UN Security Council Expansion- Your Vote

[clownfish]

Here is the proposal, briefly:

Brazil, Germany, Japan and India want to add 10 more seats to the 15-member Council. They want six permanent places without veto power and four non-permanent places. They hope the permanent seats will go to the four states and to two African countries. The G4 proposal is co-sponsored by 23 countries, including current permanent Council member France.

The argument for expansion is thus: "Activities of the Security Council have greatly expanded in the past few years. The success of Security Council's actions depends upon political support of the international community. Any package for restructuring of the Security Council should, therefore, be broad-based. In particular, adequate presence of developing countries is needed in the Security Council. Nations of the world must feel that their stakes in global peace and prosperity are factored into the UN's decision making."

 

[WARmachine88]

but it seems G4 is in disadvantages now that neither superpower like U.S (U.S just supports Japan), nor majority of small nations, like G4's idea.



personally, I believe India definately should have a seat, how can 1 billion people do not have represenation in UN security council.

but japan....unless its PM stops going to the temple and worship class-A war criminals (who are as bad as HItler or Green) and acts in a more responsible manner, I dont think Japan should be a permenant member.

 

[chewie_nz]

i think it's a good idea but japan has not done nearly enough to acknowlage past crimes

 

[Damien435]

Activities of the Security Council have greatly expanded in the past few years. The success of Security Council's actions depends upon political support of the international community.

I always thought that Desert Storm was the last time that the UN Security Council approved the use of force against any nation under the flag of the UN. I know the UN sent troops to Somalia but i don't know enough about the rules of engagement those forces were forced to follow to know if the use of force was authorized or not. IMO the veto power should just be removed and if 9 out of the 15 members blah blah blah, you know the rest.

The only nation I really have a problem with of the four is Japan, I don't think that they have earned a permanent spot on the Security council, I also don't think that India should be made a permanent member if Pakistan is not also made a permanent member. The only African nation I can think of that should be put on the list is South Africa, Egypt should not be allowed because of their history with Israel. Brazil and Germany I do not have a problem with. Germany I feel has shed it's history of aggression against her neighbors, they learned their lessons from two World Wars and I doubt will ever allow themselves to start another war. Brazil is a pretty safe choice, undoubtedly the most powerful nation on the South American continent, they have their own space program in the works and seem to have a thribing economy.

However the Security Council is all about power, right now the five countries with permanent seats were the first five to test nuclear weapons and the five most powerful nations in the world. To give a country a permanent seat is to say that they are one of the five, or in this case 11, most powerful nations in the world. I personaly feel that if this was the case North Korea, South Korea, Israel and Pakistan would all be ahead of Brazil for a spot on the security council. I personally feel that Germany should be added to the security council but not as an expansion but rather a replacement to France. I had always wondered why France and not Germany had a spot on the security council. To me it seems that Germany is the most powerful nation on continental Europe (minus Russia) and that Germany, not France should have a permanent spot on the security council. I also think that Germany would do a better job than the US, Russia, China, France or UK about trying to make the UN stick to its charter and preventing any future genocide.

 

[mmarsh]

I would say Brasil.

The reason being because we have two whole continents with no representation. I would be against India and Japan because Asia is already represented by China.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Activities of the Security Council have greatly expanded in the past few years. The success of Security Council's actions depends upon political support of the international community.

I always thought that Desert Storm was the last time that the UN Security Council approved the use of force against any nation under the flag of the UN. I know the UN sent troops to Somalia but i don't know enough about the rules of engagement those forces were forced to follow to know if the use of force was authorized or not. IMO the veto power should just be removed and if 9 out of the 15 members blah blah blah, you know the rest.

The only nation I really have a problem with of the four is Japan, I don't think that they have earned a permanent spot on the Security council, I also don't think that India should be made a permanent member if Pakistan is not also made a permanent member. The only African nation I can think of that should be put on the list is South Africa, Egypt should not be allowed because of their history with Israel. Brazil and Germany I do not have a problem with. Germany I feel has shed it's history of aggression against her neighbors, they learned their lessons from two World Wars and I doubt will ever allow themselves to start another war. Brazil is a pretty safe choice, undoubtedly the most powerful nation on the South American continent, they have their own space program in the works and seem to have a thribing economy.

However the Security Council is all about power, right now the five countries with permanent seats were the first five to test nuclear weapons and the five most powerful nations in the world. To give a country a permanent seat is to say that they are one of the five, or in this case 11, most powerful nations in the world. I personaly feel that if this was the case North Korea, South Korea, Israel and Pakistan would all be ahead of Brazil for a spot on the security council. I personally feel that Germany should be added to the security council but not as an expansion but rather a replacement to France. I had always wondered why France and not Germany had a spot on the security council. To me it seems that Germany is the most powerful nation on continental Europe (minus Russia) and that Germany, not France should have a permanent spot on the security council. I also think that Germany would do a better job than the US, Russia, China, France or UK about trying to make the UN stick to its charter and preventing any future genocide.

The five members of the security council were the winners of WWll. Was not neccesarily based on the strongest,most modern, etc. Also that is why
France is there.

Anyways I dont know if expanding would be effective, and if they recieved veto power, then definatley not.Would just more people to veto things they dislike, making the UN resolutions even more ineffecient.

There would be repercussions in adding certain members. Adding India would seriously upset Pakistan. Adding Japan wouild upset China, who would most likely veto the move, and Japan seems to be the only onte the US is likely to support. Argentina has said it deserves a seat just as much as Brazil. Italy also says it feels left out if Germany is made a member, citing that they are a major European power as well. Each of the G4 has at least one country to contest it, and would cause even more inefficiency, so I would have to go with no.

 

[phoenix80]

Kick out France & China

Bring in Australia and Japan

 

[WorldWatcher]

Kick out France & China

Bring in Australia and Japan

Hehe, might undermine the term "Permanent Security Council Member". Which is another reason why it would be a big move, cant just kick one out if you add them, so you would have to check into many concerns and history before adding them.

 

[phoenix80]

yeah you are damn right. I just don't want France & China there :lol: :evil:

 

[Spartacus]

Good thing I am not French or Chinese. I think the U.N. as a whole, is pretty worthless.
A) It doesnt carry through on promises of retribution (other than economic sanctions which, although harmful, are not necessarily all-terrible)
B) It seems as though the vast majority of resources, particularly money and troops, come from the U.S. It doesnt seem to make sense to allow other members to then determine how these things are used.

I like the idea, but it seems as though they have gotten fftopic: .

(BTW I am not saying all come from the U.S., just a lot)

Am I wrong? Thats just the impression I have have and those around me seem to agree.

 

[SwordFish_13]

Hi,

A) It doesnt carry through on promises of retribution (other than economic sanctions which, although harmful, are not necessarily all-terrible)

It depends on member Countries to make desicions ......... stop thinkng it as a seperate entity ........ member Countries make up UN and it's decision generally reflect the Mood of the members ..

B) It seems as though the vast majority of resources, particularly money and troops, come from the U.S. It doesnt seem to make sense to allow other members to then determine how these things are used.

I wouldn't call 30 to 100 Troops as majority of troops ......... Bangladesh , Pakistan and India accounts for the majority of troops............ some 70 % of the total Troops come from these 3 countries.

USA is still to pay it's Long standing Dues to UN.

Not that it means anyhitng But Stop thinking you Bought UN and it should agree to each and every of your Policy ............ there are other member Countries as well .


peace

 

[phoenix80]

Do americans say: UN out of US, US out of UN?

 

[Damien435]

USA is still to pay it's Long standing Dues to UN.

I would have thought we did that in Korea and Desert Storm. Whenever the UN calls on its member nations to fight the US is usually at the front and sends teh largest force. I am going to steal a movie quote here, "With great power comes great responsibility." The US is currently the world's only superpower and when the UN calls on its members to send forces it really is only fitting that we send the largest force because we are able too. I don't think there are many American peace keepers though and I can understand this, why would we send our soldiers into a situation where they are not allowed to fire back when fired upon? The Peacekeepers are a joke, not the soldiers themselves but the rules of engagement they are forced to abide. They are supposed to be a symbolic show of arms to deter violence but 300 peacekeepers in a country where hundreds of thousands of people are trying to kill each other is a pretty pathetic show of force and will not do much.

Do americans say: UN out of US, US out of UN?

I just say that unless the UN actually starts to flex their muscles they are a joke and should only focus on humanitarian aid and might as well stop issuing UN sanctions on nations because nothing will come of them if they do not enforce those sanctions.

 

[Charge 7]

I would say Brasil.

The reason being because we have two whole continents with no representation. I would be against India and Japan because Asia is already represented by China.

Uh, I think you're forgetting that rather large chunk of Russia that's in Asia too.

 

[Damien435]

I would say Brasil.

The reason being because we have two whole continents with no representation. I would be against India and Japan because Asia is already represented by China.

Uh, I think you're forgetting that rather large chunk of Russia that's in Asia too.

True, but Russia is a European Nation in almost every sense of the word. The capitol is in Europe, most of its military bases are in Europe, its politics are directed towards the west. They are a European nation which happens to have a large chunk in Asia.

 

[Charge 7]

If you truly think Russia is a European nation, you have some studying to do.

 

[WARmachine88]

If you truly think Russia is a European nation, you have some studying to do.

Russia's influence in Asia is very minor now as it does not have the economic power (maybe a bit military, but it is not really worth anything in peace time frankly speaking) to compete with India and China.

India deserves a seat in my opinion since it has 1 billion people and it has shown wills to be a responsible big power (like starting peace with Pakistan).

I think I have heard somewhere China supports Brazil's bid to go into security council.

UN security council permenant seat and the veto power are just cheating tools for big powers so they can protect their interest without being out voted by small nations and abandon UN (like wut happened in Leage of nations, Italy and Japan just simpily walked out when they were condemned for majority of members).

so i dont think it is wise to just kick out China and France to cripple UN even more.

 

[Bory]

Before we make the UN bigger and more powerful we should start mass lay offs in the senior staff.

The Oil for Food Scandal is disgusting. Kofi Annan has taken personal responsibility, for giving that pig Saddam Hussein $13 Billion that was supposed to be for aid.

I wonder were all that money went, Hmm :roll:

 

[LeEnfield]

Now China is, or soon will be a major player on the World stage, India is another country I would have thought could take a seat on the Security council along with Japan. Both these countries have now a strong democratic tradition and are not prone to military coupes

 

[mmarsh]

If you truly think Russia is a European nation, you have some studying to do.

He not completely wrong. For centuries the Russians have tried like to imagine themselves as Europeans. The Bolshevik revolution put an end it that. But even now we see Russia trying to restablish its lost roots to Europe. I would guess that Russia is a mix between the Asian and European continents.

If it was to be another Asian country I would think it would be Japan. Tensions are much worse between India and Pakistan than China and Japan, and Japan could be a counterbalance to China and North Korea.