Q about the UN Security Council

[Exarch]

Why is france still a permanent member of the UNSC?
i was under the impression that permanent members were superpowers, either politcally/militarily, or economically; so i can understand if UK is a member, i can understand if china, USA, russia are permanent members...but france?
wouldnt it be more appropriate for the 5th member to be a representative from the EU, rather than France alone?

Discuss

PS pls feel free to digress about issues concerning the UNSC, with sources too

[Kiljan Arslan]

It was one of the victor in the 2nd World War.

[Exarch]

ok, but what about today?
wouldnt it be better to have a rep from the EU (more voices from europe), rather than france alone?

[danzig]

ok, but what about today?
wouldnt it be better to have a rep from the EU (more voices from europe), rather than france alone?

France probably shouldnt be and neither really should the Brits. Ultimately it would be nice to see a "EU" seat on the security council but you know for decades China had no right to be on the council either so I have no problem with French haing a seat.

[Exarch]

France probably shouldnt be and neither really should the Brits. Ultimately it would be nice to see a "EU" seat on the security council but you know for decades China had no right to be on the council either so I have no problem with French haing a seat.

i disagree with your last point; a country whereby 1/5th of the world's population resides, should have a permanent voice on the UNSC.
in the case of france, they were the only allied country that collaborated with the nazis-why they were even considered for a permanent seat remains a mystery to me.

[wilting]

It's worth noting that there is a lot of talk at the moment about the possibility new permanent Memberships of the Security Council; namely India, Brazil, Japan, Germany and possibly one African State or predominantly Muslim State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_...curity_Council

[danzig]

i disagree with your last point; a country whereby 1/5th of the world's population resides, should have a permanent voice on the UNSC.

Population is for the most part irrelevant otherwise why isnt India there as well?

[Kiljan Arslan]

I'd personally argue for India , Japan or Germany but well france would have to voluntarily give it up. Fat chance of that happening.

[Scandinavisksoldat]

I'd personally argue for India , Japan or Germany but well france would have to voluntarily give it up. Fat chance of that happening.

I'd agree with this. If you wanted a strong nation, these would be the ones to choose, according to GFP.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

Nuclear weapons, past and present military experience, training and equipment quality are not taken into account.

[Exarch]

i nominate australia
a southern hemisphere power would be apt for the UNSC
india'd be a good choice for a member; as for germany, i also agree, but french and german voices would be heard in the EU.

[Ulazlo the Warmonger]

i'd personally disagree with an EU nomination as the EU has enough trouble agreeing on things within themselves much less to represent themselves at the UNSC. Then you have to think about which country is the delegate coming from and which country is president at the time. I think a single nation would be much more efficient so I'd nominate Germany seeing as they are a G-8 nation with much of the same interests as France only they are bit more powerful on the world stage.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Like India perhapse.

Hmm never mind Ulazlos argument makes me support the EU.

[Exarch]

ok, but quite honestly, the UNSC doesnt seem to enforce peace for the sake of world peace; rather, it seems like support and topple nations who threaten world peace whenever it suits them.
an eg would be china's use of her veto power agaisnt motions against the sudan and iran, or france;s many vetoes against the US...

[Scandinavisksoldat]

ok, but quite honestly, the UNSC doesnt seem to enforce peace for the sake of world peace; rather, it seems like support and topple nations who threaten world peace whenever it suits them.
an eg would be china's use of her veto power agaisnt motions against the sudan and iran, or france;s many vetoes against the US...

It's called 'greed' and 'use of power' (oor perhaps misuse of power, if you take that approach.)

[Kiljan Arslan]

Yes and so it get nothing done. HIGH FIVE!

[Caelius]

i was under the impression that permanent members were superpowers, either politcally/militarily, or economically; so i can understand if UK is a member, i can understand if china, USA, russia are permanent members...but france?

They aren't. Infact, where'd you ever get that impression?

The only two Superpowers that have ever been members of the UNSC have been the USA and former USSR.

The permanent member seats have always been reserved to the primary victor nations that established the post-WWII world order.

ok, but quite honestly, the UNSC doesnt seem to enforce peace for the sake of world peace; rather, it seems like support and topple nations who threaten world peace whenever it suits them.

Why should that be surprising?

[Kiljan Arslan]

Its called keeping the UN as week as possible. HIGH FIVE!

[Scandinavisksoldat]

Its called keeping the UN as week as possible. HIGH FIVE!

High five? You want to keep the UN weak? Well, maybe you've got a point...

[wilting]

EU representation on the Security Council isn't possible because regional organisations can't be UN Members, only sovereign states (although regional organisations do have representation and fora at the UN). EU would have to become a State in order to sit on Security Council.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Yes I do everyone dose China dose for its associations with Sudan and Mugabe, Britain because of the commenwealth, france because it would prevent it in selling weapon systems to poor countries, Russia it would do the same thing and prevent it from meddeling in Central Asia and eastern Europe and Us because it would prevent us from meddeling in the Middle East.