Should new perm members be added to the UN security council? - Page 6




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 22nd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I don't think anyone should be surprised to see the USA cut funding to the UN. The UN seems to have changed its primary mission to bashing and sabotaging the USA. They still do good things, but they've also succumbed to a tremendous amount of corruption in recent years. Much of that has led to the UN as a body setting itself against the USA.

But the question is: Should there be more permanent members of the UN Security Council? Idealogically, yes. India definitely merits that level of international recognition. So does Germany. Japan only deserves consideration if they can drop their stupid denial of WW2 warcrimes, but the second most productive economy on the planet -- well that certainly makes them important in the world. Brazil and South Africa merit recogntion as well, primarily because South America and Africa do not have any permanent members currently.

The problem, however, is this: Adding more nations with veto powers? Will this make the UN even more incapable of fulfilling the mission it was made for -- maintaining world peace? If everyone is decided that the UN is something like an International Academy Awards system whose primary purpose is to recognize "the most important nations in the world", then I see no problem adding them and giving them veto power to boot. But your only compounding the existing problem. The UN is a highly ineffective World Government system, mostly because of the existence of 5 absolute vetos to contend with. If we add, lets say 5 more. Now we'll have a body that is twice as pointless as the current UN. Twice as powerless. Twice as incapable. Do we want that?

If everyone is willing to give up all hope of the UN ever being very useful as a peacekeeping force, and relegate it to "Award Show" status, then I'd say go for it. Add some nations and add some vetos.

Personally, I'd say that somehow compensating for the crippling effect the vetos that already exist ought to take precendence over adding more of them.
December 22nd, 2004  
Ezechiel
 
What da hell? Why everyone is supporting Japan?

A group of ppl who did bad things in the past and denied it officially now can become Permanent memer?

For GOD SACK those Japanese' act r irresponsible and do not have qualification as they look down the importantce of peace. They juz want to became a super political power, not for peace.

So what if they giv so much money to UN? They din do what a peaceful country should do. Juz becoz they r economical strong then we should give them that seat?

GUYZ,ESPECIALLY WESTERNERS. STUDY HISTORY, THEY CANNOT BE IT.

I back Germany and India.
December 22nd, 2004  
Ezechiel
 
What da hell? Why everyone is supporting Japan?

A group of ppl who did bad things in the past and denied it officially now can become Permanent memer?

For GOD SACK those Japanese' act r irresponsible and do not have qualification as they look down the importantce of peace. They juz want to became a super political power, not for peace.

So what if they giv so much money to UN? They din do what a peaceful country should do. Juz becoz they r economical strong then we should give them that seat?

GUYZ,ESPECIALLY WESTERNERS. STUDY HISTORY, THEY CANNOT BE IT.

I back Germany and India.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkSmari
disgrace, japan should be
I believe ur grandfather raped quite numbers of girls in world waR 2. U want to study it?

U guyz think u r Heroes in WW II? U guyz cause destruction to Asian countries only. Nth else.

This call peace? Go sleep mate. Japan can never get it. NO WAY!
--
December 22nd, 2004  
chewie_nz
 
dude, calm it down!

but i do believe that that would have to be one of the conditions of entry, to officially (not just lip service) the actions during WWII.
December 23rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezechiel
What da h**l? Why everyone is supporting Japan?

A group of ppl who did bad things in the past and denied it officially now can become Permanent memer?

For GOD SACK those Japanese' act r irresponsible and do not have qualification as they look down the importantce of peace. They juz want to became a super political power, not for peace.

So what if they giv so much money to UN? They din do what a peaceful country should do. Juz becoz they r economical strong then we should give them that seat?

GUYZ,ESPECIALLY WESTERNERS. STUDY HISTORY, THEY CANNOT BE IT.
Japan is currently one of the most powerful and important nations in the world. That doesn't imply forgiveness for past crimes that they refuse to acknowledge. They are still a logical candidate on every other point -- perhaps a permanent seat could be offered in exchange for them fully owning up to all their warcrimes?? They're awfully stubborn about this point, but maybe it would be sufficient. If they can't admit to their attrocities, they deserve no consideration whatsoever.

Frankly, I'd like to see them acknowledge and appologize for their warcrimes so that the world can move on. Their denial in the face of overwhelming evidence and millions of witnesses is the biggest problem. No combination of circumstances has thusfar broken their government's resolved to deny reality. Perhaps this is worth considering as something to try?

Quote:
I back Germany and India
If they manage to admit and appologize for their WW2 crimes, they'd be in the same situation as Germany --- guilty as hell but forgiven for the most part. I'm doubt Russia would ever allow Germany to gain a permanent seat. They're still pretty bitter about 27 million dead from WW2.
December 23rd, 2004  
Ezechiel
 
[quote="godofthunder9010]
Quote:
Japan is currently one of the most powerful and important nations in the world. That doesn't imply forgiveness for past crimes that they refuse to acknowledge. They are still a logical candidate on every other point -- perhaps a permanent seat could be offered in exchange for them fully owning up to all their warcrimes?? They're awfully stubborn about this point, but maybe it would be sufficient. If they can't admit to their attrocities, they deserve no consideration whatsoever.

Frankly, I'd like to see them acknowledge and appologize for their warcrimes so that the world can move on. Their denial in the face of overwhelming evidence and millions of witnesses is the biggest problem. No combination of circumstances has thusfar broken their government's resolved to deny reality. Perhaps this is worth considering as something to try?

If they manage to admit and appologize for their WW2 crimes, they'd be in the same situation as Germany --- guilty as h**l but forgiven for the most part. I'm doubt Russia would ever allow Germany to gain a permanent seat. They're still pretty bitter about 27 million dead from WW2.
Ofocz no one will disagree that if he take sufficient action to apologize. But right this decade I don't see they ever do this. Besides that, they ignored their violence in WW II but keep mentioning how the American bomb their land. Jesus Christ plz persecute them! They r not going to change it.

Meaning of being a perm member is holy and importnat, u let a bunch of A##HOL*# get in to VETO and let them continue to provoke China, claim Diaoyu Island, have proper troop, provoke Taiwan affair. Is this call peace?

U see,even Russia did not let German to get in, why China and Korea? I see many western countries back Japanese to get in. This obviously show how much the Westerners have overlook the Japanese violence in WW II and their reaction to their shameful acts. Remember German apologize, did Japanese?

U have great economical power, so what? VETO is picked to keep the peace of the world. I don't see Japanese can help the peace going. U see what happen between China vs Japan today,u will know. No proper troops, small political power.

U believe it? Month ago the Japanese education minister came and praise the censolship of the schooling history text book. He said : "Why do we Japanese have to write down bad things about oursself, this is like SM style. Why do we SM our social and somthing blablablala..............
December 23rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Yeah, I'd love to find a way to get them to own up and stop with the idiotic denial of it. Its a lot like visiting a prison -- everybody there "didn't do it".

Without fully acknowledging the crimes ... I repeat ... they have no right to even be considered. We should have no problem predicting how it will go. They'll never change so they'll never get the permanent seat.

Incidentally, their stupidity has promoted a lot of hostile feelings towards them. SK is still angry, but willing to ally with them anyway in the interests of their own security. Taiwan, the Phillipines, China ... pretty much the whole list of their victims (and former empire) are very annoyed at Japan's denial and revisionism of history. I would hope that none of them would stand for Japan gaining a permanent UNSC chair.

I was thinking that .... I dunno, maybe they can be bribed into behaving themselves?? Just a thought.
December 23rd, 2004  
loki
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Japan is currently one of the most powerful and important nations in the world. That doesn't imply forgiveness for past crimes that they refuse to acknowledge. They are still a logical candidate on every other point -- perhaps a permanent seat could be offered in exchange for them fully owning up to all their warcrimes?? They're awfully stubborn about this point, but maybe it would be sufficient. If they can't admit to their attrocities, they deserve no consideration whatsoever.

Frankly, I'd like to see them acknowledge and appologize for their warcrimes so that the world can move on. Their denial in the face of overwhelming evidence and millions of witnesses is the biggest problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
If they manage to admit and appologize for their WW2 crimes, they'd be in the same situation as Germany --- guilty as h**l but forgiven for the most part. I'm doubt Russia would ever allow Germany to gain a permanent seat. They're still pretty bitter about 27 million dead from WW2.
Not correct, during the German-Russian "Konsultationen" this week, Putin stated that he will back the German efforts. Seems pretty selfevident to me, as of all western countries, Germany has the closest ties to Russia. Germany is the most important external trade partner, german companies are heavily investing in Russia, chancellor Schroeder is hardly ever criticizing his good friend Wladimir at all for bagatelles such as installing an authoritarian regime, suppressing human rights, impairing freedom of the press and the like.

And while you may be right about older people and veterans having antipathy against Germany, from what I've heard, the younger generation seems to have better things to do than being bitter about the past. Apart,they could also be bitter about the Stalinist terror which resulted in at least as many casualties as the German aggression. They could also be bitter about their current governement and their jurisdiction, that puts people into jail for years for stealing food, and lets others get away with stealing billions. But bitterness doesn't help anybody. I'm not trying to say that one should forget about the past, but letting the (long-gone) past determine how you act towards certain people today means having prejudices. But thats off topic.

Another point is, why is there so much talk about moral issues, guilt and the like at all? Where the current permanent members chosen for their moral supremacy? I believe not. When the USSR became a member, they had millions of people imprisoned in their Gulag concentration camps. China was added although they had occupied Tibet. UK and France where the main colonial powers and deprived millions of people from their right of (political) self-determination. I think the current permanent members where chosen because they where the key countries to maintaining peace as they had a lot of influence on the rest of the world and could balance out each others interests. And this should also be the main criteria today. (Of course nobody would want an "evil" country to be added. But I can't think of any country in the world that I would consider inherently evil. They just represent different ideas of how a country is to be run and what a governement may demand from its citizens.) And if China is acceptable, then 95% of the rest of the world should also be eligible for a permanent seat. (given the other prerequisites.)
December 23rd, 2004  
Ezechiel
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loki
Not correct, during the German-Russian "Konsultationen" this week, Putin stated that he will back the German efforts. Seems pretty selfevident to me, as of all western countries, Germany has the closest ties to Russia. Germany is the most important external trade partner, german companies are heavily investing in Russia, chancellor Schroeder is hardly ever criticizing his good friend Wladimir at all for bagatelles such as installing an authoritarian regime, suppressing human rights, impairing freedom of the press and the like.

And while you may be right about older people and veterans having antipathy against Germany, from what I've heard, the younger generation seems to have better things to do than being bitter about the past. Apart,they could also be bitter about the Stalinist terror which resulted in at least as many casualties as the German aggression. They could also be bitter about their current governement and their jurisdiction, that puts people into jail for years for stealing food, and lets others get away with stealing billions. But bitterness doesn't help anybody. I'm not trying to say that one should forget about the past, but letting the (long-gone) past determine how you act towards certain people today means having prejudices. But thats off topic.

Another point is, why is there so much talk about moral issues, guilt and the like at all? Where the current permanent members chosen for their moral supremacy? I believe not. When the USSR became a member, they had millions of people imprisoned in their Gulag concentration camps. China was added although they had occupied Tibet. UK and France where the main colonial powers and deprived millions of people from their right of (political) self-determination. I think the current permanent members where chosen because they where the key countries to maintaining peace as they had a lot of influence on the rest of the world and could balance out each others interests. And this should also be the main criteria today. (Of course nobody would want an "evil" country to be added. But I can't think of any country in the world that I would consider inherently evil. They just represent different ideas of how a country is to be run and what a governement may demand from its citizens.) And if China is acceptable, then 95% of the rest of the world should also be eligible for a permanent seat. (given the other prerequisites.)
Germany already apologize for that so I back Germany to go.

I know that Younger generation don't bother much about the past, but as we r talking about UN stuff, wee should give much consider about the country's political status and actions recently. It will be meaning less for us to study History if we can even accept Japanese to get in VETO.

Oh, China occupied a few territory which were belonged to them in the ancient history (Ch'ng) and that makes u have the excuse to demonlized China?

How can u say that if China get in, 95% of countries can get it? U extremely looking-down the China status. Comparing all the big powers today China have the best record in the history, which is not as bloody as other big powers. China has 1.2 Billions poeple. Have great political and economical influents. Have good relationsship witth many countries, they r the most friendly in the history comparing other countries.

China leaders alwayz visit other countries, even European feel happy to coroperate with China. Even small countries like us (Malaysia), China also like to have good relationship with us. South American love to have coroperation with China too. I can't see why China shouldn't be a VETO member. If u r taking example like TIBET and TAIWAN. U should also condemm Russian and American for Cold War, Iraq,Afghanistan, Middle East policy also.

Maintaining peace, no Japan. India and Germany should get in VETO. That's all.
December 23rd, 2004  
loki
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezechiel
Oh, China occupied a few territory which were belonged to them in the ancient history (Ch'ng) and that makes u have the excuse to demonlized China?

How can u say that if China get in, 95% of countries can get it? U extremely looking-down the China status. Comparing all the big powers today China have the best record in the history, which is not as bloody as other big powers. China has 1.2 Billions poeple. Have great political and economical influents. Have good relationsship witth many countries, they r the most friendly in the history comparing other countries.
Thats a misunderstanding, this 95%-statement was not meant history-wise. I agree that China doesnt have a particularly violent history compared with other countries. Neither did I mean that in terms of influence. I meant to say that the Chinese (official) view on civil rights and liberties differs from a western approach A LOT, so if considering these differences China is still an acceptable partner for maintaining peace, then most other countries would be too.