U.N. Reform: Altering the Security Council

[chequita guevara]

A perfect vote is not needed. It's just that five countries have a veto. I think that all nuclear powers should have a permanent veto. Yes, that gives countries an incentive to go nuclear, but it will also help keep these countries from going to war.

[lord of the mark]

the veto was needed to get the great powers to give any power to the UNSC. No veto, no great power respect, - no great power respect, and the UNSC becomes as meaningless as the UN GA. The UNSC to be meaningful has to respect the real distribution of power in the world.


My pet scheme is that you WOULD add permanent members with vetos. 2 vetos would be needed to block a UNSC res. And the US would be given a double veto. So UNSC res could be stopped by the US alone, or by any two other perm members. Its unrealistic to think any one perm member OTHER than the US would dare to stop a consensus of all the other perm members - the imbalance in power would be too great - and equally unrealistic to think the US, where the UN is NOT at the peak of its popularity, would accept the loss of its ability to block resolutions.

Given the unlikelihood of this scheme being adopted (cause folks dont want to acknowledge or ratify the unique US position) the addition of permanent members without the veto is the preferred option.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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

theres no african country that belongs the way Japan, Germany, and India do.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
the veto was needed to get the great powers to give any power to the UNSC. No veto, no great power respect, - no great power respect, and the UNSC becomes as meaningless as the UN GA. The UNSC to be meaningful has to respect the real distribution of power in the world.


My pet scheme is that you WOULD add permanent members with vetos. 2 vetos would be needed to block a UNSC res. And the US would be given a double veto. So UNSC res could be stopped by the US alone, or by any two other perm members. Its unrealistic to think any one perm member OTHER than the US would dare to stop a consensus of all the other perm members - the imbalance in power would be too great - and equally unrealistic to think the US, where the UN is NOT at the peak of its popularity, would accept the loss of its ability to block resolutions.

Given the unlikelihood of this scheme being adopted (cause folks dont want to acknowledge or ratify the unique US position) the addition of permanent members without the veto is the preferred option.

The UNSC is not meaningful at all, because too much weight was given to the real distribution of powers in the world when it was instituted.
If it would be modeled after your pet scheme, it would become even more meaningless, as it would be degraded to an instrument of power of the USA, no more, no less (as the USA is able to alone block any votes it doesn´t want).
It would be different, if you´d at least raise the number of vetoes needed to block anything to 3 (so that even the USA would have to find another member with Veto-Powers, to block an UNSC-Resolution)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


The UNSC is not meaningful at all, because too much weight was given to the real distribution of powers in the world when it was instituted.
If it would be modeled after your pet scheme, it would become even more meaningless, as it would be degraded to an instrument of power of the USA, no more, no less (as the USA is able to alone block any votes it doesn´t want).
It would be different, if you´d at least raise the number of vetoes needed to block anything to 3 (so that even the USA would have to find another member with Veto-Powers, to block an UNSC-Resolution)

The US can already block any votes it doesnt want, so that maintains the status quo. And the US would still be unable to pass anything it wanted, as it would still be easy to get vetoes against the US. Forex, on Iraq, there were 3 powers - Russia, China, and France - prepared to veto it - and Germany and India, two of the proposed additions, would likely have vetoed as well. OTOH, a US proposal that had, say, the support of Germany, UK, France, India, Japan and either Russia or China but not both, WOULD pass. Im having a hard time thinking of such a resolution that would represent simply an extension of US power, and not a real issue of importance.

I also think you underestimate the distrust for the UN here in the US, especially on issues related to the middle east. Right now the get us out of the UN movement is a conservative fringe thing, but a succession of resolutions passed over US opposition on the middle east, resolutions the US sees as unfair and imbalanced, would trigger a much more substantial movement for US withdrawl from the UN.

[lord of the mark]

and i disagree that the UNSC is meaningless. Folks on both the left and right tend to focus on the most controversial questions, where the UNSC is stalemated. There are lots of other items, from managing UN peacekeeping around the world, to dealing with smaller crises, where the UNSC actually does some good work.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
edit....... There are lots of other items, from managing UN peacekeeping around the world, to dealing with smaller crises, where the UNSC actually does some good work.

True i just think we should be brave+open it all up. Its the only way i can see us really tackling the big issues and dealing with all the concerns that the poorer nations(70% of the worlds population) have.
Imo Imperialism has had its day - its time to build a truely global world with all peoples treated fairly, an ideal America was founded on and seems to be loseing site of in recent times(i guess not including the native americans - but it was a few hundred years ago - we have all evolved since then).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by child of Thor


True i just think we should be brave+open it all up. Its the only way i can see us really tackling the big issues and dealing with all the concerns that the poorer nations(70% of the worlds population) have.
Imo Imperialism has had its day - its time to build a truely global world with all peoples treated fairly, an ideal America was founded on and seems to be loseing site of in recent times(i guess not including the native americans - but it was a few hundred years ago - we have all evolved since then).

keeping the veto doesnt mean imperialism. It means recognizing the real position of the great powers. The US is not interested in a UNSC that acts as a world govt (a truely global world? - no, we were founded as an independent sovereignty) Dropping the veto would mean US withdrawl, and would mean a weaker UN, and a more isolationist, more unilateralist US. Both of which I think are BAD things.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and i disagree that the UNSC is meaningless. Folks on both the left and right tend to focus on the most controversial questions, where the UNSC is stalemated. There are lots of other items, from managing UN peacekeeping around the world, to dealing with smaller crises, where the UNSC actually does some good work.

O.K., you´re correct on this.
I should better have said:
The UNSC hasn´t the meaning it should have.

As for the Votes:
Of course, you are correct that it wouldn´t alter the Status Quo as it is today and that other states might still block resolutions the USA wants.
But that´s exactly my point:
There are not too much Resolutions which where passed by the UNSC, but rathern too much of useful resolutions of the UNSC which were blocked by the Veto-Powers and not few of them were blocked by the USA

Therefore I want to undermine the power of vetoes, so that more Resolutions are passed and no State can singlehanded block a Resolution.

I agree that the USA is an important power within the UNSC especially if it comes to military operations (well, if it comes to paying their membership-fees for the UN on the other hand that´s another story ) and that therefore it might be a good thing to keep them happy.
But the USA is also a state which (like all other states do) primarily acts on its own self interest.
And that´s IMHO the problem. A Balance has to be found between keeping the USA within the UN and not giving one state (not even the USA) too much power within the UNSC/UN.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


O.K., you´re correct on this.
I should better have said:
The UNSC hasn´t the meaning it should have.

As for the Votes:
Of course, you are correct that it wouldn´t alter the Status Quo as it is today and that other states might still block resolutions the USA wants.
But that´s exactly my point:
There are not too much Resolutions which where passed by the UNSC, but rathern too much of useful resolutions of the UNSC which were blocked by the Veto-Powers and not few of them were blocked by the USA
.

I cant think of any resolutions that would have meaningully advanced world peace which were blocked by a US veto

[Zkribbler]

Historical note: The veto arose out of a desire to keep the UN from confronting any major power in a conflict.

[Gatekeeper]

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

I figure on matters of global importance, it's better to be "really, really sure" about an action than just "sure," if that makes any sense. Thus the standard wouldn't require a perfect vote, but it also would require more than just a majority vote.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by BeBro
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

Italy was accusing Japan of throwing its financial weight around.

Gatekeeper

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Historical note: The veto arose out of a desire to keep the UN from confronting any major power in a conflict.

Heh. I can see the headline now: "U.N. armies land in San Francisco, welcomed by populace!"

Gatekeeper

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I cant think of any resolutions that would have meaningully advanced world peace which were blocked by a US veto

Hm,
there are a number of useful resolutions which were blocked.

Aside from numerous resolutions condemning human rights violations by Israel,
there were also some resolutions agaoinst Apartheid South Africa and a lot of resolutions concerning the protection of developing countries,
some resolutions trying to ban biological and chemical weapons and trying to ban nucelar test and even a resolution calling for a UN Conference on women (obviously to discuss where womens rights are violated) and many others, all of them vetoed by the USA

See here for a (i think) complete list of resolutions vetoed by the USA:

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html