UN Security Council Reform in 2020 (2008 edition)

[seireikhaan]

Hmm... what do I think it will be? Honestly, no clue. Most of the folks at the UN aren't exactly the most efficient and logical bunch, so what will happen is anyone's guess.

As to what I think it should be: Security council comprising of members based on geography- One member from North America(that will be America, assuredly), one member from South America(probably Brazil, but Venezuela could make things, uh, interesting), one from Africa(probably South Africa, but maybe Egypt), one from Europe(Probably just the EU as a whole, just so we can add even more bureaucratic mess), one from Australia/Pacifica(Probably Australia). I would carve Asia into 3 sections- west, south, and east, with Russia, India, and China taking the spots respectively. Yes, I know its a total cop-out, but all 3 deserve being in. Further, I'd eliminate absolute veto power, and instead require a 3/4 majority to pass a measure.

[JR-]

Countarch - yes, :) but explain what you would like to see by all means

Louis - sounds like you are verging towards the regional representation option. it doesn't have to be an exact fit to vote for it......

Makaikhaan - So you too are leaning towards the Regional as a should-be, do you fancy a best fit guess at what will be?

[CountArach]

Well I believe that what you have down as the "Nuke" option will be the ultimate choice, much to the detriment of the United Nations. The Regional Option also seems somewhat likely. Already things are deadlocked and the addition of more veto powers will not fix that. As you can probably tell I'm not a fan of this.

For the UN to function as a true International Government it must be Democratised. Veto powers must be completely removed and a more representative Security Council should be set up. 7 of the "Senior" nations should be rotated through and I believe that 2 of the "other" nations should be as well. A majority of the SC should agree to any act that goes through so that no single nation *COUGH* United States *COUGH* can veto everything. My ideal situation would be no SC and everything done with a plurality of nations agreeing to it, but I realise this cannot work with the current situation in the world. As a side note I also believe that there should be more officials elected to fill posts, such as the Secretary-General.

[seireikhaan]

Makaikhaan - So you too are leaning towards the Regional as a should-be, do you fancy a best fit guess at what will be?

Do I fancy a guess? Well, not particularly, to be honest. My best guess is that nothing happens because someone on the security council will throw a hissy fit at their power being deluded, and will veto any measure to change it.

[JR-]

cheers both.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think it should be a combination of military power and democracy - ie you'd have to have both to have a veto. If the UN is meant to do good things, we can't have dictators wielding great power in it.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I voted for what I wanted (sorta) instead of what I thought most likely. Sorry!

I think the status quo option is most likely. Barring some energy technology breakthrough, I doubt there will be a significant change in the balance of power in 12 years. The US will probably continue to decline in influence but not enough to lose a seat on the SC.

I'd like the US to leave the UN entirely. Entangling alliances and all that.

[JR-]

the US won't decline enough to lose a place in the Sc in the next 100 years, let alone the next 12.