Political Crossfire Forums

[maxtsu]

A.D wrote: 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.
That is an interesting way to make up the Security Council. On population size.
You do realise than that China will be able to out-vote everyone.
Then the council would default to whatever China wants to do.

[Angela]

maxtsu wrote:
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?

well It's a mix of population, economic and military power, and geography. I found pretty silly that Europe has 2 permanent sits, possibly 3 (Germany) with the new reform, one for the European union would be enough (yeah I know it's a dream, neither France nor UK will give up their sits). India should have a sit with 1 billion of people, Japan is the second largest economy in the world, Brazil because it would represent a continent too often neglected. There's should be also an African representative but that continent is such a mess that I really don't know what it would be.

but I think the true reform would be the abolition of the veto right, it's the only way the security council could really work.

[Kindred]

maxtsu wrote: A.D wrote: 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.
That is an interesting way to make up the Security Council. On population size.
You do realise than that China will be able to out-vote everyone.
Then the council would default to whatever China wants to do.


Yes, I do. What I should have said above is this;

Votes should be weighted on per capita size globally. We really must move on beyond the idea of a nation state in order to gain a truly democratic global governance. I think representatives, each voted in by the people (in groups of 10 million=600 reps globally).
The people who now occupy China would have a greater voting power than, say, those of Nauru, however if we agree democracy is desirable within a nation state, why would it not be desirable on the largest scale of all. The people of China are not the state of China. There is no rationale for arguing that the people of the most oppressed nations would vote for more oppression, that the people with the lowest labour standards would vote for low labour standards, or that those who exist in the most environmentally depraved areas would wish that deprivation to continue.

People would vote for their interests, not a national interest.

[more or less]

i get your logic, but still disagree. the whole principal of the un is the idea of "lateralism" - which relates to the idea of sovereignty.

there is no "proportional" sovereignty, imho, as i understand this institution.

simply, i see the un as a collective if individuals. think about it.... are we not all equal, as sovereign beings?

[Golddave]

A.D wrote: 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.

I think that idea of giving seats according to population size is absurd.
How do you define a country like Australia who has a greater impact on the world stage in most areas then say a country like Indonesia with a population of more then ten times greater???? The soup don't smell right ma.

[Golddave]

Everyone knows we saved a lot of people's asses in both world wars,
why didn't we get a jersey?

[SpartanPhalanx]

Golddave wrote: Everyone knows we saved a lot of people's asses in both world wars,
why didn't we get a jersey?

'Cos you're an insignificant little nation at the bottom of the world and you can't brew a decent pint either...... :-D

[Golddave]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: Golddave wrote: Everyone knows we saved a lot of people's asses in both world wars,
why didn't we get a jersey?

'Cos you're an insignificant little nation at the bottom of the world and you can't brew a decent pint either...... :-D

We kick your ass in nearly everything and your beer s*cks, I wouldn't drink it with your mouth!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nico]

Best post ever boondoggle.

The UN is a US construct which only gets bagged when it doesn't do as it is told. Can't have it both ways America. Look at your veto record, you ARE the reason the UN is hamstrung.

Gotta love the irony. :-|

[Locke_]

The U.N is basiclly an American puppet. If you would look to the statistics and numbers you would find that the United States gives most of the U.N. its money and gives the most troops to take part in U.N missions. The U.N channels American intrests through a "good will for all" kind of thing. The U.N. is basiclly a cover identitiy for America.

Now as for who is on the security council.

America (of course)
China
India
Pakistan
European union

Now let me explain:

America: For obvious reasons and because if they werent on the council you could pretty much kiss the U.N. good by.

China: China is slowly becoming a major world player. They have the U.S. in thier pocket economicly and have the largest milltary in the world. They can kick some butt

India: I choose India because like China they are slowly going to become more influentual in the world and they will also open up new markets for countries that havent already exploited thier large population.

Pakistan: This as most would fell is the most surprising choice. Pakistan is a nuclear power and most importantly is a Muslim nation. Now you may say why does this matter? Because getting the strongest muslim country on the good side of the other 4 could lead to more stability in the middel east and could possibly bring the middle east to a much stronger position then what they are in today.

And laslty a delegate that would represent the European Union. This could represent the Europeans and would give them a bigger voice in the U.N.

Now some may wonder why I did not add japan,Brazil, or Russia. Here are my reasons:

Russia: Russia is no longer a big influence in todays world. They have a struggling economy and have recently been in bad shape.

Japan: Japan is a very strong country economiclly but they are not the dominant force in Asia or do they have a strong military at all.

Brazil: Brazil is gaining momentum in the present world but would not be consider a power in the eyes of most countries. They have no real influence over the world.

[Golddave]

Locke_ wrote: The U.N is basiclly an American puppet. If you would look to the statistics and numbers you would find that the United States gives most of the U.N. its money and gives the most troops to take part in U.N missions. The U.N channels American intrests through a "good will for all" kind of thing. The U.N. is basiclly a cover identitiy for America.

Now as for who is on the security council.

America (of course)
China
India
Pakistan
European union

Now let me explain:

America: For obvious reasons and because if they werent on the council you could pretty much kiss the U.N. good by.

China: China is slowly becoming a major world player. They have the U.S. in thier pocket economicly and have the largest milltary in the world. They can kick some butt

India: I choose India because like China they are slowly going to become more influentual in the world and they will also open up new markets for countries that havent already exploited thier large population.

Pakistan: This as most would fell is the most surprising choice. Pakistan is a nuclear power and most importantly is a Muslim nation. Now you may say why does this matter? Because getting the strongest muslim country on the good side of the other 4 could lead to more stability in the middel east and could possibly bring the middle east to a much stronger position then what they are in today.

And laslty a delegate that would represent the European Union. This could represent the Europeans and would give them a bigger voice in the U.N.

Now some may wonder why I did not add japan,Brazil, or Russia. Here are my reasons:

Russia: Russia is no longer a big influence in todays world. They have a struggling economy and have recently been in bad shape.

Japan: Japan is a very strong country economiclly but they are not the dominant force in Asia or do they have a strong military at all.

Brazil: Brazil is gaining momentum in the present world but would not be consider a power in the eyes of most countries. They have no real influence over the world.

Why not F**K** Australia? We are a very influencial nation on the world stage.

[Nico]

No disrespect, but that isn't the case and probably won't be till you get nuclear weapons.
Australia is a respected country but it's not a power.
China fields a million man regular army and has nukes.

[Golddave]

Anaximander wrote: No disrespect, but that isn't the case and probably won't be till you get nuclear weapons.
Australia is a respected country but it's not a power.
China fields a million man regular army and has nukes.

Whats your justification for Brazil? We have the ability to produce nukes, we choose not to though.

[Nico]

Not sure about the Brazil reference, but do you really want to be in that club? Nukes never made anybody feel safer, far as I can tell. Right now in Oz you can sleep at night, yeah? Have nukes it'll be insomnia city.

[Brasil Branco]

Golddave wrote: Anaximander wrote: No disrespect, but that isn't the case and probably won't be till you get nuclear weapons.
Australia is a respected country but it's not a power.
China fields a million man regular army and has nukes.

Whats your justification for Brazil? We have the ability to produce nukes, we choose not to though.

Brazil is the eighth largest economic power, and fifth in both land mass and population. It is the key industrial nation in Latin America, and is considered an example to developing nations in that area.

Brazil's economy is only growing these past years, recovering well from a near financil collapse. It has a vast population and is still rich in natural resources, being a prime target from investors.

Besides, we have the best soccer team in the world- I think that's called power ;)

[maxtsu]

Brasil Branco wrote: Brazil is the eighth largest economic power, and fifth in both land mass and population. It is the key industrial nation in Latin America, and is considered an example to developing nations in that area.

Brazil's economy is only growing these past years, recovering well from a near financil collapse. It has a vast population and is still rich in natural resources, being a prime target from investors.

Besides, we have the best soccer team in the world- I think that's called power ;)
The idea of the UN security council is that its members deal with "Security" matters.
Therefore the members would need to have a serious armed force. And economics does not play in the equation (although money is required if you have an army).
So yes Brasil is a raising economic star. But it unless it can get its army upto the national football team status, no seat.
My opinion any!

[maxtsu]

Locke_ wrote: The U.N is basiclly an American puppet. If you would look to the statistics and numbers you would find that the United States gives most of the U.N. its money and gives the most troops to take part in U.N missions. The U.N channels American intrests through a "good will for all" kind of thing. The U.N. is basiclly a cover identitiy for America.

Now as for who is on the security council.

America (of course)
China
India
Pakistan
European union

Now let me explain:

America: For obvious reasons and because if they werent on the council you could pretty much kiss the U.N. good by.

China: China is slowly becoming a major world player. They have the U.S. in thier pocket economicly and have the largest milltary in the world. They can kick some butt

India: I choose India because like China they are slowly going to become more influentual in the world and they will also open up new markets for countries that havent already exploited thier large population.

Pakistan: This as most would fell is the most surprising choice. Pakistan is a nuclear power and most importantly is a Muslim nation. Now you may say why does this matter? Because getting the strongest muslim country on the good side of the other 4 could lead to more stability in the middel east and could possibly bring the middle east to a much stronger position then what they are in today.

And laslty a delegate that would represent the European Union. This could represent the Europeans and would give them a bigger voice in the U.N.

Now some may wonder why I did not add japan,Brazil, or Russia. Here are my reasons:

Russia: Russia is no longer a big influence in todays world. They have a struggling economy and have recently been in bad shape.

Japan: Japan is a very strong country economiclly but they are not the dominant force in Asia or do they have a strong military at all.

Brazil: Brazil is gaining momentum in the present world but would not be consider a power in the eyes of most countries. They have no real influence over the world.
I like your take on it. And your justifications.
And yes I agree with what you have typed above, especially about Russia.
they may have nukes, but I don't think that they can aim them anymore.

France and the UK should relinquish their seats to an EU seat. And as someone pointed out, an EU seat without a veto. That would make sense.

But this is all a pipe dream, because the countries that have seats will no way give them up without a struggle.

[Boondoggle]

maxtsu wrote: Brasil Branco wrote: Brazil is the eighth largest economic power, and fifth in both land mass and population. It is the key industrial nation in Latin America, and is considered an example to developing nations in that area.

Brazil's economy is only growing these past years, recovering well from a near financil collapse. It has a vast population and is still rich in natural resources, being a prime target from investors.

Besides, we have the best soccer team in the world- I think that's called power ;)
The idea of the UN security council is that its members deal with "Security" matters.
Therefore the members would need to have a serious armed force. And economics does not play in the equation (although money is required if you have an army).
So yes Brasil is a raising economic star. But it unless it can get its army upto the national football team status, no seat.
My opinion any!

It's not simply about military power. The idea of expanding the council is to represent the different regions of the world, and Brazil is a good choice for South America.

[Locke_]

Solution 6 seats?

Put Brazil in as a 6th seat would be a good idea I think

[watermelon]

The security council of the UN should not just be based on the military or economic strengths of the nominated nations but on their influence and ability to guide policies and control events on a global and regional level.

Anaximander stated that Quote:
Australia is a respected country but it's not a power.
China fields a million man regular army and has nukes.

This is how the security council has been seen in the past, as a group of nations that have vast military strength and therefore are assumed to have a positive influence over other nations, this view however has often proved to be wrong.

However, taking into account the latest 'revolt' against the established powers it can be seen how the power of these nation states is now seen as Imperialistic and not conducive to unilateral efforts for the international community.

The security council as it stands represents the old power bases of post WWII Europe and Asia, however this collection of nations is no longer representative of the worlds current power structure or the opinions and beliefs of many of the UN member nations. the actions of the US(be it right or wrong) in the preceding months to the Gulf War can be seen as an obvious reaction to the global dissatisfaction with the their position which was reflected in the security councils inaction over the US's claims and the eventual by-passing of the UN to achieve Bush's goals.

To the question though, The Security council should be as closely representative of the global population as possible, with the nations being chosen for their influence and effectiveness in their region of the Globe, with this in mind it is obvious that there needs to be an expansion of the council to include more members to effectively represent the various regions of the world.

Nonetheless, My five nominations are as follows:

The US. needs to be represented to reflect its economic and military power both over the other nations of the Americas and on the global stage

For the same reasons of economics and military power China must also remain being the most dominate force in Central Asia.

For economic and regional influence a single representative should be elected from the EU to represent this region both for it's economy and it's military and political influence

Although this has been argued earlier, I believe Australia should definitely be on the Security council,(aside from the Historical role played by Australia in the laying down of the first UN Charter) for although as a nation it lacks the military strength or population, It has one of the strongest economies in the world, has vast natural resources and enjoys a great deal of influence over the other south-east Asian nations and is without doubt the most powerful nation in this region. Australia would also be a representative from the Southern Hemisphere( something that has been lacking in the past) that also has strong links to the US, China, Japan and the Middle East.

The last place on the council I believe should be representing the area of the globe that has increasingly became an international player, The Middle East. My nominations for this area would be Jordan or Egypt. Although both these nations will be opposed by the Israelis, they are perhaps the most moderate Governments of the region and still able to sway influence over the more extreme of the Arabic states.