UN Security Council Reform

[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.

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.

[JR-]

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?

[Kralizec]

And Belgium. Everybody likes Belgium.

*is offended by this statement*

[Louis VI the Fat]

*is offended by this statement*

Shall we start an anti-Belgianism thread then?

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.

[Pindar]

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

[Papewaio]

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.

[BigTex]

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.

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.

[JR-]

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.

[JR-]

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!

[lancelot]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

[Papewaio]

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?