So it seems that India, Japan, Germany and Brazil are contending for permanent UN Sec Council seats. Which of these nations' bids do you agree/disagree with? Is there a country that you would like to see on permanent status on the Security Council and why?
I personally think that India and Germany are deserving of seats, if not all four bidders.
[Edited 2004-09-22 19:22:28]
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 53 Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1298 times:
I think that all are deserving. However, having 3 Western European countries on the council seems a bit much... I know there's been talk of perhaps having one combined EU seat.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1298 times:
Personally I think it's time to reform the Security Council system altogether and that permanent seats should be apportioned continentally, with each continent receving one permanet seat and one seat rotating through the region on a 2 year term. My suggestions for the new Permanent seats:
North America - United States
South America - Brazil
Europe - Hard to choose this one. My preference would be towards the UK, however
Africa - South Africa
Asia - Another hard choice between the PRC and Japan. I'd go with Japan, though.
Oceania - Australia
Or, alternatively, keep the current setup and just add 6 new permanent seats, one for each inhabited continent, thus having a 21-member council. In that case, I'd go with:
North America - Canada
South America - Brazil
Europe - Germany
Africa - South Africa
Asia - Japan
Oceania - Australia.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Jasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 44 Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1290 times:
India certainly don't deserve permanent membership yet. We need to be far more involved in world affairs and make a much greater contribution (in matters other than immigration and outsourcing) before we're even considered.
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1274 times:
A country with a more neutral stance deserves to be on the security council. Japan, Germany, Canada, Brazil come to mind.
India and Pakistan are involved in a belligerent war which escalates from petty insults to arms exchange; China is a global military headache. Both China and India are too self-absorbed to be members of the security council, at this juncture. Let both countries feed, clothe, and educate all their citizens first before they get to jabber on about global security.
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7796 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1274 times:
Frankly, I don't know why Germany should have a permanent seat.
Nukes (the original reason to introduce the Security Council together with the right to veto decisions): Neither do we have nukes nor do we want any.
Political weight? The frequent exercise of the right to veto (major players here are the USSR/Russia as well as the USA) is the main reason for why the UN needs more teeth. More permanent seats won't help.
ZS-SAZ From South Africa, joined Jul 2001, 39 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
I would agree with Garnetpalmetto. The security council should be more representative, and include a wide spectrum of nations. I do think, though, that the nations chosen for the security council should have a hefty amount of political weight in their respective regions.
Jasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 44 Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
India and Pakistan are involved in a belligerent war which escalates from petty insults to arms exchange; China is a global military headache. Both China and India are too self-absorbed to be members of the security council, at this juncture. Let both countries feed, clothe, and educate all their citizens first before they get to jabber on about global security.
I agree China don't really deserve to be on the Council, but there's nothing that can be done now, is there? Can you imagine what would happen if it were suggested that China vacate their seat? Mao would probably throw such a hissy fit from wherever he might be, we'd feel it for years to come!
A balanced grouping might consist of China, America, France, Germany, Brazil, Japan, Russia, Turkey (or some other moderate "Muslim" country), an African country. A tenth place, just to round it out, could be given to a country selected by all of the others.
I'm not sure which African country to put down here. Africa desparately needs representation and South Africa just seem to be too convenient and obvious a chioce.
Australia and India aren't near as important or influential as they like to think. And Britain can share a seat with America, since they play Simon Says anyway.
Nukes (the original reason to introduce the Security Council together with the right to veto decisions): Neither do we have nukes nor do we want any.
NoUFO, if nukes were still considered a valid reason to be given a place at the table, can you imagine the wonderful guest list: Crazy Korea, Iran, Israel, Pakistan...
More permanemt seats might help if the veto were abolished. They could consider a simple or two-thirds majority or something on those lines.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13341 posts, RR: 64 Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
Today´s permanent members of the security council represent the winning powers of WW2 AND also the major colonial powers of the early post WW2 period, with the exception of China. IMO China has to stay, because it represents 1/5 of the world population. Under the same token India should be a member as well.
Mdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4097 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1245 times:
Garnetpalmetto,
I like that idea a lot
Can you imagine what would happen if it were suggested that China vacate their seat?
I was under the impression that India was offered a seat in the council around when it was formed. But Nehru being the flower-sniffing peace advocate he was, allowed China to take it.
Is this true or not?
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7796 posts, RR: 13 Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1240 times:
NoUFO, if nukes were still considered a valid reason to be given a place at the table, can you imagine the wonderful guest list: Crazy Korea, Iran, Israel, Pakistan...
Don't get me wrong. I didn't say I want permanent seats for governments that have their hands on nukes. *shudder*
LY7E7 From Israel, joined Jun 2004, 2218 posts, RR: 21 Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1235 times:
Should be kept as it is, possibly adding only India, as an emerging world power. Another option is having a single EU representative instead of UK and France.
FLVILLA From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 394 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1220 times:
I see some people have not included the UK on there UN wishlist, why????
Were not just representing ourselves, were are the only commonwealth country up there and we have a duty to ensure there is some sought of represnetation for it on the Top-level.
I hope in life i can work to live, not live to work
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1218 times:
Should be kept as it is, possibly adding only India, as an emerging world power. Another option is having a single EU representative instead of UK and France.
Not practical. If a resolution is changed to be considered an "important question" it would require a 2/3rd vote to pass. 2/3rds of 16 would raise the question of how many votes were actually needed - 10 or 11? Same goes with 2/3rds of 14.
As for India initially being offered a permanent seat on the Security, in the 8 years I've studied the UN, it's the first I heard about it. The Permanent 5 seats went to the nations who contributed "the most" to the Allied cause in World War II and were the big victors (I put "the most" in quotations because IMNSHO, Canada did a hell of a lot more than France (the nation-state, not the people. I'm partially French myself and had relatives who served in both the Free French Forces and the resistence. I'm well aware of the important contributions made by both groups to the war effort. The actual nation-state, however, is another story)).
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1201 times:
Slider, the purposes of the UNSC are to:
-Recommend expulsion of nations from the UN
-Recommend changes to the UN Charter to the General Assembly
-Have the ability to take up matters of international humanitarian importance almost immediately due to the fact that their agenda is ad hoc
-Also is the only UN organ that can order a nation to do something. Whereas resolutions from other UN Bodies are merely recommendations, Security Council resolutions have to be followed through.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Stretch 8 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2561 posts, RR: 19 Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Brazil? You all must be nuts!
I say just the United States, and members of the "coalition of the willing." Forget about the tired "Old Europe" states. Yes to new pals of the USA Poland, Spain, etc. But they don't get to make any decisions!
Maggs swings, it's a drive deep to left! The Tigers are going to the World Series!!!
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1191 times:
Should be kept as it is, possibly adding only India, as an emerging world power. Another option is having a single EU representative instead of UK and France.
Adding only India=adding one new seat
Combing France and the UK=subtracting one seat.
This is keeping the current set-up...how? Unless I read it wrong and you want both suggestions to work in concert.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Christa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
Two countries from every largely inhabited continent of the world.. I think that's what would be best..prefably the two countries with most economic and political power..whilst for Australasia.. only one country would have a seat and the spare seat that would be left over would be given to another economic, political power. A country with power, but not as much as the others, for example - Singapore, Spain, Argentina, Mexico etc.. Every 4 years this seat would be passed on to another country..
They also need to represent two sides of the people, after all, people in different parts of the same continent have different views..
Europe - UK & Germany North America - USA & Canada South America - Brazil & Chile Africa - South Africa & Egypt Asia - Japan & China Australasia - Australia & another country, e.g - Mexico
N6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1184 times:
Europe should elect one representative from the EU.
25 Christa: Maybe we could always leave the USA out Regards, Christa
26 N6376m: Christa, That's fine, but suddenly more than 20% of your budget disappears.
27 Rjpieces: Christa, seeing that the US provides most of the funds for the UN, as well as most of the troops, and oh yeah, a gorgeous building on the East River,
28 Christa: Didn't you notice my Hell.. I love the USA.. Haven't you seen my posts on here? You should know im very pro collaboration between USA and UK! Regards,
29 MD11Engineer: Well, were not the US the biggest debtors to the UN anyway? I think there was some problem about the US government holding back it´s payments until s
30 Garnetpalmetto: Europe should elect one representative from the EU. Not likely to happen. It would take a change of the Charter to state that in the Security Council,
31 Mdsh00: Australasia - Australia & another country, e.g - Mexico Why would Mexico be included? It's a North American nation. Maybe New Zealand with Australia.[
32 Tbar220: I only see one member country who should be added, and that is Japan. Japan is one of the world leaders in humanitarian aid and is second in funding t
33 N6376m: Jan, My understanding is that at one point the US was the biggest debtor put most (if not all) of that debt has been paid. Even without the debt, the
34 Jasepl: I was under the impression that India was offered a seat in the council around when it was formed. But Nehru being the flower-sniffing peace advocate
35 Mdsh00: Sorry Md, haven't a clue. But I would doubt that were ever the case. Oh ok. Well it was just something that my friends' father told me. Could be an ur
36 Christa: Why would Mexico be included? It's a North American nation. Maybe New Zealand with Australia. As Australia would represent New Zealand's views and bel
37 Aloges: Here's some info about the EU at the UN: http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_1001_en.htm I haven't read all of it, so don't quote me on it
38 Arsenal@LHR: Europe should elect one representative from the EU. Why? This is the United Nations, not United Continents. And if you're dreaming about a EU seat at
39 N6376m: Why should the EU seek to speak with one voice on all sorts of international matters but not when it doesn't suit them. Hypocrisy exposed.
40 Arsenal@LHR: Why should the EU seek to speak with one voice on all sorts of international matters but not when it doesn't suit them. Hypocrisy exposed. The EU does
41 Iakobos: Why not put some conditions to the access to the UNSC ? Say, 20 years of clean foreign relations records no record of discrimination signatory and eff
42 Garnetpalmetto: 20 years of clean foreign relations records no record of discrimination signatory and effective compliance with all main international treaties in the
43 B757300: If we're talking permanent membership, United States, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Italy, and Poland. They've shown they have the anatomy needed t
44 Arrow: "20 years of clean foreign relations records no record of discrimination signatory and effective compliance with all main international treaties in th
45 Garnetpalmetto: Personally, I'd rather the U.S. get out of the U.N. and watch it implode like the League of Nations did. And personally I'd rather see you stop postin
46 BarfBag: The time has come to give the major population centres (e.g. India) more clout as permanent members. As an Indian, I disagree completely. That's a rec
47 Pacificjourney: Good to see that no one even bothers to reply to rjpieces' flamebait anymore but just for the record I'll put him straight, "seeing that the US provid
48 Garnetpalmetto: and oh yeah, a gorgeous building on the East River Dude, have you ever been in the UN itself? The place is in dire need of refurbishment. The UN Plaz
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4097 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, 
From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7796 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Jul 2001, 39 posts, 
From Israel, joined Jun 2004, 2218 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 394 posts, 
.
Printer friendly format 
