UN Security Council Expansion- Your Vote




View Poll Results :Should the current UN Security Council be expanded to include the G4?
Yes 5 33.33%
No 9 60.00%
Can't Decide 1 6.67%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
UN Security Council Expansion- Your Vote
 
September 8th, 2005  
clownfish
 

Topic: UN Security Council Expansion- Your Vote


UN Security Council Expansion- Your Vote
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."
September 8th, 2005  
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.
September 8th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
i think it's a good idea but japan has not done nearly enough to acknowlage past crimes
--
UN Security Council Expansion- Your Vote
September 8th, 2005  
Damien435
 
 

Topic: Re: UN Security Council Expansion- Your Vote


Quote:
Originally Posted by clownfish
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.
September 8th, 2005  
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.
September 8th, 2005  
WorldWatcher
 
 

Topic: Re: UN Security Council Expansion- Your Vote


Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien435
Quote:
Originally Posted by clownfish
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.
September 8th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
Kick out France & China

Bring in Australia and Japan
September 8th, 2005  
WorldWatcher
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenix_aim54
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.
September 8th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
yeah you are damn right. I just don't want France & China there
September 8th, 2005  
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 .

(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.