Political Crossfire Forums

[maxtsu]

The original 5 were considered the winners of the last world war.
But that was over 60 years ago. The world has moved on now.
Who would you give seats to on the council?

But before you answer, you have to decided under what criteria do countries have to pass to become members.
For example; if it is pure military might.
How do you define military power?
Nuclear bombs?
Because then countries like India and Pakistan get seats.

[Reluctant Prophet]

Instead of debating who should be on the security council, why don't we desolve the UN?

[eynon]

considering India had far more of a hand in defeating the axis powers then france during ww2 I think they totally got the shaft by being denied a spot....personally I'd say we should add India and Japan...both are economic powers, India's a military power...problem is that China would veto any move that made either members.....

[maxtsu]

Eynon81 wrote: considering India had far more of a hand in defeating the axis powers then france during ww2 I think they totally got the shaft by being denied a spot....personally I'd say we should add India and Japan...both are economic powers, India's a military power...problem is that China would veto any move that made either members.....
You are correct about the current members vetoing anyone who trys to change the status-quo. The 5 are nice and cosey with the current arrangement. They would not leave anyone dilute their current setup.
And that includes the US.

wrt Japan, would you consider them a military power? or a economic power?

[seagull]

maxtsu wrote:
The original 5 were considered the winners of the last world war.
But that was over 60 years ago. The world has moved on now.
Who would you give seats to on the council?

But before you answer, you have to decided under what criteria do countries have to pass to become members.
For example; if it is pure military might.
How do you define military power?
Nuclear bombs?
Because then countries like India and Pakistan get seats.

I thought the USSR was a winner of the last world war, but they aren't part of the Security Council anymore. It looks like you might have your facts wrong.

[eynon]

maxtsu wrote: Eynon81 wrote: considering India had far more of a hand in defeating the axis powers then france during ww2 I think they totally got the shaft by being denied a spot....personally I'd say we should add India and Japan...both are economic powers, India's a military power...problem is that China would veto any move that made either members.....
You are correct about the current members vetoing anyone who trys to change the status-quo. The 5 are nice and cosey with the current arrangement. They would not leave anyone dilute their current setup.
And that includes the US.

wrt Japan, would you consider them a military power? or a economic power?

If Japan wanted to, they posses the technology, wealth, and population to make a military that would even make America go :shock: plus they have a larger army then britain and frace, you know, to fight godzilla :wink:

[Proton]

Quote: Instead of debating who should be on the security council, why don't we desolve the UN?
Oh yeach, why I didn't think of that.

Like you know what the UN is anyway, stop copying phrases. I predict a 10 minutes timeout before the same structures starting from the GA start to appear again. What the UN needs is more see-through procedures to the open public.
Quote: considering India had far more of a hand in defeating the axis powers then france during ww2 I think they totally got the shaft by being denied a spot....
That because you totally ignore the pro-nazi French elements in the French goverment, and the fact that France splitted into two in WWII, that is, Vichy France and the Free French Forces. The second had 213,324 military casualties in WW.

For comparison the US ones were 292,131 (military again) and the UK ones 264,443.

(And Russia 11,000,000...)

So come again?

You can either "pretend" to be a military buff, or be a real military buff.
Quote: personally I'd say we should add India and Japan...both are economic powers, India's a military power...problem is that China would veto any move that made either members.....
That remains to be seen. No problem with me.
Quote: If Japan wanted to, they posses the technology, wealth, and population to make a military that would even make America go plus they have a larger army then britain and frace, you know, to fight godzilla
The only reason Japan posses wealth and technology (population?) is because they don't pursue military matters like that.

[Angela]

Quote:
You are correct about the current members vetoing anyone who trys to change the status-quo. The 5 are nice and cosey with the current arrangement. They would not leave anyone dilute their current setup.
And that includes the US.



Actually that's not true, if I'm not mistaken the security council rules and composition aren't set by the security council itself but by the general assembly (perhaps with a qualified majority) where nobody has veto right.

back on topic:
USA
Russia
China
Japan
India
Brazil
European union
should be permanent members but without veto, the other should be elected like it happens now but it's a pipe dream I agree with you :)

[Boondoggle]

"Accordingly, shop talk has turned to the notion of a Council composed of permanent members from all continents and regions, not just as present-–from North America, Europe, and (Chinese) Asia."

http://www.unwatch.org/pbworks/radapprch.html

Here's a more recent article on the subject: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/22/un.reforms/

As for the veto, I say it should go to countries that are least likely to abuse it, but that's not likely to happen.

THE VETO RECORD

-USSR/Russia: 120 vetoes. Only two vetoes since the collapse of the soviet Union
-US: 77 vetoes. Blocked 36 resolutions criticising Israel.
-UK: 32 vetoes, 23 times with the US. All solo UK vetoes on Zimbabwe
-France: 18 vetoes, 13 with the US and UK
-China: 5 vetoes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm

Proton wrote: What the UN needs is more see-through procedures to the open public.

I find the UN to be quite transparent. There's a lot of info on the UN website, which includes records of resolutions, treaties, etc.

Reluctant Prophet wrote: Instead of debating who should be on the security council, why don't we desolve the UN?

Why don't you learn a little bit about geopolitics instead of asking stupid questions?

[Secondary Oak]

Proton wrote: The only reason Japan posses wealth and technology (population?) is because they don't pursue military matters like that.

I doubt that's the "only reason". Although their percentage of military spending is small, the net amount itself is huge, equal to that of the UK or France.

[Reluctant Prophet]

Boondoggle wrote: Reluctant Prophet wrote: Instead of debating who should be on the security council, why don't we dissolve the UN?

Why don't you learn a little bit about geopolitics instead of asking stupid questions?
Gees, your quick.....

Sure let's add more people to a system that does not work. Let's have more people for more disagreement.

Obviously I am not the one that needs geopolitical understanding, silly.

Do you lack the understanding that it does not work?
Do you lack the understanding that there is little 'unity' in the United Nations?
Do you lack the understanding that the security council secures nothing, that all they can do is threaten, with everyone knowing they will not act other then strong condemnations and sanctions? Then the corruption will work around the sanctions.

Instead of dumping time and resources into this corrupt and non-working system, dissolve it and do something productive with the resources..........

[Kindred]

seagull wrote: maxtsu wrote:
The original 5 were considered the winners of the last world war.
But that was over 60 years ago. The world has moved on now.
Who would you give seats to on the council?

But before you answer, you have to decided under what criteria do countries have to pass to become members.
For example; if it is pure military might.
How do you define military power?
Nuclear bombs?
Because then countries like India and Pakistan get seats.

I thought the USSR was a winner of the last world war, but they aren't part of the Security Council anymore. It looks like you might have your facts wrong.

are you serious? The USSR disolved, Russia is now in the S.C.

For the original question;

All nations should have wieghted votes dependent on population size, if you believe in democracy this is the only reasonable conclusion.
There is no reason why four of the five S.C nations should be largely Christian and European/of European origin.

[Boondoggle]

Reluctant Prophet wrote: Do you lack the understanding that it does not work?

Sigh... You mean it doesn't work as a rubber stamp for American policy regardless of whether it's right or wrong? If that's the case, you're right. It doesn't do that.

Let's look at what the UN does:

"Since the UN first deployed peacekeepers in 1948, some 123 countries have voluntarily provided more than 750,000 military and civilian police personnel. They have served, along with thousands of civilians, in 54 peacekeeping operations."

"In East Timor, UN-brokered talks between Indonesia and Portugal culminated in a May 1999 agreement which paved the way for a popular consultation on the status of the territory. Under the agreement, a UN mission supervised voter registration and an August 1999 ballot, in which 78 per cent of East Timorese voted for independence over autonomy within Indonesia. In August 2001, a major step was taken in that direction, with the election of a Constituent Assembly which drafted the constitution for an independent and democratic East Timor."

"The UN worked strenuously towards resolving the conflict in the former Yugoslavia while providing relief assistance to some 4 million people. In 1991, the UN imposed an arms embargo, while the Secretary-General and his envoy conducted diplomatic efforts to end the fighting. From 1992 to 1995, UN peacekeepers sought to bring peace and security to Croatia, helped protect civilians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and helped ensure that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was not drawn into the war."

"The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, through a system of safeguards agreements, ensures that nuclear materials and equipment intended for peaceful uses are not diverted for military purposes."

http://www.un.org/Overview/brief2.html

Israel refused to work with the IAEA, refused to sign the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and is the only country in the Middle East known to have nuclear weapons. Despite this, the US routinely blocks resolutions and gives Israel billions in aid while pushing for harsh sanctions and war on Iraq, which never developed a nuclear weapon.

"As the world’s largest food aid organization, WFP (United Nations World Food Programme) supplies one third of emergency food assistance worldwide. In 2000, WFP delivered 3.7 million tons of food aid to 83 million people in 83 countries – including most of the world’s refugees and internally displaced persons."

"Relief work for Palestine refugees has been carried out since 1949 by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Today, the Agency provides essential health, education, relief and social services and implements income-generation programmes for more than 4 million Palestine refugees in the region. A UN Coordinator oversees all development assistance provided by the UN system to the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank."

http://www.un.org/Overview/brief4.html

"Air traffic the world over is safer, thanks to rules and regulations agreed on through the International Civil Aviation Organization."

"Smallpox was eradicated from the world through a global campaign coordinated by WHO. Another WHO campaign has eliminated polio from the Americas, and aims at eradicating it globally by 2005."

http://www.un.org/Overview/brief7.html

"Some 15,000 to 20,000 people are killed or maimed every year by landmines and unexploded ordnance scattered in over 90 countries. The UN has been active in efforts to rid the world of these deadly weapons, whose first victims are often children, women and the elderly."

"The UN played a crucial role in encouraging countries to support the 1997 Ottawa Convention – which provides for the total ban on the production, export and use of landmines – and continues to promote universal adherence to this treaty. Ratification of the treaty by more than 120 countries has led to reduced use of these weapons, markedly fewer victims, a dramatic drop in production, an almost complete halt in their trade, increased destruction of stockpiles, and increased funding for humanitarian action."

http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch2/ch2.htm

The US refuses to sign the landmine ban.

Russia has recently agreed to sign Kyoto, which 125 countries have already ratified. As a result, they'll have a combined total of more than 55% of carbon dioxide emissions needed for it to enter force. The US, which is the biggest polluter, refuses to sign Kyoto. However, once it enters force, American companies that want to do business in other countries will have to meet Kyoto standards regardless.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12093&Cr=kyoto&Cr1=protocol

This is just a small list of examples of what the UN does.

Quote: Do you lack the understanding that there is little 'unity' in the United Nations?

On the contrary:

- The US refused to sign the landmine ban, but over 120 countries joined together and signed it anyways, and they've made progress as a result.
- The US refused to sign Kyoto, but 125 countries signed it anyways, and now that Russia has agreed to it, it will enter force without the US.
- The US opposed the International Criminal Court, but there are still over 130 signatories, which includes key US allies.
- The US was the lone voice out of 15 in both the Security Council and World Court with regards to the Israeli wall which cuts into and fragments occupied territory.
- The majority of the UN, including close US allies, were united against the US push for war on Iraq.
- The majority of UN members, including important US allies, value and support the UN.

No unity you say? The facts show that other countries are working together. If the US isolates itself by acting unilaterally, who's fault is that?

Quote: Do you lack the understanding that the security council secures nothing, that all they can do is threaten, with everyone knowing they will not act other then strong condemnations and sanctions?

Do you not understand that the UN was designed to prevent war/violence not support it? Do you not understand that there are other options besides military force and that military force should be the last option? Do you not understand that armed conflicts are not the only issues the UN deals with?

Quote: Then the corruption will work around the sanctions.

If you're talking about sanctions on Iraq, they should have been lifted a long time ago, but the US pushed to keep them. Over a million people have died as a result of those sanctions, and for what? WMD that they didn't find?

Take a look in your own backyard if you want to find WMD. The US is a signatory to the NPT, which means it should disarming nuclear weapons not developing new ones. How can a government with such a blatantly hypocritical policy expect to have any credibility?

Quote: Instead of dumping time and resources into this corrupt and non-working system, dissolve it and do something productive with the resources..........

How much does the UN cost?

The regular budget of the UN is some $1.3 billion per year."

The UN system spends some $12 billion a year, taking into account the United Nations, UN peacekeeping operations, the programmes and funds, and the specialized agencies, but excluding the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Just over half of this amount comes from voluntary contributions from the Member States; the rest is received from mandatory assessments on those States.

http://www.un.org/geninfo/ir/ch5/ch5.htm

In contrast, the US spends about $400 billion on the military. A B-2 stealth bomber is more expensive than the regular UN budget, and a bomber can only kill and destroy. Total world military spending is over $900 billion, and the UN deals with a variety of other issues in addition to security at a fraction of the cost.

The US does not pay the majority of the UN budget, as many believe, and often withholds mandatory assessments for politcal reasons. On the other hand, other countries that aren't as wealthy have paid their mandatory assessments on time and without condition.

Examples of past problems with US payments:

The United States, first of all, faces the loss of its vote in the UN General Assembly at the end of this year under Article 19 of the UN Charter. This penalty is automatically applied if a member state's arrears at the end of the year exceed the previous two years' assessments. With the world's largest economy by far, the US historically has been the largest contributor to the UN system. But, the US is now responsible for some 60 percent of the debt of all member states -- arrearages more than double the UN's annual regular budget, which are crippling UN capabilities and paralyzing peacekeeping. Although various contingencies could avoid America's loss of vote at the start of 1999, the mere possibility that the world's leader may be placed in such a position does not befit our great nation.

On another issue of evident priority to American policymakers, the US now has a limited window of opportunity to negotiate a lowering of its United Nations assessment -- from its present rate of 25 percent of the UN's regular budget to 22 percent. UN member states have indicated a willingness to reopen negotiations on the assessment level if a substantial amount of US arrears are paid. One might note that the Reagan Administration -- in which I served as Deputy Secretary of State -- had opposed such a reduction, fearing diminished influence would follow; other countries oppose it on grounds of equity: A member state's assessment is based primarily on "capacity to pay," largely measured by each member's share of world income -- over 26 percent for the United States. The US already pays less than this amount. In contrast, for example, the 15 member states of the European Union which account for 30.8 percent of world income, are assessed 36.2 percent of UN costs. The assessment on the Japanese, even with their ailing economy, will rise to just above 20 percent in the year 2000.

Read more here.

US senator berates UN

One of the harshest American critics of the United Nations, Senator Jesse Helms, has said he wants a new beginning in relations between the US and the UN.

But in a belligerent speech to the Security Council - the first by a US senator - Mr Helms warned the UN not to try to impose its authority on the American people.

He said that might risk an eventual withdrawal from the UN by the United States.

Mr Helms, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations committee, is the co-author of legislation that set conditions on the payment of the United States' arrears to the United Nations and capped the amount at $926m.

The UN estimates that the US owes it around $1.5bn.

Read more here.

House seeks war crimes immunity for US troops

The US Congress is threatening to block overdue payments to the United Nations, unless a bill is passed to protect US troops from war crimes prosecution by the proposed International Criminal Court at the Hague.

The US owes the UN $582m (more than £400m) under an agreement on longstanding arrears negotiated by President Clinton. But the rightwing Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has made its approval for payment conditional on the White House also endorsing the American Service Members Protection Act.

The act, which was attached to the House version of a state department authorisation bill that contains the UN money, is designed to undermine the 1998 treaty creating the International Criminal Court (ICC), - a world court to judge large-scale human rights abuses - that was signed by President Clinton in his last days in office.

The act bans US troops from serving on UN peacekeeping missions unless given immunity from ICC jurisdiction. Among international lawyers, it has become known as the "Hague Invasion Act" because it also authorises the president to use military force to free any American soldiers taken into ICC custody.

Read more here.

By pulling out of the UN, the US would likely shoot itself in the foot. The record shows that an overwhelming number of countries are willing to move forward on issues without US support, and thus it's likely that they'd continue the UN without the US too. Meanwhile, if the US pulled out of the UN, it'd lessen its position in the world by not having a voice in an important international and multilateral organization.

[cap'n queasy]

seagull wrote: maxtsu wrote:
The original 5 were considered the winners of the last world war.
But that was over 60 years ago. The world has moved on now.
Who would you give seats to on the council?

But before you answer, you have to decided under what criteria do countries have to pass to become members.
For example; if it is pure military might.
How do you define military power?
Nuclear bombs?
Because then countries like India and Pakistan get seats.

I thought the USSR was a winner of the last world war, but they aren't part of the Security Council anymore. It looks like you might have your facts wrong.
There is no USSR.

[thundertaker]

A.D wrote: seagull wrote: maxtsu wrote:
The original 5 were considered the winners of the last world war.
But that was over 60 years ago. The world has moved on now.
Who would you give seats to on the council?

But before you answer, you have to decided under what criteria do countries have to pass to become members.
For example; if it is pure military might.
How do you define military power?
Nuclear bombs?
Because then countries like India and Pakistan get seats.

I thought the USSR was a winner of the last world war, but they aren't part of the Security Council anymore. It looks like you might have your facts wrong.

are you serious? The USSR disolved, Russia is now in the S.C.

For the original question;

All nations should have wieghted votes dependent on population size, if you believe in democracy this is the only reasonable conclusion.
There is no reason why four of the five S.C nations should be largely Christian and European/of European origin.

In that case, the votes of Nations states should be removed from the equation and UN representatives elected directly by the people of the world. That would be proper world democracy.........

[Reluctant Prophet]

sigh....

Ah.... the game of Diplomacy. It is a fun game, I haven't played it too much, but I liken it to the UN.

I lead a country, and I do what I consider best for that country. I use the available avenues to further my position, and the positions of others that will help me win the game.

A country is like a person. They are interested in themselves before they are interested in others. Like a person, it can be short-sighted. It is human nature to be so.

The UN security council, with the veto powers as they are, has proven ineffetua in too many instancesl. As long as one nation cand derail things for political reasons, it is a political game.

Each nation will continue to work for their own gain. The fact that the land mine treaty was signed, will not alter the fact that many nations will keep their landmines. Same with nukes. If the oil for food scandel leads back to Chirac, will France give Chirac to the World Court?

The UN in theory is would be a wonderful tool. But it is not a theory, it is a game.

And what is this with world democracy? I pledge alliegence to my flag over all others. I refuse to accept a physical power more soverign then her.

We should have listened to Washington.

[Kindred]

thundertaker wrote: A.D wrote: seagull wrote: maxtsu wrote:
The original 5 were considered the winners of the last world war.
But that was over 60 years ago. The world has moved on now.
Who would you give seats to on the council?

But before you answer, you have to decided under what criteria do countries have to pass to become members.
For example; if it is pure military might.
How do you define military power?
Nuclear bombs?
Because then countries like India and Pakistan get seats.

I thought the USSR was a winner of the last world war, but they aren't part of the Security Council anymore. It looks like you might have your facts wrong.

are you serious? The USSR disolved, Russia is now in the S.C.

For the original question;

All nations should have wieghted votes dependent on population size, if you believe in democracy this is the only reasonable conclusion.
There is no reason why four of the five S.C nations should be largely Christian and European/of European origin.

In that case, the votes of Nations states should be removed from the equation and UN representatives elected directly by the people of the world. That would be proper world democracy.........

Yes, that is 100% correct, a desirable goal indeed.

[eynon]

thundertaker wrote: A.D wrote: seagull wrote: maxtsu wrote:
The original 5 were considered the winners of the last world war.
But that was over 60 years ago. The world has moved on now.
Who would you give seats to on the council?

But before you answer, you have to decided under what criteria do countries have to pass to become members.
For example; if it is pure military might.
How do you define military power?
Nuclear bombs?
Because then countries like India and Pakistan get seats.

I thought the USSR was a winner of the last world war, but they aren't part of the Security Council anymore. It looks like you might have your facts wrong.

are you serious? The USSR disolved, Russia is now in the S.C.

For the original question;

All nations should have wieghted votes dependent on population size, if you believe in democracy this is the only reasonable conclusion.
There is no reason why four of the five S.C nations should be largely Christian and European/of European origin.

In that case, the votes of Nations states should be removed from the equation and UN representatives elected directly by the people of the world. That would be proper world democracy.........

wait, wait...do you want the US to drop outta the UN?

[SpartanPhalanx]

Boondoggle:-

Great post above .... especially your inclusion of the over 70 vetoes in the Security Council by the U.S in favour of it's subordinate protege Israel.

Never has there been such a one sided endorsement of a brutal regime as the United States over Israel during the past 50 years.

And they tried to pawn themselves off as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians....

complete farce.

[maxtsu]

Angela wrote: back on topic:
USA
Russia
China
Japan
India
Brazil
European union
should be permanent members but without veto, the other should be elected like it happens now but it's a pipe dream I agree with you :)
Thanks for your input.
But what I am more interested in is how you come to make the decision of who gets seats.
Is it economic or military power? Or just purely because you like these countries?