Should new perm members be added to the UN security council? - Page 5




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 18th, 2004  
loki
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
I didnt say GDP/capita should be one of the criteria, I said "influence", in this case economical influence. S.Africa having a rather small population AND a rather small GDP/capita probably doesnt excert much of it, though factors other than the bare numbers play a role in a security context, i.e. how much a country is involved in intl. trade.

(i.e. exports 2002 from CIA wfb:
1. United States $687 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
2. Germany $608 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
3. Japan $383.8 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
4. China $325.6 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
5. France $307.8 billion f.o.b. (2002)
6. United Kingdom $286.3 billion f.o.b. (2002)
....
18. Switzerland $100.3 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
...
38. South Africa $31.8 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
...
48. Nigeria $17.3 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.))

So I still dont get the arguments why the member seats ought to be geographically balanced. Just imagine: Nigeria interfering in the peace process? S.Africa vetoing sanctions against North Korea? I dont see how this could make the UNSC a more powerful and respected institution. Including countries just because they are geographically located in a certain part of the world is a mistake, just as including France after WW2 for historical reasons and the sake of peace.

(Note: I'm not saying that France should be removed from UNSC in the process of adding other members, they still play an important role in intl politics, especially in Africa.)
December 18th, 2004  
Xion
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loki
Just imagine: Nigeria interfering in the peace process? S.Africa vetoing sanctions against North Korea?
thats just imagination, you can imagine anything like that...like china vetoing not to launch an assault against N.Korea if things get worse.Then what ?
December 18th, 2004  
loki
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion
thats just imagination, you can imagine anything like that...like china vetoing not to launch an assault against N.Korea if things get worse.Then what ?
You dont get me right, what I was trying to say is that these are not the countries that one would expect to make decision of global impact.

The UN is not a world government, they cannot afford being politically correct by including countries of minor importance just for the sake of global ballance while leaving more powerful countries out. Other institutions of the UN are based on equality and equilibirum and these are the ones you never hear about.
--
December 18th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
Just for your info, the intl. trade. list of Loki is 2 years old.

Like China's foreign trade has increased about 80% in past 2 years, and already overtook Japan as the 3th Largest Trader, behind USA and Germany.
December 18th, 2004  
Xion
 
If the veto isn't given to all permanent members powerful countries will dominate the less fortunate ones and the weaker countries will continue be weaker, no use of a revamp.Then to say that the UN is a world body is BS.Its a mere puppet in the hands of powerful countries.You say Nigeria isn't a very important country, agreed, its not because it was never given a chance.
December 18th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
I believe in the beginning the new members will not get Veto Power.

Maybe later after 5 or 10 years they will have Veto right or at that time no Veto right anymore for anyone.

Those 5 Veto Powers are all WW2 Winners.
December 18th, 2004  
Xion
 
Russia says it supports India's stance to get veto, but US will not agree to it so soon.True it will take many more years before any more nations will get veto.
But look at this, the recent US assault on Iraq, the UN ooposed it, China,Russia,France did it too - these 3 nations had the veto power - did it make any difference ? or is the veto power only limited to any UN operation ? I think so.
December 18th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
So its ok for britain to put out?
I mean we are part of europe wether we like it or not.
Why should i achnowledge what its ancestors did?
If thats the mentalty that the world wants then britain, america ,france,germany,russia,china and practically every nation on earth should admit to things its done wrong, especially UK and US.
UK invented death camps , but we are seen in good light?
US supported terror groups during cold war but fights terrorism?
Japan done wrong over 60 years ago yet you still blame them?

Also why do americans think the EU is a new gov? It isnt , its just an alliance of states who run thier own laws.
December 19th, 2004  
PLAbuddy
 
overall ,, today's BIg five is the product of Yelta meeting between the big three (Stalin, Churchil and Roselvoot) 's post-war map...

it is actually kind of Cold War map...and that truly causes cold war..

today, cold war ends..maybe the Big Five style should also end...
December 22nd, 2004  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocco
US should cut funding the terrorist supporting/sympathising U.N. and make a second U.N. like body, call it the D.N. (democratic nations) where each member must pay its fair share, and cant use the organisation for its own politcal and economical goals. basically a U.N. without all the dictatorships and with some back bone.

wow! ummm right. the US has actually never paid it fees to the UN...for various reasons. personally if the UN has a leaning away from the US it's because its JUST ONE COUNTRY!

Many member states have not paid their full dues and have cut their donations to the UN's voluntary funds. As of November 30, 2004, members arrears to the Regular Budget topped $695 million, of which the United States alone owed $530 million (76% of the regular budget).

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/

http://www.tgmag.ca/ungass/nycbin2.html