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

[Imran Siddiqui]

LOL

Good thread, AH

I think a reform of the UN Security Council would have to be slow. You couldn't just change everything wholesale, so you keep the Big 5.

UK
France
US
Russia
China

As the EU merges better, France should receed their permanent position to the 'EU'.

Maybe then India should be added and perhaps Japan.

[Jaguar]

USA
England
Japan
China
India
Russia

It's not wise to have 8+ nations with veto power, IMO. Then lots of stuff would get vetoed and not much would get done.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Way before there was even a thought of the UN, Britain and France weilded vast influence in the world.

The world has changed a lot in the past fifty years. Britain and France have little influence outside the UN anymore.

Let's face it...they controlled a large part of the world's land, people, and economies at one time.

The key phrase being "at one time". I don't think we should be handing out permanent seats on the Security Council based on a country's past glory.

Totally, utterly, completely wrong. The world has NOT changed that much in the past 50 years. If you're talking about global influence and importance, completely ignoring the UN, the top four are almost certainly:

1. US
2. Britain
3. France
4. Russia

China would have a hard time making #5, and I would only put them there because of their nuclear arsenal. Otherwise, Japan and Germany are much bigger world players.

You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that Britain and France still play HUGE roles in Africa, and lesser ones throughout Asia. They may not be as dominant as they once were, and the gap between them and the US may be widening, but they are still easily the number two and three players in the world by just about any measure other than population or GDP (where they only fall a few places). Militarily, you might be able to argue that Russia edges them out, but they are definitely number two and three in the ability to project military force anywhere on the globe. They also each have enough nukes to wipe anyone out, and both have more than China, along with better delivery systems.

[Jaguar]

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.

axi, you never fail to amaze me with your um, er, interesting points of view.

[Kontiki]

I'm not so sure about putting India in there. Big population, yes. Effective military reach, global economic interests/clout and serious regional influence, no.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are the most powerful 'Third World' country. That view is very beneficial to have on the body.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I don't see the point of having countries like Brazil, Egypt, South Africa etc considered. Sure, they're from continents that don't have a SC position now. They're also from continents that don't contain any countries with a meaningful place on the global stage.

US
France or Germany, doesn't matter, probably Germany merits it more.
Russia
China
Japan might merit a position eventually.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They are the most powerful 'Third World' country. That view is very beneficial to have on the body.

Yep. And they're ~18% of the world population, of course. Though it might be better to wait until the tension with Pakistan breaks down. The UN shouldn't be biased on something like that.

[mactbone]

You have to wonder about the problems of having India, Pakistan or both on a commitee where there are veto powers. I'm not sure it would be easy to get them to agree on many issues.

US
Russia
China (reluctantly as there would be serious issues if hardliners wanted to make problems)
I want to say give the EU a spot, but I also recognize that countries like UK aren't wholeheartedly endorsing the institution, and the representation of the people is sketchy.
Brazil (unless something drastic happens I presume they'd be best to lead SA)
Japan OR an SE Asian country

I feel that between an EU representative and Russia, Europe would be represented enough. I'm not sure about Brazil representing South America, but I can't think of any country better than them to do it. The biggest problem I see is SE Asia and Japan. They should be represented somehow and I believe that China could represent their interests, but at the moment it;s not viable. At the same time I'm reluctant to give a lot of power to countries that have a history of being agressive toward their neighbors. Also, like I said, I can't see very many situations in which Pakistan and India can agree for a common good, and it would be worse if one country was in with the other one not.

[Urban Ranger]

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

A bit wonky, that.

Well Russia is considered an European country even though most of the country is in Asia.

I am also against Japan getting any seats on the SC, since Japan still has not renounced its atrocities in the past.

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

Getting rid of permanent members? Not going to happen.

[Drake Tungsten]

I am also against Japan getting any seats on the SC, since Japan still has not renounced its atrocities in the past.

If human rights played any role in determining Security Council seats, China would've been kicked out a long time ago...

[Ramo]

I don't agree with the premise of a Security Council.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Then why did you post?

[Ramo]

To see you post "Then why did you post? ".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah, you sneaky bastard.