Expanding the UN Security Council

[Exarch]

Not too long ago, like about a week ago, the countries of India, Brazil, Germany and Japan announced that they wanted 'concrete measures' for their acceptance as permanent members of the UNSC;

so what do you think of this?

in my opinion, representation is all and well, but being a permanent UNSC member means getting to veto UN resolutions and extending that privilege to others will dilute the UN decision making process and make the UN more useless than it already is.

If there must be changes to the UNSC, then I say let there be representation between the 5 continents: one rep for north America, one for South America, one for Europe, one for Africa, and one for Asia.

[hellheaven1987]

Japan cannot even send out blue helmets what the heck they want to be permanent member?

If there must be changes to the UNSC, then I say let there be representation between the 5 continents: one rep for north America, one for South America, one for Europe, one for Africa, and one for Asia.

Australia would be pissed about that.

[Exarch]

Japan cannot even send out blue helmets what the heck they want to be permanent member?



Australia would be pissed about that.

Australia is part of Asia, anyhow; but I don't think we should ever go beyond 5 permanent members.

[hellheaven1987]

I thought Australia keeps calling itself "Oceania"??

Anyway, Asia is too big that should be divided into at least three parts - East Asia (and SEA), South Asia (with Central Asia), and Middle East (that probably has to include North Africa). But be honest no body actually worth to be a represent for Middle East region anyway, so probably just make it a satellite of US.

[Gromovnik]

Who doesn't want?

[Captain Jin]

Well considering the amount of money the US pumps into the UN it's never going to not be a SC member. While I don't really think Canada and America rotating is bad I don't see a point or usefulness to having Mexico ever in there, or any of little Central American countries that barely have a handle on their own security. I think the whole system is flawed to begin with anyways. I see Germany having a point to be on the SC and even Brazil and India, and even Japan since they can contribute money. But I think you're right, too many members dilutes the decision making process. But I don't see a good alternative either.

[CK23]

Well considering the amount of money the US pumps into the UN it's never going to not be a SC member. While I don't really think Canada and America rotating is bad I don't see a point or usefulness to having Mexico ever in there, or any of little Central American countries that barely have a handle on their own security. I think the whole system is flawed to begin with anyways. I see Germany having a point to be on the SC and even Brazil and India, and even Japan since they can contribute money. But I think you're right, too many members dilutes the decision making process. But I don't see a good alternative either.

This is the truth, the fact that the United States is pretty much the reason that the United Nations exists today, I think the United States should have the ultimate yes or no vote on who becomes a member of the Security Council (which the United States, from what I understand, was and still is a driving force behind it) if they seek to expand it.

I think Germany, Brazil and India have perfect reasons to join; as well as Japan's consider they are a powerful economic player.

[hellheaven1987]

I think Germany, Brazil and India have perfect reasons to join; as well as Japan's consider they are a powerful economic player.

I doubt Japan's stance, consider they cannot send a damned blue helmet out.

In crisis, men are much more important than damned cash you have - China and US can provide more cash for that already (or more important, both can provide more direct supply instead cash).

[CK23]

I doubt Japan's stance, consider they cannot send a damned blue helmet out.

In crisis, men are much more important than damned cash you have - China and US can provide more cash for that already (or more important, both can provide more direct supply instead cash).

I suppose, however they exert much influence.

[Captain Jin]

Asia is too big, but there are only a couple of significant players there. China, Japan, South Korea, and Australia (if we count it as Exarch is). So why split it into different regions?

[hellheaven1987]

Asia is too big, but there are only a couple of significant players there. China, Japan, South Korea, and Australia (if we count it as Exarch is). So why split it into different regions?

Because there is cultural difference between different Asia parts, and that difference is considerable enough that I doubt East Asian countries can properly represent the interest of all Asia.

Besides, there is India we need to consider.

[Exarch]

personally, i reckon it shouldnt be anymore than 5 permanent members; 5's a good number-they make a pentagramMuahahahahahahah!!!

australian doesnt need to be a permanent member; our former PM ruddkipps the turd wasted our taxpayer monies trying to get that bit of extra glory.
guess the man was compensating for a lot.

anyhoo, germany i can see as having a place in the UNSC but only if it takes france's place

[hellheaven1987]

anyhoo, germany i can see as having a place in the UNSC but only if it takes france's place

Don't worry, if your plan of one continent one represent works, we can kick both UK and France out then accept Germany in.

But be honest who are we going to choose for Africa represent?

[Exarch]

Don't worry, if your plan of one continent one represent works, we can kick both UK and France out then accept Germany in.

But be honest who are we going to choose for Africa represent?

either egypt after it's gotten its together, nigeria, south africa (seems to be the strongest player there);

one continent, one UNSC permanent member doesnt sound too bad by way of UNSC reform, but, and i must continually stress this, no more than 5 and there musnt be more than 1 from the same continent for the sake of balance and fair play

[Pious Agnost]

I only think they should be allowed if the veto system is changed, maybe a majority of the SC has to agree on a joint veto for it to work?

anyhoo, germany i can see as having a place in the UNSC but only if it takes france's place

Germany dosen't deserve the spot more than France.

[CiviC]

Countries that deserve a place are : India, Germany, Japan; maybe Brazil too. No country in Africa, except maybe South Africa, deserves to be in the UNSC.

[Vizsla]

The more people you let on there the better.
This way there would be no agreement about anything ever. The whole thing would be fatally undermined.
So it would be morally beholden on all decent nations and people to uphold the spirit rather than the letter of the law. So the US could do whatever it liked in the interests of ‘world peace’ without worrying about obstructionism by members who are only looking after their own petty interests.

[Denny Crane!]

The more people you let on there the better.
This way there would be no agreement about anything ever. The whole thing would be fatally undermined.
So it would be morally beholden on all decent nations and people to uphold the spirit rather than the letter of the law. So the US could do whatever it liked in the interests of ‘world peace’ without worrying about obstructionism by members who are only looking after their own petty interests.

The letter of the law, invading and killing other people and protecting its petty interests?

Or are they not petty because they are bigger and involve more money.

[Tiberios]

Countries that deserve a place are : India, Germany, Japan; maybe Brazil too. No country in Africa, except maybe South Africa, deserves to be in the UNSC.

I agree with the exception of Brazil and South Africa. Mostly SA. I cannot find a single good reason for SA to be on the Security Council.

[CiviC]

I agree with the exception of Brazil and South Africa. Mostly SA. I cannot find a single good reason for SA to be on the Security Council.

I put them to maybe. My criteria for putting India, Germany and Japan were size/importance but more important them being responsible world actors.

I put Brazil and South Africa for the sake of representation (South America and Africa) and them being enough important and responsible and stable countries.

Unfortunately there is no country to be trusted to represent Arab word for example, maybe in the future Egypt, but this would take decades to convince us.