U.N. Reform: Altering the Security Council

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

I've been reading articles on and off regarding reform of the United Nations. Among the efforts under way include expanding the Security Council — both the permanent seats and the rotating seats.

As it stands now, the Security Council hardly ever gets anything done because any action requires a perfect vote. If it expands, and that requirement remains, the Security Council, IMO, will truly become nothing more than a useless elite club. Any nation can block action by the council — be it America defending Israel to China thwarting condemnation of Zimbabwe's latest offense (bulldozing an entire township into the ground) to any number of other scenarios — so why does the "Perfection Rule" (my coinage) remain in effect? Wouldn't it be better to, perhaps, require a super majority instead? IOW, if the Security Council ends up with 10 permanent members, only seven "ayes" would be needed to move a motion forward? It's the only way I can see anything being accomplished, but at the same time I can see just about every interested member opposing it, for obvious reasons.

Just food for thought.

Gatekeeper

[Winston]

The UN way, if it's not working, don't fix it.

[Flip McWho]

They should get rid of it. Elitism.

[Sandman]

As I understood it, the new permanent members won't have vetoes.

[Proteus_MST]

Of course, no more veto-rights among the permanent members and just a super majority needed to get things rolling would help the security council a lot.

As it is now, it´s just a farce.

[DRoseDARs]

I've always believed that the One Veto To Kill Them All rule was total horse pucky and made the SC mostly toothless. Eliminating the veto

[Gatekeeper]

I prefer the super majority approach but, as I said previously, I can see a lot of opposition arising to such a change.

From America because it would lessen its ability to thwart condemnations of Israel (justified or not). From France, because that means its efforts to prevent U.N. approval of certain aspects of American foreign policy would be dealt a blow. The possibilities go on and on. That's why I don't think anything will ever change — there are simply too many established interests that aren't going to budge come hell or high water.

Sandman, I hadn't heard about new permanent SC members not having vetoes. If that's the case, doesn't that take a big bite out of any point in being a SC member?

On a related note, perhaps it's high time that if the SC is to expand, it do so in a manner that more equally represents Earth's geography. IOW, it might be an idea to get an African and/or South American representative on the council.

Gatekeeper

[TheStinger]

The veto countries won't agree to giving up their veto

[dannubis]

that's why this issue shouldn't be decided in the sc but by the assemblee

[TheStinger]

Give a veto to micronesia

[BeBMan]

Several countries, including Japan and Germany are rough states when it comes to psc membership proliferation

[BeBMan]

Seriously - have you noticed the little diplo war between Italy and the so-called G4 (which try to get a seat in the psc)? Italy accused them - or at least one of the four without giving the name - to blackmail other countries so that they support the G4 or face loss of money (foreign aid). Now Italy is accused itself that it had set Albania under pressure to change its previous support for those G4 otherwise it would cut financial support......

I wonder ow this turns out when the dust settles

[child of Thor]

Super majority gets my vote - seems the most democratic approach, as long as each members vote carries the same weight, me might end up with a situation where the UN and humankind can actualy do the good things in the world that basic human nature(ie being 'good') mostly agrees on? Would give a voice to the poorer countries in the world too, and help address that imbalance.

[Tingkai]

Why a super majority as oppose to a majority?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Why a super majority as oppose to a majority?

That would be my question as well. I'm not opposed to super majority, but allowing a single veto from any member to override all other votes on the SC makes the body useless.