UN Security Council Reform in 2012 - looking ahead as far as 2050 (2010 edition)

[Furunculus]

So, do you think Canada will gain significant economical, political and/or military power and leverage to make it to the SC?

by 2050 canada will be the 13th biggest G20 economy in nominal terms.............

[gaelic cowboy]

Depends on how much Canadians want it I suppose, SC also means responsibility as well as goodies


One other thing will the SC be even around or relevant by 2050 especially when we have people advancing G20/G8/G3/G2 etc etc. G2 or G20 is the biggest threat to SC in my view as the SC grows it may become deadlocked more and more.

[Furunculus]

they are too far out of the running IMO.

[gaelic cowboy]

they are too far out of the running IMO.

Who canada?? yes I would agree there

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The veto makes the whole thing rather pointless.

[gaelic cowboy]

The veto makes the whole thing rather pointless.

Well it does and it doesn't USA acted without to much bother for IRAQ etc but it would get annoying every time you wanted to do summit.

The G (insert favoured number) meeting's have a bonus in that most of it is behind closed doors I expect more and more it will be the favoured forum between the Great Powers

[Vladimir]

I suppose once the group reaches a sufficient number (and wields greater military and economic power) it will become a majority vote over a single veto. It not, then the single veto will be the cause of it's failure. The reason why we acted alone is because we could. Might still makes right no matter how we like to make it sound otherwise.

[Furunculus]

I quite like the idea of a two-thirds majority (6 of 9) votes in favour equalling a mandate, unless all three of the remainder vote no (rather than abstain).

[spmetla]

I quite like the idea of a two-thirds majority (6 of 9) votes in favour equalling a mandate, unless all three of the remainder vote no (rather than abstain).

I'd like this as well, the magic veto is a bit stupid, would make the rotating positions actually relavant.

[rory_20_uk]

Realistically, if this had been the case when the USA and allies wanted to get a blessing on attacking Iraq and had failed to get it, I doubt that the result would have been any different.

If the UN had then passed a motion to help Iraq - what then? Any volunteers to get wiped out by the Americans? It's bad enough being their allies!

The UN is only there to give moral superiority to whichever country is being attacked by the major power. Those being attacked will get the same limp "support", a few speeches to decry the action, and that's about it unless countries want to help unilaterally.