UN Security Council Reform

[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.

[Pindar]

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.

[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.

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!

[Tribesman]

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Pindar]

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

Ireland is not a major democracy.

[Pindar]

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.

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.

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.

Stop being as inflexible as Tribesman.

That's fairly disturbing.

[BigTex]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

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.

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

That is why the UN was illegitimate from its inception.

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.

[Pindar]

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.

[JR-]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

[JR-]

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.

[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!)

[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?

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

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

[JR-]

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.

[Papewaio]

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...

[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!

[KrooK]

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. :)

[Conradus]

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.

[JR-]

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. :)

[Conradus]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Conradus]

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