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

[axi]

If you remove veto powers, Israel will probably leave the UN and start blackmailing the world that if troops are sent in Palestine, it will nuke everybody.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frogger
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...

Not that the UK always represent your interest there, kitty cat.

[Urban Ranger]

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

If you use double decker per capita, I bet we have more here.

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

Yeah, but just look at those Aussies and Canaucks have been taking opposing positions.

[Kontiki]

The five permanent members are still the five most powerful nations on the planet in terms of military strength and influence in the world. Any change in the makeup of the permanents would therefore have to address regionality, not any changes in relative power.

[PLATO]

The security counsel is really the enforcement arm of the UN. These seats should be held by the principal powers capable of doing that (eithier through diplomatic or military means).

Given this combination, I believe that the current scenario is correct.

The security counsel was able to survive a division during the cold war and it will survive this one.

The reason that the veto power was given was not only to get the major powers in, but also to ensure that there would be lively debate before strong punitive action was taken against a soverign country. This is exactly what is happening. If a consensus is reached, then action can procede with the blessing of the world.
If a consensus is not reached and veto power is exercised, than countries can still procede with unilateral or limited multilateral action. There will be a political price to pay for this however. This is how it should be.

[Lefty Scaevola]

If the status is based on great power what about the most powerful corporations, shoudl they not get a seat and a veto, and the Illuminati, of course.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
The security counsel is really the enforcement arm of the UN. These seats should be held by the principal powers capable of doing that (eithier through diplomatic or military means).

Given this combination, I believe that the current scenario is correct.

I am inclined to agree but have this image in my mind of the chamber empty except for the US ambassador. The UK representative is standing behind the US and looking vaguely embarrassed. The French ambassador is standing in the corridor smoking a cigarette. The rest of the building is empty.

Yes, I admit to cynicism.

[Buck Birdseed]

I say I get a personal Veto. I'd use it nearly as much as the Americans!

[PLATO]

If the status is based on great power what about the most powerful corporations, shoudl they not get a seat and a veto, and the Illuminati, of course.

Corporations already there (see American political system)

Illuminati already there (see American President's family)

[Rogan Josh]

I think we should kick off the US - they just parot everything the UK does, following along like little puppy dogs.

[Rogan Josh]

Hey - My first ever DP!

[Arrian]

If you remove veto powers, Israel will probably leave the UN and start blackmailing the world that if troops are sent in Palestine, it will nuke everybody.

What a random out-of-left-field ME troll. Trying to spice up the thread, Axi?

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

To get back on topic...

I would like to see this arrangement.

USA
China
Russia
Japan
India
Brazil
Germany (or an EU elected rep)
South Africa (or an OAU elected rep)
an Arab state (maybe a democratic Iraq?)

Those nine states will make up the entire Security Council. There would be only permanent seats.

Also, it would be best to get rid of the veto, as Frogger said. However, AH was right to say that it will never happen. Maybe it will become possible farther into the future, but we should concentrate on making the membership of the Security Council more representative right now...

[KrazyHorse]

Japan, Russia and China each gets one but Europe as a whole only gets 1?

A bit wonky, that.

All SC positions elected by the regional delegates. Distribute according to pop of regions in question.

[Drake Tungsten]

Japan, Russia and China each gets one but Europe as a whole only gets 1?

A bit wonky, that.

Why? Europe is on par power-wise with China and Russia and not that far ahead of Japan. Why does Europe merit more than one representative?