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

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by 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?

Perhaps because, unlike the Japanese, most of the European countries are allowed by their constitutions to deploy fighting and peacekeeping forces overseas.

No country that isn't willing and able to supply the military muscle should be on such a security council (that is not a comment on the current set up by the way).

[KrazyHorse]

Japan has a pop of what, 125 million?

Germany alone has 80 million. France and the UK have 60 each. You're already up to 200 million. Now add in Spain's 40, Italy's 55 or 60, the little dip****s of western europe etc. and you've got a 1st-world pop of 320? 350? million. Giving Russia one, China one and Japan one is just silly. Creates this odd power blip in NE asia.

Japan doesn't wield close to as much power, influence or economic weight as western Europe does.

[Drake Tungsten]

Perhaps because, unlike the Japanese, most of the European countries are allowed by their constitutions to deploy fighting and peacekeeping forces overseas.

Japan is allowed to deploy peacekeeping forces. They've sent troops to UN peacekeeping missions in Cambodia.

Japan doesn't wield close to as much power, influence or economic weight as western Europe does.

You're treating Western Europe like it's a collective whole. It is not and therefore does not function as a first rate world power. Japan may have a smaller population and economy than "Europe", but its greater unity and policy focus allows it to approach Europe in real-world influence. Its overwhelming pacifism is the only thing really holding it out of the first-tier of world powers...

At any rate, I don't think Europe deserves more than one representative. Even if they were to form a "United States of Europe", they still wouldn't be so powerful as to merit more than one Security Council rep. I don't see anyone pushing for America to get a second vote on the council...

[KrazyHorse]

Japan may have a smaller population and economy than "Europe", but its greater unity and policy focus allows it to approach Europe in real-world influence

Not really.

[PLATO]

Veto power must be maintained. This power keeps powerblocks from developing that could begin to control the UN and make it eithier irrelevant or, worse yet, an institution of radicalism

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Frogger
Japan has a pop of what, 125 million?

Germany alone has 80 million. France and the UK have 60 each. You're already up to 200 million. Now add in Spain's 40, Italy's 55 or 60, the little dip****s of western europe etc. and you've got a 1st-world pop of 320? 350? million. Giving Russia one, China one and Japan one is just silly. Creates this odd power blip in NE asia.

Your right.....Plus, you can't agree on one country being the representative, how could you ever agree on what the representative should represent?

[Drake Tungsten]

Not really.

Nice response. I'm glad I wasted my time writing a serious response to your comments...

[Nubclear]

Oh, and the members should be as follows:

Germany
Russia
China
India
US
Brazil
Australia

[KrazyHorse]

Japan influences almost no military power in the world. First off is their pacifism, secondly is the fact that nobody would let them.
Diplo influence is similarly stunted.

This, by the way is why UK+France makes more sense than Germany+Either

Finally, euros have a common market to greater extent than any other significant region. They have common fiduciary policy, common currency, the beginnings of a unified budget...

Good God, this stuff is obvious. Japan doesn't do crap in international affairs. It keeps its head down, and that's about it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Oh, and the members should be as follows:

Germany
Russia
China
India
US
Brazil
Australia

Why Germany and Australia?

[Drake Tungsten]

You still haven't provided a good reason why Europe should have more than one representative. You've decided to try and prove that Europe has more influence than Japan, something I agreed with in my initial response to you. Why don't you deal with the real issue? Why should Europe get two reps? There's no good reason for it...

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Why Germany and Australia?

Germany - So France can whine about it. Is there not a better reason? (Actually, so that there is more balance in Europe)

Australia = To give Oceania SOME representation.

[Drake Tungsten]

Germany - So France can whine about it. Is there not a better reason?

You're right. There is no better reason...

[Ecthy]

In all seriousness...

Originally posted by 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.

Good point.

Let's nuke Israel instead now, just preemptively. Wouldn't this put an end to many problems?

[Drake Tungsten]

A German blaming the world's problems on Israel and advocating the complete destruction of the Jewish state? I never thought I'd see the day...