UN Security Council Reform

[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?

[BigTex]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Tribesman]

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 ?

[JR-]

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!

[Pindar]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

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.

[Conradus]

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.

[Pindar]

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?

[JR-]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

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.

[JR-]

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!".

[Pindar]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

Highly debatable. The Commission (usually seen as the EU's gov) is chosen by elected national governements, with the agreement of the EU parliament, elected by the population.
If EU is far from being a real political power as it was supposed to be, it's not yet a mere economic pact.

But then, I agree EU shouldn't get a seat, just for the sake of being EU. I also think some new countries should get a seat in the SC (India, South Africa, Brazil, eventually Germany, although there's already 2 euro countries).
It would probably make the SC more representative, but it would need a serious reform, as we already can barely vote something with 5 members.

[JR-]

would these be permanent members?

i am still of the opinion that unless a nation can project serious military power it should not be a permanent SC member, as it has no gravitas to encourage compliance, and no ability to enforce compliance, of SC edicts. how does that sit with you?

[lancelot]

i am still of the opinion that unless a nation can project serious military power it should not be a permanent SC member, as it has no gravitas to encourage compliance, and no ability to enforce compliance, of SC edicts. how does that sit with you?

I would suggest that the equation of power projection and compliance to UN 'laws' is not warrented. Recent events have shown that Iraq was willing to ignore UN mandate in the face of the most powerful states.

Plus SC members should not really have to use soverign forces to enforce compliance, it somewhat defeats the point of an agnecy that is supposed to act in the collective security interests of the whole body.

Similarly it seems that Iran is in breach of its commitment to the NPT.

[JR-]

I would suggest that the equation of power projection and compliance to UN 'laws' is not warrented. Recent events have shown that Iraq was willing to ignore UN mandate in the face of the most powerful states.

Plus SC members should not really have to use soverign forces to enforce compliance, it somewhat defeats the point of an agnecy that is supposed to act in the collective security interests of the whole body.

Similarly it seems that Iran is in breach of its commitment to the NPT.

maybe that is an aberration of history given that iraq misjudged the US/UK in its willingness to go to war without a second resolution? iraq regarded russian and french vetoes as a get out of jail free card. in fact, given that there was no consensus among the SC members, it inevitably reduced the apparent threat perceived by iraq for non-compliance, and directly impacted on their decision to gamble on continued non-compliance.

what non-sovereign forces would the SC have used to threaten iraq, and others in similar circumstances?
there is no UN-Armed-Forces.
if there were, and it operated under similar auspices to current UN military operations it would be a shambles.

i think that iran will be weighing up the cost borne by iraq for their poorly judged gamble against the collective international ill-will towards military intervention resulting from the iraq debacle (i.e. another gamble).
but again, this is a fault of the security councils inability to come to a consensus, not any reflection on the importance of power projection.