Should new perm members be added to the UN security council? - Page 4




View Poll Results :Do you think there should be new permanent UN Security Council members?
Yes 8 44.44%
No 3 16.67%
Yes, but without veto powers like the originals 5 27.78%
Yes and also increase the number of 2 year term members to balance it out 2 11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
December 17th, 2004  
Xion
 
What FlyingFrog said some posts above is true it shouldn't represnt only developed countries it should be a mixture of developed countries and developing countries
USA,Germany,U.K.,France on one side and Russia,China,India on the other would be balanced.
Add Japan and Brazil to either sides to balance out
December 17th, 2004  
PLAbuddy
 
en.......i am not flying frog..

do u think those countires should be granted with veto power?
December 17th, 2004  
Xion
 
Not granting the new countries veto power is like inviting someone to dinner without any food.
It will be the same scenario again as earlier if these new countries aren't given the veto power.Instead don't revamp it at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PLABuddy
en.......i am not flying frog..
I was talking about FlyingFrog's post , scroll up on the second page
--
December 17th, 2004  
PLAbuddy
 
lol..sorry, about misunderstanding

but do u think those new countires can use their veto power well?

like not to mess up with the new veto power
December 17th, 2004  
Xion
 
Take India, India is a democracy, a non-aggressive nation...
same applies to Brazil or Japan, Germany ...there's no way the veto power could be used in a wrong way unless you give it to North Korea.
Its like this if the UN wants to revamp the UNSC really then they know the veto power should be with all perm. members, otherwise it will only be a superficial revamp.
December 17th, 2004  
loki
 
Seems like a lot of the objections against the main candidates (Japan,Germany,India,Brazil) are pretty emotional. E.g. Italy's objection against a german seat is just a defiant reaction to the situation in european politics where France,UK and Germany make the decisions and Italy takes a back seat. (more or less)
Given the facts that new permanent members will be admitted and that Italy will most likely not be one of them, I dont see how the admission of any other candidate instead of Germany would serve Italy better.

The situation with Mexico/Argentina vs. Brazil and S.Korea vs. Japan seems pretty much the same. (Although there's also the issue of the Japan not admitting war crimes in Korea, etc.)

Also, I dont see why one of the new permanent members should necesarily be African. I mean, the main job of the UNSC should be to prevent and solve crisis. So candidates aptitude should be determined by stableness, intl reputation and influence, ability to react to crisis, willingness to use those abilities, etc.
Nigeria for example lacks most of those. Their only plus is their military and their commitment to peacekeeping missions in the region. But internally they have lots of problems, in half of the country sharia courts form the legislature, intl reputation and economic power are mediocre at best. S.Africa seems a little better overall, but they support the Mugabe regime, their military is rather small, GDP/capita ist below 3000$, not much on the pro side.

Judging from these facts, even smaller western countries like Switzerland would be better suited for a permanent seat. (Though Switzerland probably wouldn't accept due to neutrality reasons)
December 17th, 2004  
PLAbuddy
 
en...well....i cant fully agree with u on the per capita issue...
china 's GDP per capitia is only about 1000$ U.S, but it is one of the "big five"

i think we should have another new "Big Ten", 2 nations from each continenet...
December 17th, 2004  
rocco
 
france should be removed, and replaced by EU.

India should be included to balance things between the 5 current members.

germany, as above, part of EU voice. i mean if france and germany are so keep on EU economically, they should be keep on it haveing one voice in UN too... cant have things both ways IMO.

brasil? i see no benefit from including brasil.

Japan? i think it should be given a seat, but only if it takes steps to achnowlege what happened in WW2... some kind of talks with countries like Korea where cjapan can help itself but more korea to repair relations.
December 17th, 2004  
PLAbuddy
 
fully agree with u ,

and not just repair relationshiop with korea, but also china
December 18th, 2004  
rocco
 
we can all agree that japan will never pay pensions or enourmous sums of cash, but they should atleast do mutually beneficial acts in the whole region