UN Security Council Reform

[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.