seat to the African Union then Gaddaffi might end up sitting on a Security Council session. That would be interesting!

If the UN doesn't back war with Iraq the US will be halfway out the door. So who gets the vacant seat that would leave (not that it would be worth having as the UN will be irrelevant).

[Alexander's Horse]

I'd like to see Betty Windsor there, her tiara tinkling.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


But there is no difference in the Brit position and the US position. Besides:

Wealth - depends. What do you measure with?
Links - not including the Commonwealth, what links do you have?

Thers no differnce at the moment there might be in the future.

I measure welth by the amount of red buses a country has

We have invaded,colonised and fought with most of the world, so we have many links

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


So we can get The Queen along to spice up Security Council sessions?

She could appoint Prince Philip her UN Ambassador and he'd have world war III started in a matter of days.

That would something to see.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
If you remove the vetoe, the whole thing stops working. That was the price of getting the great powers in.

It has already stopped working Mister Ed.

[Pandemoniak]

Without veto, one powerful country can bribe the others. With the vetoes, one powerful country doesnt even need to bribez the others...