Restructuring the UN Security Council

[Stavroforos]

Do you believe any members should be added / removed? If so, who?

Do you believe their powers should remain the same?

Do you believe the Council should be abolished all together?


Me personally:

Keep the current members and powers, and in some years time replace France with an EU representative. Add India and Turkey, maybe Pakistan to balance India.

[Arjun]

Do you believe any members should be added / removed? If so, who?

Do you believe their powers should remain the same?

Do you believe the Council should be abolished all together?


Me personally:

Keep the current members and powers, and in some years time replace France with an EU representative. Add India and Turkey, maybe Pakistan to balance India.

There is already China to balance India, Pakistan on the Other hand does not have as much clout/say as India , Germany or Japan do. I would say India should be included cos it represents 1/6th of Humanity; Germany and Japan cos they represent bigger economic powerhouses than a couple now in the council

Also the veto thing should be either abolished or should be diluted in some way. Otherwise we are going to see the security council vetoing each other when it comes to important issues; especially humanitarian ones. in other words the UN would become yet another league of nations. Or better yet; abolish the "permanent member" thing and replace it with an elected membership. This would force the members to be more open to suggestion from other countries.

[Stavroforos]

Ah yeah, I forgot Japan.

Also, I'd say limit the veto power but not remove it.

[Arjun]

Ah yeah, I forgot Japan.

Also, I'd say limit the veto power but not remove it.

yeah..look at the Dharfur crisis...China vetoed the last security council motion that was brought about to send peacekeepers there/impose sanctions on Sudan......of course the Fact that China is Sudan biggest trading partner/arms supplier did not influence China's vote

[bushbush]

in my view there should be several permanent seats added to accommodate big powers that are outside of the big five, such as germany, japan, india, brazil, south africa and etc. However, i doubt the big five will share veto powre with them.

as for the veto power itself, it should still be there as a protection for the big powers against a majority of small countries overwhelming them in the UN. It avoids the situation happened in the league of nations where one big power another another simply bailed after the decision went against their interets and the league itself was rendered ineffective.

[Stavroforos]

Of course not! China is number one supporter of democratics.

[Arjun]

Of course not! China is number one supporter of democratics.

as for the veto power itself, it should still be there as a protection for the big powers against a majority of small countries overwhelming them in the UN. It avoids the situation happened in the league of nations where one big power another another simply bailed after the decision went against their interets and the league itself was rendered ineffective.

but then it will be a system with inherent inequality and would not be sustainable in the longer run.

and no..i dont think the big countries will bail out this time around cos there are many benefits of being part of the UN. for example, if say the US bails out from the UN, any country with a US base on it could ask the base be removed and the US would not have the ability to plead its case in the UN. and furthermore; an attack on a UN member by a non-UN member would force the other UN nations to impose sanctions on the perpetrator.

and also a lot of sanctions on rouge nations would be worthless if say US bails from the Council. lets say that America favours a global embargo/sanction on NK. if its not part of the UN, it cannot effect this change. therefore all the big countries will want to stick with the UN cos they gain a lot from it

[bushbush]

but then it will be a system with inherent inequality and would not be sustainable in the longer run.

nations are inherently unequal in power and status. Why should UN be equal in the first place? The purpose of UN is to prevent world wars, not making the world communist.

and no..i dont think the big countries will bail out this time around cos there are many benefits of being part of the UN. for example, if say the US bails out from the UN, any country with a US base on it could ask the base be removed and the US would not have the ability to plead its case in the UN. and furthermore; an attack on a UN member by a non-UN member would force the other UN nations to impose sanctions on the perpetrator.

i doubt any big power will dare to stick to the US just for sake of supporting some small countries in UN. The only reason UN functions is cuz of America backing it largely. UN with the US will be useless as the league of nations. In fact, two UN-backed armed interventions are all based on US leadership (korea + iraq in 1991).

and also a lot of sanctions on rouge nations would be worthless if say US bails from the Council. lets say that America favours a global embargo/sanction on NK. if its not part of the UN, it cannot effect this change. therefore all the big countries will want to stick with the UN cos they gain a lot from it

actually US can do that even without UN through NATO and bargaining with China and Russia. They are doing it through six party talk which is not a part of UN anyways.

[Panzerbear]

you guys forgot two main truths:

1) UN is irrelevant anyway. everybody seems to do anything the hell they want nowadays. it is no longer the same as it used to be 25-30 years ago.
2) there will be changes to UN Security Council if and only if the current members will be in agreement with that. yeah right, who in their right mind would want to give up their power and dilute their 1/5th vote to 1/6th or 1/10th, depending on new members .

[Yorkshireman]

Keep the current members and powers, and in some years time replace France with an EU representative.

I'll agree to that. That leaves Britain on it and not part of the EU. Good plan.

[Stavroforos]

I'll agree to that. That leaves Britain on it and not part of the EU. Good plan.

I figured it was win-win!

[wilting]

While UN reform to meet a changing global situation is natural, I think better things can be achieved by the formation of a pan-liberal democracy political and economic union (although peferably a democratic one, unlike the EU) which would have enormous economic pulling power to encourage said liberal-democratic values.

As for the Veto's I would suggest reforming the council on some kind of regional basis where a qualified majority within a particular region can create a veto. (North America, South America, Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Mediterranean, Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, South East Asia, East Asia, Oceania). And economic and population weight could be attached.

This way the interests of sovereign states will be represented, but not disproportionally. Of course, this won't happen any time soon for obvious reasons.

[B5C]

If it needs change. Add India and Brazil to the security console.

[Nouvelle Vague]

Despite its problems I believe that the current system still works well, but at the same time should become more inclusive to give others a say. Thus expanding the scope and recognition of the institution itself.

[Oldgamer]

Do you believe any members should be added / removed? If so, who?

Do you believe their powers should remain the same?

Do you believe the Council should be abolished all together?


Me personally:

Keep the current members and powers, and in some years time replace France with an EU representative. Add India and Turkey, maybe Pakistan to balance India.

I'm hardly the one to comment on this, my friend, since I think the Council, and the UN, should be abolished altogether.

[bushbush]

I'm hardly the one to comment on this, my friend, since I think the Council, and the UN, should be abolished altogether.

I don't want to carry a gun and kill you on a battlefield Oldgamer. Thus, let's keep UN.

[Oldgamer]

I don't want to carry a gun and kill you on a battlefield Oldgamer.

That's been said before ...

[Nouvelle Vague]

I'm hardly the one to comment on this, my friend, since I think the Council, and the UN, should be abolished altogether.

Any particular reason?

[Axeman]

Yes...

India
Brazil
Japan
Germany
and one other to maybe be decided later *cough* South Africa *cough*

Then we can have the big 10, we can call it the council of trent in a witty play on words.

[sephodwyrm]

The current UNSC is pretty good. The only problem is that the GA has zit power and is not respected at all.