UN Security Council Reform

There have beens lots of rumblings and grumblings in the news over the last few years over reform of the Security Council, apparently because it does not reflect the realities of the 21st century.

With that in mind, I thought i'd find out what you lot believe the composition of the Security Council should be...................

Bear in mind:
a) This reform is never going to happen immediately, at best it will happen by 2010 and it would be foolish to project beyond 2030, so what we are looking for is a UN SC suitable for the period running 2010 to 2030.
b) The primary purpose of the SC is to credibly issue threat of attack in order to elicit compliance, in much the same way that a nation-states primary purpose is to credibly demonstrate an ability to defend. Therefore I don't believe membership of the Permanent/Veto-wielding Security Council should even be considered for nations that do not have the economic and military clout to rise above their peers, and that they should have a force structure that allows them to project power. It is no good have a million strong peasant army if they cannot credibly threaten military intervention on a non-contiguous nation.
c) It is desired by many that a new-look Security Council better reflect the Geographic Distribution of countries, cultures and peoples, rather than the euro-centric composition currently in vogue. However, this desire should not conflict with the above two points otherwise the Security Council will cease to be a credible body.

To that end I give you what I consider to be a reasonable framework upon which to weigh the relative merits of potential Security Council candidates:

Security Council membership should be considered on four premises by order of importance leading to a cumulative total.

(1) military power - modified dependent on: the expeditionary emphasis of armed forces (0 to 10)
(2) diplomatic influence - modified dependent on: total number of speakers (1 to 5) (*)
(3) economic power - modified dependent on: how many rankings change when contrasted with PPP (**)
(4) geographic/demographic - modified dependant HDI: ranking (1 to 5) (***)
(5) total - modified dependant on: nukes (+5) new region representative (+5)

(1) - Military Expenditure + Manpower
1 = US - (20 + 9 + 10 = 39) = [39] ($532,800,000,000)
2 = UK - (18 + 1 + 8 = 27) = [27] ($66,500,000,000)
3 = France - (16 + 3 + 6 = 25) = [25] ($64,611,000,000)
4 = China - (10 + 10 + 2 = 22) = [22] ($45,500,000,000)
5 = Japan - (12 + 2 + 4 = 18) = [18] ($46,000,000,000)
6 = Germany - (14 + 4 + 0 = 18) = [18] ($57,500,000,000)
7 = Russia - (08 + 7 + 2 = 17) = [17] ($32,400,000,000)
8 = India - (06 + 8 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($21,330,000,000)
9 = Aust - (04 + 0 + 4 = 8) = [08] ($15,700,000,000)
10 = Brasil - (02 + 5 + 0 = 7) = [07] ($10,233,000,000)
11 = Indon - (00 + 6 + 0 = 6) = [06] ($01,300,000,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._active_troops (0 to 10)

(2) - Diplomatic Influence (subjective)
1 = US - (20 + 5 = 25) = [25]
2 = China - (18 + 5 = 23) = [23]
3 = UK - (16 + 5 = 21) = [21]
4 = France - (14 + 3 = 17) = [17]
5 = Japan - (12 + 1 = 13) = [13]
6 = Russia - (10 + 2 = 12) = [12]
7 = Germany - (08 + 1 = 9) = [09]
8 = Aust - (06 + 5 = 11) = [11]
9 = India - (04 + 5 = 9) = [09]
10 = Brasil - (02 + 2 = 4) = [04]
11 = Indon - (00 + 2 = 2) = [02]
Diplomatic Influence (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ative_speakers (0 to 5)

(3) - Economic Power GDP + PPP (millions)
1 = US - (20 + 10 + 3 = 33) = [33] ($13,244,550)
2 = Japan - (18 + 8 + 2 = 28) = [28] ($4,367,459)
3 = China - (14 + 9 + 5 = 28) = [28] ($2,630,113)
4 = Germany - (16 + 6 + 1 = 23) = [23] ($2,897,032)
5 = UK - (12 + 5 + 2 = 19) = [19] ($2,373,685)
6 = France - (10 + 4 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($2,231,631)
7 = India - (04 + 7 + 5 = 12) = [16] ($886,867)
8 = Brasil - (08 + 3 + 4 = 13) = [15] ($1,067,706)
9 = Russia - (06 + 2 + 4 = 10) = [12] ($979,048)
10 = Indon - (00 + 1 + 5 = 5) = [05] ($364,239)
11 = Aust - (02 + 0 + 2 = 4) = [04] ($754,816)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_(nominal) (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_GDP_(PPP) (0 to 10)

(4) - Demographic + Geographic
1 = US - (16 + 9 + 5 = 30) = [30] (301,950,000)
2 = China - (20 + 5 + 2 = 27) = [27] (1,321,000,000)
3 = Russia - (10 + 10 + 2 = 24) = [24] (141,400,000)
4 = India - (18 + 4 + 1 = 23) = [23] (1,129,000,000)
5 = Brasil - (12 + 7 + 2 = 21) = [21] (186,500,000)
6 = Japan - (08 + 3 + 5 = 16) = [16] (127,720,000)
7 = France - (04 + 6 + 5 = 15) = [15] (64,102,140)
8 = Indon - (14 + 0 + 1 = 15) = [15] (234,950,000)
9 = Aust - (00 + 8 + 5 = 13) = [13] (20,830,000)
10 = Germany - (06 + 1 + 5 = 14) =[12] (82,310,000)
11 = UK - (02 + 2 + 5 = 9) = [09] (60,609,153)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone (table inc onshore territory) (0 to 10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...elopment_Index (1 to 5)

(5) - Total -
1 = US - (127 + 5 + 0 = 132)..........=.........[132]
2 = China - (100 + 5 + 0 = 105)......=........ [105]
3 = UK - (76 + 5 + 0 = 81).............=........[081]
4 = France - (73 + 5 + 0 = 78)........=........[078]
5 = Japan - (75 + 0 + 0 = 75).........=.........[075]
6 = India - (64 + 5 + 5 = 74)..........=.........[074]
7 = Russia - (65 + 5 + 0 = 70)........=.........[070]
8 = Germany - (62 + 0 + 0 = 62).....=.........[062]
9 = Brasil - (50 + 0 + 5 = 55)..........=.........[055]
10 = Aust - (36 + 0 + 5 = 41).........=.........[041]
11 = Indon - (28 + 0 + 5 = 33)........=.........[033]
-------------------------------------------------------
Appendix -
(*)--------------|-(**)--------------|-(***)--------------
5 - 800m - plus -|- 5 - 2 ranks up----|- 5 - 0.90 plus
4 - 600m - 800m-|- 4 - 1 rank up-----|- 4 - 0.85 to 0.90
3 - 400m - 600m-|- 3 - 0 change-----|- 3 - 0.80 to 0.85
2 - 200m - 400m-|- 2 - 1 rank down--|- 2 - 0.75 to 0.80
1 - 000m - 200m-|- 1 - 2 ranks down-|- 1 - 0.00 to 0.75
--------------------------------------------------------

Just because i haven't listed a certain nation above that you favour for candidacy does not mean it should not be proposed, please do so. :beam:

Just because i have given a nation listed above a certain ranking in some attribute does not mean it is necessarily correct, please argue you case. :whip:

Let the games begin.

I am going to follow my figures and say:

US/UK/Fr/Ch/In/Jp/Ru

The US will remain a superpower (if not a hyper-power) till beyond 2030.
The UK will remain a top-ten economy & top-five interventionist military till beyond 2030.
France will remain a top-ten economy & top-five interventionist military till beyond 2030.
China is vast in population, economy, and future military.
India is vast in population, and will be vast in economy and military.
Japan will remain a top-five economy, and a top-five military with a new constitution to boot.
Russia will, despite a shrinking population, have lots of Gas until 2030, and boat-loads of nukes along with a bad attitude, they ain't leaving without a fight.

-------------------------------------------------------

as for:

SA/Indonesia/Brazil/Australia

SA is just too small, too poor, and too incapable
Indonesia is too poor and too incapable
Brazil is a near miss, it could be a credible addition, but India and Japan are stronger.
Australia has a growing interventionist capability, but is too small in economy and population

------------------------------------------------------

In short, i don't think the idea of geographic representation is a valid way to structure the Security Council within the next 25 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

I am going to follow my figures and say:

US/UK/Fr/Ch/In/Jp/Ru

---

Add Germany, and I'd agree.

India, Japan, Brazil + US, UK, Fr, Ch, Ru

Sadly there wasnt the option of "disband", this choice seemed to me to be a more global representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Add Germany, and I'd agree.

---

Germany sadly has no ability to project power, and in all reality there will be no more euro nations added, the best that might occur in that direction is an EU SC vote.

i personally don't believe it has a lot of diplomatic clout either. nor too is it exceptional in its geography or demographics.

:beam:

Abolish the Veto .

Have Obama state in a campaign speech that Quebec and Scotland should be added.

Where is the "abolish the UN entirely" option? Or atleast give us a "gah"...:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Abolish the Veto .

---

you would still need some kind of Security Council tho surely, veto or not?

I dislike not having the gah option....

I think that the NAFTA option was unusual to say the least. It may not last, but it does represent a significant block. I wish India was added to that option.

I also protest the exclusion of
Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Abolish the Veto .

---

What would that achieve except to make the UN more like the Leauge of Nations?

The UN is a big enough talking shop as it is.


The idea in the OP seems pretty unworkable, military expenditure for example, does not equate miitary effectivness or power projection capabilities.

And more philosophically speaking if trying to measure fairness/equity in a collective security agency such as the UN, it hardly seems appropriate to have military clout as a deciding factor.

would it be a good idea to restart with a better described poll?

The poll is fine. You could never include every possible option of everybody, so just leave it as is and let others have their say in the thread if they have any diverging ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MM

I also protest the exclusion of
Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland.

---

Well if you swap Liechtenstein for Luxembourg I will join you in your protest. And then we need to bring in Scotland and Québec too. And Belgium. Everybody likes Belgium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Abolish the Veto .

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The poll is fine. You could never include every possible option of everybody, so just leave it as is and let others have their say in the thread if they have any diverging ideas.

Well if you swap Liechtenstein for Luxembourg I will join you in your protest. And then we need to bring in Scotland and Québec too. And Belgium. Everybody likes Belgium.

---

fair enough.

and your thoughts on the matter?

I'm all for abolishing the veto, I don't mind the members that always remain there but the vetos are the things that prevent things from happening. If France, Russia, and China hadn't been able to threaten a veto in 2002/03 over the Iraq issue I feel that the US would have actually put the issue up to vote. Saddam would probably not have counted on a veto protecting him and not assumed that Bush was bluffing invasion and trying to call it as that.

Same bit with Israel, the US could still give Israel the support it wants but couldn't veto every motion against Israel.

I don't think this would make the UN as impotent as the League of Nations, not having veto powers does not mean that nations will just ignore the resolutions passed by the UN.

the veto does force the SC to be unanimous however, thus a decision by the SC carries real weight as it it the combined will of the most powerful nations on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

the veto does force the SC to be unanimous however, thus a decision by the SC carries real weight as it it the combined will of the most powerful nations on earth.

---

Fair point - however, coming to decisions is difficult enough currently. Add 2-3 more nations (nations that would add a lot more diversity of interests to the SC) and coming to any decisions will be next to impossible if the current veto system isn't changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And Belgium. Everybody likes Belgium.

---

*is offended by this statement*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Fair point - however, coming to decisions is difficult enough currently. Add 2-3 more nations (nations that would add a lot more diversity of interests to the SC) and coming to any decisions will be next to impossible if the current veto system isn't changed.

---

i accept that.

the Sc is going to get bigger, and thus the veto will get more unwieldy.

it would have to be more than just simple majority, or the SC would appear to lack authority. i.e. if there were seven members then a majority of 5 would be required at a minimum.

I'm not that much interested which nation(s) will be dominant as superpower(s) -- though it's important -- but more interested in who's pulling the strings behind the scenes at the highest level to influence the globe. Everything in this world is a tool, and a country can be used as such.

i think the bilderburg group is a bit beyond the scope of this debate. :beam:

BOT -

I am totally in favour of India joining the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

*is offended by this statement*

---

Shall we start an anti-Belgianism thread then? :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu

and your thoughts on the matter?

---

That I agreed that Andorra, Monaco, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Québec and Belgium should join. Don't know why, I can't quite put my finger on it...

More seriously, I can imagine India and Japan joining. But this would be seen as enlarging the anti-China bloc.

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

---

That I would like... but I think the consequences would be dire. Sure the Democratic UN would get things done and possibly even for the greater good. But imagine it in the 1950's... instead of the UN being a place to diffuse the Bay of Pigs, the Democratic UN would have not been a favourable venue for the Ruskies and the chance of the cold war getting very hot would be increased.

=][=

What if the nations had power in the UN as per the power they give the people in their nations... the democratic nations should get a vote like their people... and the non-democratic ones the vetos as they veto their people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

More seriously, I can imagine India and Japan joining. But this would be seen as enlarging the anti-China bloc.

---

India must be included in a new SC. They are the 2nd largest nation in the world, and they sit next to China, the first largest. India will be very powerful once it gets it's organized. A country with the voice of a billion people deserves to be heard on the SC.

Japan is an isolationist which can't even use it's military on foriegn soil in a warzone. Lacking any bite to their bark they shouldnt be on the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

---

Any SC without China is doomed to fail the UN's original intent. The UN was created to keep peace among the giants of the world, regardless of their currently government type. Secluding all those who are not democracies means destroying most chances of having stable peace. We have gone an amazing 62 years without a major conflict between world powers, hopefully we'll have 62 more. But secluding China is not the way.


As for the Vote, I went with India+ US, China, UK, Fr, Rus. Though the UK and Russia are debatable. I dont see how the EU could be on the SC. They are an economic pac, a weak confederacy at best, not a Nation, yet. Maybe one day the EU will develop into a country but until then they shouldnt, couldnt, wont be on the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

India must be included in a new SC. They are the 2nd largest nation in the world, and they sit next to China, the first largest. India will be very powerful once it gets it's organized. A country with the voice of a billion people deserves to be heard on the SC.

Japan is an isolationist which can't even use it's military on foriegn soil in a warzone. Lacking any bark to their bite they shouldnt be on the SC.



Any SC without China is doomed to fail the UN's original intent. The UN was created to keep peace among the giants of the world, regardless of their currently government type. Secluding all those who are not democracies means destroying most chances of having stable peace. We have gone an amazing 62 years without a major conflict between world powers, hopefully we'll have 62 more. But secluding China is not the way.


As for the Vote, I went with India+ US, China, UK, Fr, Rus. Though the UK and Russia are debatable. I dont see how the EU could be on the SC. They are an economic pac, a weak confederacy at best, not a Nation, yet. Maybe one day the EU will develop into a country but until then they shouldnt, couldnt, wont be on the SC.

---

in what manner is France more qualified for SC membership than the UK?

I agree that the EU should never be given a SC seat and veto.

I also agree that there is no option but for less representaive nations such as russia, and particularly china, from keeping their SC seats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

---

but remember we are talking about 2010, not some far off aspiration for the 22nd century.

you turn around and tell russia and china that they are being stripped off their SC votes in two years time, and you will witness the nukes start flying two hours after you finished speaking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

---

Not sure where I stand on this...this view does come with the assumption that democracy is somehow better than other forms of government, which is subjective at best.

Besides, pragmatically speaking, democracy isnt going to be a major factor in high level inter-state interaction...the British gov ignoring the UN (and the british people to a certain extent) and invading Iraq anyway for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

i think the bilderburg group is a bit beyond the scope of this debate. :beam:

BOT -

I am totally in favour of India joining the SC.

---

:saint:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

That I would like... but I think the consequences would be dire. Sure the Democratic UN would get things done and possibly even for the greater good. But imagine it in the 1950's... instead of the UN being a place to diffuse the Bay of Pigs, the Democratic UN would have not been a favourable venue for the Ruskies and the chance of the cold war getting very hot would be increased.

---

The Bay of Pigs did not turn on the UN, but U.S. military/political ineptitude. A UN that is not bound by democratic ideals cannot claim any legitimacy. A UN that allows totalitarian states Security Council veto power is also practically impotent. Much of the laughable quality of the UN can be traced to this fundamental failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Any SC without China is doomed to fail the UN's original intent. The UN was created to keep peace among the giants of the world, regardless of their currently government type. Secluding all those who are not democracies means destroying most chances of having stable peace. We have gone an amazing 62 years without a major conflict between world powers, hopefully we'll have 62 more. But secluding China is not the way.

---

The intent of the UN is found in its Preamble:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom...

Fundamental human rights and justice are antithetical to totalitarianism. To the degree such are allowed access and influence to that same degree the intent of the UN is undermined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

but remember we are talking about 2010, not some far off aspiration for the 22nd century.

you turn around and tell russia and china that they are being stripped off their SC votes in two years time, and you will witness the nukes start flying two hours after you finished speaking!

---

Rationality is not time dependent. The ouster of illegitimate forms of government that by their very make up are hostile to the fundamental notions of justice could be done whenever there is a real desire to live up to the ideals that ground the UN.

Neither China or Russia would commit suicide because of the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

No non-democratic nation should be given either a seat on the Security Council or a veto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Not sure where I stand on this...this view does come with the assumption that democracy is somehow better than other forms of government, which is subjective at best.

---

---

I hope this sentiment isn't the product of a U.S. education, but I fear the worst.

God save us from the failures of education!

Quote:

---

The intent of the UN is found in its Preamble: ......

---

very nice . would you like to apply that to a certain major democracy:idea2:

First off the UN is basically something for the Big Boys to rubber stamp what they want. It functions at all as there are only a few with any real clout. If that wre to be opened up we'd end up with paralysis.

But, to play along...

I liked the idea of NAFTA, Commonwealth, EU being 3 of them with possibly others rotating.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The intent of the UN is found in its Preamble:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom...

Fundamental human rights and justice are antithetical to totalitarianism. To the degree such are allowed access and influence to that same degree the intent of the UN is undermined.

---

You might want to note that saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war comes first in the statement, and only then does the reaffirment in the faith in fundamental human rights etc. follow. In any conflict between the two, the first usually prevails - war is not a good thing, and its prevention was the primary purpose for the establishment of the UN. Only when the latter is grossly abused does it override the desire for peace. Would you rather there were an authority that overrode the desire for peace so as to guarantee fundamental human rights and justice for everyone?

May I direct you to a manga called Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind, by Hayao Miyazaki? The world in which it is set is one which had been devastated by a race of monsters during a period called the Seven Days of Fire. The race of monsters was actually a set of bio-engineered creations, endowed with sentience and fearsome weaponry (read nukes) so as to enforce law and justice on a warring world. Inevitably, they found all sides were at fault, and proceeded to nuke every corner of the Earth, then turned on themselves as their actions had equally offended the justice they had embodied.

Most of us recognise the world isn't perfect, but in trying to make it better, we do what we can. You are seeking an absolute truth, a world where there is justice and universal rights for all. That isn't going to happen, especially if you disregard the greater evils that may be done in their name. Stop being as inflexible as Tribesman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

very nice . would you like to apply that to a certain major democracy:idea2:

---

Ireland is not a major democracy. :study:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You might want to note that saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war comes first in the statement, and only then does the reaffirment in the faith in fundamental human rights etc. follow. In any conflict between the two, the first usually prevails - war is not a good thing, and its prevention was the primary purpose for the establishment of the UN.

---

Then fundamental human rights aren't really fundamental?

You may want to note that the quoted passage is one long sentence where war sentiment and fundamental rights are part of a series. To assume one element in the series overrides other elements in the series simply by placement begs the question.

Quote:

---

Only when the latter is grossly abused does it override the desire for peace. Would you rather there were an authority that overrode the desire for peace so as to guarantee fundamental human rights and justice for everyone?

---

Of course! The U.S. is founded on blood. If authoritarian peace and servitude trumps liberty and a government amenable to its citizenry then revolution and war on behalf of democracy cannot be justified.

Quote:

---

Most of us recognise the world isn't perfect, but in trying to make it better, we do what we can. You are seeking an absolute truth, a world where there is justice and universal rights for all. That isn't going to happen, especially if you disregard the greater evils that may be done in their name.

---

It should be noted that sacrificing principle and legitimacy has not saved the world from the scourge of war as the history of conflict post the founding of the UN demonstrates.

Quote:

---

Stop being as inflexible as Tribesman.

---

That's fairly disturbing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Then fundamental human rights aren't really fundamental?

You may want to note that the quoted passage is one long sentence where war sentiment and fundamental rights are part of a series. To assume one element in the series overrides other elements in the series simply by placement begs the question.

---

Is peace not better serving to those fundamental human rights then war? Should we allow future war's and the atrosities that follow them just so we can stand to our high ideals?

The USSR has been in the UN since it's conception. The sacrafice for peace instead of the founding principle's was made at the birth of the UN. We are better served with an institution that allows the worlds giants to easily talk to one another, then another platform for the west's ideals. The east is rising, we shouldnt destroy the UN now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Then fundamental human rights aren't really fundamental?

You may want to note that the quoted passage is one long sentence where war sentiment and fundamental rights are part of a series. To assume one element in the series overrides other elements in the series simply by placement begs the question.

Of course! The U.S. is founded on blood. If authoritarian peace and servitude trumps liberty and a government amenable to its citizenry then revolution and war on behalf of democracy cannot be justified.

It should be noted that sacrificing principle and legitimacy has not saved the world from the scourge of war as the history of conflict post the founding of the UN demonstrates.

---

I live in a country where we gained our current way of living, in no way inferior to America's, through gradually amending our customs and way of thinking. It may take more time, but I like our way better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Is peace not better serving to those fundamental human rights then war?

---

If I understood the question correctly: not if you recognize the Revolutionary War as legitimate.

Quote:

---

Should we allow future war's and the atrosities that follow them just so we can stand to our high ideals?

---

If war is not fought for and in behalf of principle then war cannot be justified. If war cannot be justified then pacifism is the only recourse. Pacifism in the face of tyranny equates to slavery.

Quote:

---

The USSR has been in the UN since it's conception.

---

That is why the UN was illegitimate from its inception.

Quote:

---

The sacrafice for peace instead of the founding principle's was made at the birth of the UN. We are better served with an institution that allows the worlds giants to easily talk to one another, then another platform for the west's ideals. The east is rising, we shouldnt destroy the UN now.

---

WWII ended independent of the UN. The Cold War occurred independent of the UN. Diplomacy both predates and extends beyond the confines of the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I live in a country where we gained our current way of living, in no way inferior to America's, through gradually amending our customs and way of thinking. It may take more time, but I like our way better.

---

Irrespective of your personal sentiments, I doubt such would be of much solace for those who were oppressed or those currently oppressed outside of Albion. Morality and the importance of legitimacy transcend convenience or an unwillingness to stand up.

I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.

I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.

I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.

If a nation can project power where necessary, and can be persuaded to do so in concert with other likewise capable nations, on a course of action that will lead to greater harmony between nations and between peoples then this is a good thing.

However, the representative nation state is the ultimate authority, and acts as it pleases but in the knowledge that it is judged by its peers, other nation states. It can do so because its actions are directly sanctioned by the people it governs, which means that is acceptable that the consequences of those actions be borne by those peoples.

There is no moral authority in my mind to the UN, it merely serves as a forum for decision on action necessary by sovereign nation states. It has no innate authority because there is no direct mandate from the people affected, therefore it is not right that they should bear the consequences of actions taken in their name.

Option: US(NAFTA), UK(commonwealth), EU, China, India

Votes: Duke Malcolm, Furunculu5, Marshal Murat, rory_20_uk

I oppose this. There are some minor problems: Canada is a member of both the Commonwealth and NAFTA, the UK of the Commonwealth and the EU. The more major problem is that either individual nations should be represented, or blocks of nations.
If the UK gets a separate seat outside of the EU to represent the Commonwealth, then so should the Francophony (which, BTW, represents 54 nations, about 25% of the total members - hurray for Pacific islands and tiny, insignificant African states).
Other power blocks might claim a seat too if the concept of individual nation membership is given up. The African Union, ASEAN, Mercosur, others. This would not only seriously undermine the UK's status as representant of the Commonwealth in this scenario, but also reeks a bit too much like a Huntingtonian division of the world in civilizations to me.
The only significant block that is remotely likely to develop into a political union is the EU.

So I can live with either a future single EU seat; a France/EU and a UK seat if the UK opts out of the EU and decides its future lies with Botswana and Bangladesh instead of Ireland and Germany; or the current situation, whereby the interests of the Commonwealth, the Francophy and the EU in the SC are voiced through the UK and France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The USSR has been in the UN since it's conception.
That is why the UN was illegitimate from its inception.

WWII ended independent of the UN. The Cold War occurred independent of the UN. Diplomacy both predates and extends beyond the confines of the UN.

---

The Society of Nations that was formed after WWI failed within twenty year in its main purpose, the prevention of a new world war. This was in no small part owing to the non-membership of the US, the short-lived membership of the SU, and the withdrawl of Japan and Germany.

The SC can only function if it acknowledges the realistic distribution of power. Thus it has had a far better track record in preventing conflicts between major powers than its predecessor. There is a need for it as a pressure valve, a diplomatic platform, a bullfight arena for the bullies of this world.

agreed, that is a difficult option.

on top of what you mentioned, india is also a member of the CW i believe, in retrospect i think i voted badly.

but yes, the UK, CW vote was predicated on leaving the EU.

not that the UK abandons any future with europe, rather that the EU is growing beyond what many in britain feel our relationship should be, i.e. free trade.

I don't think the UK is in the EU.

There should be a reform, and I don't see how France should be in the SC. Then again, it was mentioned in Lord of War as a main arms exporter...

If NAFTA were allowed in, then that would allow the American countries to be represented more fully.
I don't really care that much because
A)The UN is sluggish
B)The SC will veto it anyway (and you can't take that away from us. NEVER!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The Bay of Pigs did not turn on the UN, but U.S. military/political ineptitude. A UN that is not bound by democratic ideals cannot claim any legitimacy. A UN that allows totalitarian states Security Council veto power is also practically impotent. Much of the laughable quality of the UN can be traced to this fundamental failure.

---

I think the UN did what it was meant to...stop all out war between the big nations. Since we aren't posting from nuclear bunkers while there are mutant mammoths running around a mile above us in a nuclear winter, IMDHO the UN did what it was primarily for... a diplomatic pressure valve. Anything else it achieves is icing on the cake.

As for the veto power, its not just bad that totalitarian states get a veto... having democratic states veto other democratic states is not a recipe for things to get done. So if there was a democratic UN, then no veto's. After all in which democracy do you see the rich or the military both veto the votes of the poor or weaponless?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I don't think the UK is in the EU.

---

It's there in body, if not in spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I don't think the UK is in the EU.

There should be a reform, and I don't see how France should be in the SC. Then again, it was mentioned in Lord of War as a main arms exporter...

If NAFTA were allowed in, then that would allow the American countries to be represented more fully.
I don't really care that much because
A)The UN is sluggish
B)The SC will veto it anyway (and you can't take that away from us. NEVER!)

---

the UK is in the EU, even if that does involve a certain distaste for the federal europe desired on the continent.

and frances justification for SC clearance can be seen on the table in the first post.

The five main 'winners' of WWII are the permanent seats on the UN security council... things have changed since then, but you probably will find that the five of the top ten biggest weapons manufacturing nations are the same permanent members... if not the top five.

So the UN is a reflection of the world situation 60 years ago... of all the populations lest represented it would have to be non-Europeans like India, Africa and Middle East. India has to be the most compelling to be a permanent seat... was on the winning side in WWII, is a democracy, has the second largest population in the world, is a nuclear power...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think the UN did what it was meant to...stop all out war between the big nations. Since we aren't posting from nuclear bunkers while there are mutant mammoths running around a mile above us in a nuclear winter, IMDHO the UN did what it was primarily for... a diplomatic pressure valve. Anything else it achieves is icing on the cake.

As for the veto power, its not just bad that totalitarian states get a veto... having democratic states veto other democratic states is not a recipe for things to get done. So if there was a democratic UN, then no veto's. After all in which democracy do you see the rich or the military both veto the votes of the poor or weaponless?

---

Having other democracies veto each other is important. If the vote wasn't unanimus there would be no weight in it's ultimatums. The veto forces complete agreement of the worlds strongest players. When it speaks it will be heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

WWII ended independent of the UN. The Cold War occurred independent of the UN. Diplomacy both predates and extends beyond the confines of the UN.

---

The cold war was prevented from becoming hot very much in part becuase of the UN. It allowed both the USSR and the USA to meet on even ground. Without that pressure valve we would more then likely be posting on a server located in a bunker.

Diplomacy may predate the UN, but the world having a place to meet and discuss matters does not.

China deserves a voice in this no matter what. If we want change in China it is not going to happen through destroying their seat on the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

So I can live with either a future single EU seat; a France/EU and a UK seat if the UK opts out of the EU and decides its future lies with Botswana and Bangladesh instead of Ireland and Germany; or the current situation, whereby the interests of the Commonwealth, the Francophy and the EU in the SC are voiced through the UK and France

---

The EU is not a nation so doesnt deserve a seat. Unless the countries of the EU sign over their soviergnty to a federal EU then a seat shouldnt exist. It's an economic pact still currently and isnt an elected government.

Quote:

---

It's there in body, if not in spirit.

---

Not suprising. Is it even possible for the UK to remove itself from the EU treaties?

Quote:

---

The five main 'winners' of WWII are the permanent seats on the UN security council... things have changed since then

---

would that mean that when they lose a war they should lose their seat ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

The EU is not a nation so doesnt deserve a seat. Unless the countries of hte EU sign over their soviergnty to a federal EU then a seat shouldnt exist. It's an economic pact still currently and isnt an elected government.

---

agreed totally at present.

however, they do appear to want to make it a federal reality, in which case i hope the UK gets the hell out!

LOl al lthese suggestions are joke.
There should be;


USA 1 vote
Russia 1 vote
France 0 votes
UK 1 vote
China 1 vote
India 1 vote
Brazil 1 vote
All of them without veto right..
Poland = 5 votes with veto right. :)

Apart from adding countries as Brazil, India, ... to the council, I'd say abolish the veto, or in any case make sure the veto can be overruled by a 2/3? or something majority. As it is, the countries with a veto make each action of the council a pain to get on the tracks. Having France over Germany in the council doesn't make much sense either at the moment. If the EU were to grow into one political entity, they'd deserve a place there.

france can project power
france has nukes
france has vast territory
france sits at the heart of french speaking and french associated nations

there is four reasons why france should be on the SC and not germany. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

france can project power
france has nukes
france has vast territory
france sits at the heart of french speaking and french associated nations

there is four reasons why france should be on the SC and not germany. :)

---

On the other hand, Germany can also project power, they could easily develop nukes if the need ever arose, they have more citizens than France and are better developed economically. They're about the same size, but they indeed lack the 'trust' France has in its former colonies.

Texas is bigger than France. Allot bigger actually. [img=https://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1681/tnbiggerthanfrancekf9.th.jpg]

Luckily though, there aren't more Texans than there are French.

Except when the fields need harvesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

On the other hand, Germany can also project power, they could easily develop nukes if the need ever arose, they have more citizens than France and are better developed economically. They're about the same size, but they indeed lack the 'trust' France has in its former colonies.

---

Actually, I think their projection capabilities are pretty limited- especially overseas stuff. In fact, does German law even permit expeditionary moves now?

And the aquisition of nukes is no reason for a seat on the SC. Having nukes should in theory be the last thing that enters the UN equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

On the other hand, Germany can also project power, they could easily develop nukes if the need ever arose, they have more citizens than France and are better developed economically. They're about the same size, but they indeed lack the 'trust' France has in its former colonies.

---

Germany, categorically, cannot project power anywhere by any means other than rolling a bunch of panzer regiments across the border into a neighbouring country.

it will eventually have quite good airlift capacity, but:

it has zero amphibious capability.

it has zero sea-lift tonnage (equivalent of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary).

i don't believe that the german army even has much of the logistical tail needed for it to operate out-of-area.

and it does not have, and has no intention to acquire, nukes.

it is also chronically underfunded in a way which is halting the bundeswher's attempt at the revolution in military affairs:

http://www.comw.org/pda/9911eur.html#4

4.3.2.

Quote:

---

"There is grave concern, however, that the Bundeswehr's reconnaissance and communications capabilities are not up to the tasks of global - or even continental - power projection. This is why all three services seek to modernize their own command, control and communication systems. In addition a modern interservice satellite communication capacity is to be developed. But there are no plans to acquire a Sentry-type airborne reconnaissance capability; the Bundeswehr is quite content relying on NATO's pool. And there is no provision for an operational ground surveillance system (such as the American J-STARS or the British ASTOR system) which could be particularly helpful in out-of-area contingencies."

---

4.3.3.

Quote:

---

Despite the priority that German planners have given to power projection and crisis stabilization, there have been to date no official German statements clearly delineating the kinds of scenarios for which the Bundeswehr is developing crisis-reaction forces. The only available guidance indicates a need to be able to commit "up to one Army division" to a crisis reaction mission over an extended period of time. But how large a division? In separate theaters? For how long exactly? What type of conflicts and missions? All this remains a mystery.

---

4.5

Quote:

---

Germany still lacks a comprehensive, well-integrated official vision or blueprint mapping the way to the future for the armed forces. Instead, there are only a few pieces of the puzzle: a somewhat tentative list of equipment to be procured between now and 2011, budget projections through 2002, and the force structure scheme of 1994, which is to be fully implemented by 2000/2001. And, as noted above, these are contradictory in some respects, vague in others. However, the so-called Red-Green-coalition, which took over Federal Government in the fall of 1998, decided to set up an expert commission with the task of exploring options for the further development of the Bundeswehr. Its report can be expected before summer 2000.

As a consensus has taken form around the proposition that the German armed forces cannot hope for substantial (real-term) budget increases, there seems to be no alternative to reducing active strength in order to break the current modernization deadlock. Three variants of such a policy are being ventilated in expert circles:

(i) Transition to an all-volunteer force

Proponents see an all-volunteer force as a dedicated, high-tech intervention instrument nearly reaching US standards. But adoption of the all-volunteer path would require a reduction of active strength to about 170,000 (plus limited mobilization potential). A volunteer military any larger than this would not be able to cover the relatively hefty bills for operations and procurement required by a high-technology force geared to intervention missions. Such a force would not constitute a "pillar of solidity" in Central Europe, nor would it lend itself easily to integration with most neighboring armies. But it could lead to the sociopolitical isolation of the military as a professional caste (which has been particularly problematic in Germany's past).

(ii) Limited reduction of active strength (conscription maintained)

The Bundeswehr could be reduced to 250,000 - 260,000 soldiers (with a still considerable mobilization potential). Since this size would include "inexpensive" conscripts, the savings should be sufficient for a general, thorough modernization program (which would include high-tech items only on a selective basis, not as an obsession). Conscription could be socially stabilized at this reduced force level, making almost everyone serve who is fit and not a conscientious objector, by raising the fitness standards, by slightly increasing the proportion of conscripts in the forces, and by reducing the terms of service from 10 to 9 months. The resulting force would still be large enough to integrate itself with most of the neighbors and form a solid block in the middle of Europe. It would also be intervention- capable, but less dependent on strike elements and more on formations dedicated to control and protection missions. Such a military would also possess less provocative potential, especially if restructured in a more defensive manner.

(iii) Voluntary elite plus conscript militia

This option remains vague. Its proponents are not worried about the prospect of producing a two-tier force with inherent problems of cohesion. They would like to preserve the draft system (a holy cow in Germany) mainly for symbolic reasons. They view the conscript element as an inexpensive way to provide for basic home protection only. Most of the available resources would go to the crack intervention element, consisting of precious volunteers. However, the current and foreseeable security environment makes a homeguard (militia) for Germany look useless. Useless, but not necessarily "cheap" - after all, it would still require training, equipment, and an infrastructural foundation. Thus, this scheme would not likely generate enough savings to underwrite the requirements of the sizeable all-volunteer component equipped with cutting-edge equipment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Actually, I think their projection capabilities are pretty limited- especially overseas stuff. In fact, does German law even permit expeditionary moves now?

And the acquisition of nukes is no reason for a seat on the SC. Having nukes should in theory be the last thing that enters the UN equation.

---

i believe the constitution does not allow the bundeswher to take part in offensive wars, such as afghanistan, or sierra leonne, rather it can take part in the peacekeeping that happens after the war is concluded. not a terribly useful trait in an SC member.

while i agree that acquiring nukes should not improve your chance of getting on the SC, the simple fact is that those countries with large nuke stockpiles are difficult to remove from the SC. there is a reason why russia keeps spending money on its strategic rocket forces even when the rest of its military has been going down the pan, because as long as they can bring an end to world civilisation via nuclear death we have to treat them with some respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.

I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.

I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.

---

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The Society of Nations that was formed after WWI failed within twenty year in its main purpose, the prevention of a new world war. This was in no small part owing to the non-membership of the US, the short-lived membership of the SU, and the withdrawl of Japan and Germany.

---

The League of Nations did fail. Its failure does not change the illegitimacy of the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think the UN did what it was meant to...stop all out war between the big nations.

---

When did the UN do this? How did the UN do this? The causal link between this assertion and reality does not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

The cold war was prevented from becoming hot very much in part becuase of the UN. It allowed both the USSR and the USA to meet on even ground. Without that pressure valve we would more then likely be posting on a server located in a bunker.

---

Neither the Kremlin's nor Washington's geo-political nuclear policy was determined or altered in any way by the UN. Had the USSR's tanks rolled across the line between East and West Germany there would have been war.

Quote:

---

Diplomacy may predate the UN, but the world having a place to meet and discuss matters does not.

---

The world does not do so now, simple case in point: Taiwan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

---

you are mixing up the UN, and its security council, when you comment on my post.

i care very little for the inane politicking of hundreds of pissant nations with their petty tribal politicking, (much eurovision block voting).
what i do care about is the consensus on action and direction as agreed between the worlds most powerful nations, i.e. the SC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

When did the UN do this? How did the UN do this? The causal link between this assertion and reality does not exist.

---

Korea could've been a lot worse without the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.

I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.

I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

If one rejects the rhetorical thrust of the UN as well as any authority that might stem from the same, then consensus is rather irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

you are mixing up the UN, and its security council, when you comment on my post.

i care very little for the inane politicking of hundreds of pissant nations with their petty tribal politicking, (much eurovision block voting).
what i do care about is the consensus on action and direction as agreed between the worlds most powerful nations, i.e. the SC.

---

---

---

I don't think I mixed anything up. Your first comment is a categorical: you do not believe in fundamental human rights. The second comment is concerned with the authority of the UN. The third comment qualifies your support for the UNSC. Of course, if one rejects the basis and any authority claim of the UN, through which the UNSC exists and is derived, then any UNSC consensus is always already undercut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

Korea could've been a lot worse without the UN.

---

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Of course, if one rejects the basis and any authority claim of the UN, through which the UNSC exists and is derived, then any UNSC consensus is always already undercut.

---

that presupposes that a SC edict has any authority that derives from its UN'iness.

in my opinion it doesn't. where is does derive its considerable authority is that fact that this pronouncement is the consensus of the worlds most powerful nations.

i don't care if they issue the pronouncement from the chambers of the security council, or the McDonalds kids-party-room, the effect is the same; "take us very seriously or bad things will happen!".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

---

I'm referring to the fact that we didn't have an all-out open war between the US and USSR in Korea, that may be due to common sense of both parties, but the UN also played a part in that. And it showed they could do more than the League who could do nothing when one country invaded another.

So when one of the 5 countries leaves the UN - who could have blocked it - the UN then works as America and allies go to war wearing a different helmet?

The league was truer to its principles and countries didn't use it as cover to do what they wanted. Warmongers have the decency to be honest and ignore the League rather than subvert it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Are you referring to the UN marital action that occurred after the USSR had removed itself from the UN?

---

I'll bet that was Clinton's fault... :wink3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So when one of the 5 countries leaves the UN - who could have blocked it - the UN then works as America and allies go to war wearing a different helmet?

The league was truer to its principles and countries didn't use it as cover to do what they wanted. Warmongers have the decency to be honest and ignore the League rather than subvert it.

~:smoking:

---

"Reform" of the UN, setting up a "League of Democracies", etc. are all aimed at the same thing - making rules that favour the US and its followers, and forcing the rest of the world to accept it as soime kind of consensus. If the UN unconditionally followed Washington's lead, or if there were other powers that needed to be balanced, there would not be this talk of a useless UN. Instead, as the sole remaining superpower, the US feels it is due the biggest, sole even, say in world affairs, and the rest of the world should accept this reality, shut up, and follow.

America should stop pretending this is some kind of principled review of the UN's design, and flatly state that they want full control of an international body. At least that woud be honest, and would stop insulting our intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

that presupposes that a SC edict has any authority that derives from its UN'iness.

in my opinion it doesn't. where is does derive its considerable authority is that fact that this pronouncement is the consensus of the worlds most powerful nations.

i don't care if they issue the pronouncement from the chambers of the security council, or the McDonalds kids-party-room, the effect is the same; "take us very seriously or bad things will happen!".

---

It is not a presupposition that the Security Council derives its authority from the larger UN. This is obvious.

Edicts from a position of power and edicts from an authority are not the same. Rejecting any authoritative appeal means the UN is quite irrelevant as has been explained.

The "take us very seriously or bad things will happen" approach where effect is the focus has nothing to do with legitimacy. Rather, it is a statement that carries force given the author: the more powerful the more weight. This is distinct from any authority appeal. If this is the model then it eviscerates the UN completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

I'm referring to the fact that we didn't have an all-out open war between the US and USSR in Korea, that may be due to common sense of both parties, but the UN also played a part in that.

---

Demonstrate the causal link where the UN determined US and USSR policy after military action commenced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'll bet that was Clinton's fault... :wink3:

---

"I did not have sex with that woman."