What Countries Should Have a Permanent UNSC Seat?

[onedomino]

A rationalization of what countries should have a permanent seat on the UNSC will not necessarily make the organization functional. However, the current list of countries with permanent UNSC seats is outdated and does not reflect international demographics. The following is my opinion of what countries should have a permanent UNSC seat. What's your take?

China
Russia
India - by 2020 will be the world's most populous country.
Japan – by a great margin, the world's number two economy.
United States
European Union - of course the EU is not a "country," but Europe should have a permanent seat on the UNSC. No individual European country has the combination of population, economic strength, and military capacity, that should justify a permanent UNSC seat.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/264/world/As_Japan_spreads_its_wings_int:.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measures_of_national_income

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2000/04/21/stories/0121000a.htm

 

[CSM]

A rationalization of what countries should have a permanent seat on the UNSC will not necessarily make the organization functional. However, the current list of countries with permanent UNSC seats is outdated and does not reflect international demographics. The following is my opinion of what countries should have a permanent UNSC seat. What's your take?

China
Russia
India - by 2020 will be the world's most populous country.
Japan – by a great margin, the world's number two economy.
United States
European Union - of course the EU is not a "country," but Europe should have a permanent seat on the UNSC. No individual European country has the combination of population, economic strength, and military capacity, that should justify a permanent UNSC seat.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/264/world/As_Japan_spreads_its_wings_int:.shtml

Interesting take on the EU. If we use that as a baseline, then the Islamic fundamentalists have just as big an impact (maybe more) and I sure dont want them on the UNSC.

In my opinion, nothing but a total revamp of the entire UN is in order, not just the Security Council.

 

[5stringJeff]

China, Russia, India, and the US for sure. Probably the UK for number 5. Make the rest rotational by continents: 2 for Africa, 2 for South America, 2 for Europe, 2 for North America, 1 for Asia, 1 for Australia.

 

[Annie]

Just dismantle the damn thing. It's got to go. EU should have one seat, but not individual countries, just like US and 50 states. Not going to happen.

 

[NATO AIR]

The UN should be drastically reformed in three major ways:

(a) the Security Council system as it is is abolished. A new, permenent security council is enacted with no veto powers for any parties. The 15 nations comprising it should be as follows (America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Turkey/Pakistan/Egypt and Mexico).

(b) the UN should cease peacekeeping activities as an organization and contract them out to regional organizations (African Union, Arab League, EU, NATO, OAS, ASEAN) which willl have the option of flying under the UN flag or not. This way, there is no shortchanging of the peacekeeping operations by donor countries or volunteer countries who contribute troops only to get money and acclaim)

(c) Automatic triggers will be built into key emergencies like genocide, nuclear proliferation and oppressive invasion. This way, no nation like China or France will be able to discredit the system by making deals and stalling for time for oppressive regimes like Sudan, Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc etc.

I don't know, there are lots of other ideas, but these are the ones that appear most possible (still improbable though sadly)

 

[CSM]

The UN should be drastically reformed in three major ways:

(a) the Security Council system as it is is abolished. A new, permenent security council is enacted with no veto powers for any parties. The 15 nations comprising it should be as follows (America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Turkey/Pakistan/Egypt and Mexico).

(b) the UN should cease peacekeeping activities as an organization and contract them out to regional organizations (African Union, Arab League, EU, NATO, OAS, ASEAN) which willl have the option of flying under the UN flag or not. This way, there is no shortchanging of the peacekeeping operations by donor countries or volunteer countries who contribute troops only to get money and acclaim)

(c) Automatic triggers will be built into key emergencies like genocide, nuclear proliferation and oppressive invasion. This way, no nation like China or France will be able to discredit the system by making deals and stalling for time for oppressive regimes like Sudan, Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc etc.

I don't know, there are lots of other ideas, but these are the ones that appear most possible (still improbable though sadly)

I am not sure what the UN should look like these days. It seems to me that the more parties involved in any decision making process, the more beauraucratic things will get.

 

[NATO AIR]

there is considerable truth to that

 

[onedomino]

The UN should be drastically reformed in three major ways:

(a) the Security Council system as it is is abolished. A new, permenent security council is enacted with no veto powers for any parties. The 15 nations comprising it should be as follows (America, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Nigeria, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Turkey/Pakistan/Egypt and Mexico).

(b) the UN should cease peacekeeping activities as an organization and contract them out to regional organizations (African Union, Arab League, EU, NATO, OAS, ASEAN) which willl have the option of flying under the UN flag or not. This way, there is no shortchanging of the peacekeeping operations by donor countries or volunteer countries who contribute troops only to get money and acclaim)

(c) Automatic triggers will be built into key emergencies like genocide, nuclear proliferation and oppressive invasion. This way, no nation like China or France will be able to discredit the system by making deals and stalling for time for oppressive regimes like Sudan, Iran, North Korea, Burma, etc etc.

I don't know, there are lots of other ideas, but these are the ones that appear most possible (still improbable though sadly)

Good ideas NATO; although, the UN might end up militarily attacking Israel without the US veto in place. Perhaps the OAU could vote for Africa. The OAS could vote for Central and South America. Due to its massive population, maybe Indonesia should be seated. Then Islam would not be excluded. It is outrageous that a few Communist Party hacks determine the Chinese use of its veto in the UNSC. Also, giving France as powerful a vote as China or the US does not seem reasonable; only one vote for the EU.

China
India
Russia
Japan
Indonesia
OAS
OAU
EU
United States

 

[edwbrown]

I say dismantel the UN the only time they seem to get involved and want to help is when the US forces them to do something.

 

[Annie]

I say dismantel the UN the only time they seem to get involved and want to help is when the US forces them to do something.

Welcome, edwbrown!

 

[onedomino]

I say dismantel the UN the only time they seem to get involved and want to help is when the US forces them to do something.

First post on this thread? I am honored. Welcome edwbrown.

 

[Avatar4321]

Im going to have to go with the dismantling. UN is a waste of time. It was set up wrong to be a governing body for the world.

 

[onedomino]

Im going to have to go with the dismantling. UN is a waste of time. It was set up wrong to be a governing body for the world.

That's a pretty weird looking UN headquarters building in NYC. It's got that funky 1960s wish I had a clue plastic look. What should we do with it?

 

[acludem]

The U.N. was set up to prevent World War II from happening again. It's worked so far. The U.N. is a good organization. It was the U.N. with U.S. leadership that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The U.N. should absolutely work with and support regional organizations in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. They should also work with International non-governmental organizations like the International Red Cross who have extensive experience bringing aid to crisis areas.

Also, I want to make sure that people understand that the EU is NOT like the United States. All members are still sovereign nations. The only link-up is economic. The other issues, for example environmental regulation, farming and food standards, etc. are all related to economics. This is NOT a political union or some sort of European supergovernment. It is possible (though I do not think probable) that this may occur in the future.

acludem

 

[onedomino]

The U.N. was set up to prevent World War II from happening again. It's worked so far. The U.N. is a good organization. It was the U.N. with U.S. leadership that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The U.N. should absolutely work with and support regional organizations in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. They should also work with International non-governmental organizations like the International Red Cross who have extensive experience bringing aid to crisis areas.

Also, I want to make sure that people understand that the EU is NOT like the United States. All members are still sovereign nations. The only link-up is economic. The other issues, for example environmental regulation, farming and food standards, etc. are all related to economics. This is NOT a political union or some sort of European supergovernment. It is possible (though I do not think probable) that this may occur in the future.

acludem

I assume you meant WW3. So what is your suggested composition of the UNSC?

 

[acludem]

I would have 11 members: USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and South Africa.

acludem

 

[NATO AIR]

I would have 11 members: USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and South Africa.

acludem

that's not a bad composition

i do like indonesia better than pakistan for the security council (true democracy over military control), but since pakistan's got the bomb and is closer to the world's continual trouble spots, perhaps that would be the better choice

 

[Annie]

that's not a bad composition

i do like indonesia better than pakistan for the security council (true democracy over military control), but since pakistan's got the bomb and is closer to the world's continual trouble spots, perhaps that would be the better choice

Why France, Germany, along with UK? Why should EU have 3 voices? Why only US from North America? If EU can have all their states in UN, why should US participate with less than all 50? Have Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Japan all from Asia, unless you want to throw Russia into Europe? Why would South Africa rate more worthy than Middle Eastern state?

Personally, I think we should just get the heck out, but I'm curious on your concept of more fairness or perhaps it's logic, that is just escaping me?

 

[NATO AIR]

Alright, you want the leaders of the world and their respective regions right?

US- North America, WORLD LEADER.

Brazil- South America/Central America

Britain (kinda weird, they merit because they're powerful, rich, successful and a world leader by their conduct, policies and what not)

Germany/France- now this I would prefer to give to the EU as a whole, but I'm just being realistic, the French are gonna want in. Okay, every group needs a wacko/weirdo, so France can be it. We'll let Germany in because I truly believe they will improve from their dismal past 4 years and become a good leader again. Their leaders just suck right now.

Russia- World power. Largest nation in landmass. Lots of nukes, lots of important ties to regions in Asia, Europe and Middle East. Large and reforming military that will hopefully fight terrorism well.

China- World power. Largest in populace for now. Huge economy. One of the leaders of Asia and hopefully an improving political climate. They have a legitimate voice at the table and a lot to bring to it (especially once communism fades away completely)

Japan- Growing power in Asia and the world. A military that is increasingly growing towards offensive action, like humanitarian interventions and taking a strong stand against oppressive regimes (north korea, burma). An economy that is massive and recovering. A leader on human rights, development and aid. Even better, their diplomacy is growing more open-minded and broad, as they tackle serious issues of terrorism and oppression (afghanistan and iraq) and rebuilding (Iraq, Liberia, Afghanistan, East Timor)

India- Growing world power. Could one day eclipse China. They contain the world's most diverse population and soon to be largest. A natural democracy that is pulling off miracles because of good leadership and forward vision. A military that is improving and modernizing to ally with the US and fight terrorism.

South Africa- The leader of Africa. Modern military with an eye on deploying troops to trouble spots like Darfur, the congo and Ivory Coast to defend and promote democracy and freedom. Economic powerhouse in the making.

Indonesia/Pakistan- this one I'm unsure of as I stated before. I would prefer Indonesia, natural leader of the various Muslim nations for now. A democracy with a huge population. A military force in the making, willing to deploy to fight terrorism and invasion. Improving relations with the rest of the world.

I would like to put Israel in there too. One day that will be possible. Israel will become a world leader, I promise. One day their military will not have to worry about occupying the Palestinian territories and defending against Iran and Syria. One day they will deploy that military to places like Darfur to show the world Israel is a leader among nations, a nation that uniquely understands the power of democracy to defend against oppression and inhumanity.

Give Turkey 5-10 more years and they will be the first Muslim Middle Eastern country ready for regional and world leadership. They have a great military, a great government and are the best example (even better than Indonesia) of a functional Muslim government and society that is embedded with democracy and freedom.

TAKE AWAY THE DAMN VETO SYSTEM!

With this new Security Council, simple majorities could approve assisting and aiding regional organizations intervening in crises like Darfur and Iraq. The US could use this new Security Council as a springboard for improved and better world leadership. We can help other countries assert leadership so that we are not forced to play global beat cop 24/7, just perhaps global detective (assisting in intel and logistics for various problems around the world). We could singlehandedly (perhaps) save the UN from itself. Maybe even make it worth. Maybe even help spread freedom even further.

 

[onedomino]

Why France, Germany, along with UK? Why should EU have 3 voices? Why only US from North America? If EU can have all their states in UN, why should US participate with less than all 50?

Very good point. On what demographic basis would the EU be entitled to multi-state voting power? If California, Texas, or Florida, were in independent states in Europe, they would economically dominate. The French, German, and UK votes should not each equal the US or Chinese vote. The EU deserves only one UNSC vote.