United Nations Security Council

[Nakura Chambers]

France and the UK out. Germany and India in.

Why get rid of the UK?

[serenka]

France and the UK out. Germany and India in.

can't happen, UK and France are permanent members.

[larrakeyah]

Why get rid of the UK?

Because it's meaningless. The sun set long ago.

Infracted - nation bashing

[serenka]

Because it's meaningless. The sun set long ago.

thats some nice hating you got going there

[Deleted]

Isn't the entire idea of the security council to provide military aid & security sanctions? The only countries with a military budget even close to the current permanent members would be Japan & Saudi Arabia. The security council was created to maintain international peace & security, you can't do that with a military that can barely function abroad.

[Kasierith]

India and Germany. Otherwise, no.

I would add Pakistan (tentatively) to that and take away Germany. Germany, Brazil, and Japan would all be influential enough in terms of politics, but they lack nuclear weaponry, and considering that the Security Council was established to make a tentative common ground for nations that could wipe each other off the map, I really don't see a single nation without nuclear weaponry getting on.

Although, the chances of any of the fiver superpowers being willing to further share their power is pretty slim. There's enough conflicts as it is.

[serenka]

Isn't the entire idea of the security council to provide military aid & security sanctions? The only countries with a military budget even close to the current permanent members would be Japan & Saudi Arabia.

its not just about budget, but also countries that value international security

[Zareth]

If we're gonna put in the 5 biggest countries, based purely off their political/military/economical size, then go with the US and the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China).

France, UK or even Germany aren't big enough world-scale. In fact, that is one of Germany's weaknesses - it's too big for Europe and too small for the world.

[Deleted]

If we're gonna put in the 5 biggest countries, based purely off their political/military/economical size, then go with the US and the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China).

France, UK or even Germany aren't big enough world-scale. In fact, that is one of Germany's weaknesses - it's too big for Europe and too small for the world.

They're not? Did you take a look at GDP or military figures recently? You know Germany has the fourth largest economy in the world yes?

[Tradewind]

Why do Canada or Australia merit seats?

Can't speak for Australia but Canada has in particular been involved in almost every UN action in some way shape or form since 1947. Not always militarily, but diplomatically as well, helping in Africa with logistical help and so on. Granted it has tailed off recently. Canada has still contributed over 120,000 troops to date and has the 2nd highest count in fatalities on UN operations. As of 2013, 121 total. Pakistan and Bangladesh are #1 and #3 respectively.

There's also Canada's involvement in NATO and other major conflicts such as WW1 and WW2. It's also one of the strongest economies in today's age, 11th in total GDP. 11th on the Human Development Index and recovered to "pre-crisis" economic levels over 2 years ago.

Do I want Canada to be part of it? Not necessarily. But I think it's worth a consideration. Same goes for quite a few others.

[oxymoronic]

I say Japan because shockingly I feel they are the least likely to stab USA in the back. (probably because they already did it once and failed)

---------- Post added 2013-07-01 at 05:02 PM ----------

I would add Pakistan (tentatively) to that and take away Germany. Germany, Brazil, and Japan would all be influential enough in terms of politics, but they lack nuclear weaponry, and considering that the Security Council was established to make a tentative common ground for nations that could wipe each other off the map, I really don't see a single nation without nuclear weaponry getting on.

Although, the chances of any of the fiver superpowers being willing to further share their power is pretty slim. There's enough conflicts as it is.

Pakistan is a terrorist country, the last thing we need is give them more power.

[Kalyyn]

Can you tell them to call later, I have Greenland on the phone - wants to borrow money again.

Afaik the Algerian nuclear test was done in the Saharan desert. I havent heard of nuclear tests in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam...

He was talking about their not-so-delicate handling of the locals when they occupied those countries.

---------- Post added 2013-07-02 at 07:54 AM ----------

France and the UK out. Germany and India in.

Only way the UK ever leaves is if it decides to merge with the US. In which case, they'd still technically be in, but with a different name tag.

France is also much more powerful militarily than Germany or India, and that's not likely to change within the near future.

[Zareth]

They're not? Did you take a look at GDP or military figures recently? You know Germany has the fourth largest economy in the world yes?

I am very much aware of Germany's current and past rankings, yes. Are you at all familiar with the BRIC thesis/theory?

Definition of 'Brazil, Russia, India And China - BRIC'

An acronym for the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. The general consensus is that the term was first prominently used in a Goldman Sachs report from 2003, which speculated that by 2050 these four economies would be wealthier than most of the current major economic powers.

Investopedia explains 'Brazil, Russia, India And China - BRIC'

The BRIC thesis posits that China and India will become the world's dominant suppliers of manufactured goods and services, respectively, while Brazil and Russia will become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials. It's important to note that the Goldman Sachs thesis isn't that these countries are a political alliance (like the European Union) or a formal trading association - but they have the potential to form a powerful economic bloc. BRIC is now also used as a more generic marketing term to refer to these four emerging economies.

Due to lower labor and production costs, many companies also cite BRIC as a source of foreign expansion opportunity.

Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bric.asp

So in short, if we're looking for new permanent members of the UN Security Council, we'll have to look at it not only how it is present, but how it is shaping to become. I know I'm treading into deep waters here, but my point is: I think these are the countries that are going to be the most powerful. Not only economical.

[Neufab]

Adding more permanent nations to the council would defeat its purpose.

The UN can hardly get anything done as it is and adding more nations with veto rights would only make it worse.

[Zareth]

Adding more permanent nations to the council would defeat its purpose.

The UN can hardly get anything done as it is and adding more nations with veto rights would only make it worse.

I agree that we shouldn't add more. IMO, 5 is more than enough, and my personal list would be the 5 in total, not extras. The veto is a double-edged blade. It can stop the UN from doing reckless actions, especially with three of the veto countries being very pushy/active (US, UK, France), but it can also hamper it.

Why did the UN not take action/intervene in Syria? Because China and Russia didn't want to. Syria is one of Russia's last allies in the Middle-East and the Arabic World, and China is looking for more partners for oil and natural resources of which they have an increasing need of. Remember; it's not the UNs intentions or task to overturn the government (even though that did eventually happen in Libya), but to save and protect human lives. Countless of people have lost their lives in the Syrian Civil War so far, and more people die every day.

It's a very difficult topic to discuss, and impossible to find "the one true answer".

[Calzaeth]

Where is the poll option for none of the above? What about for no, there should not be any more set places on the security council? What about the current UN is a joke and should be disbanded?

Take out the word "disbanded" and insert "overhauled", and you have my view on the matter. Those guaranteed seats only leads to stagnation and inaction, PRECISELY because the nations involved have a history of conflicting interests. All member nations elect their representative, a resolution needs two thirds of the votes. BOOM, progress!

[Deleted]

Remove France and UK and give the spot to the EU instead. Also give a spot to Japan

[Laize]

Do you believe there should be more permanent members to the United Nations Security Council? If so, which countries should be permanent members?


Current Permanent Members
-United States
-People's Republic of China
-France
-Russia
-United Kingdom

I'd be in favor of Germany sitting on the permanent UNSC.

Everyone else is a joke. As long as Japan whitewashes what they did during WW2 they shouldn't be permitted anything.

Southeast Asia (aside from South Korea) is an economic nightmare.

Switzerland wouldn't sit even if we wanted them to.

India needs to take care of its own anarchist state before we trust the world's security with them.

Etc etc etc.

Long story short. Germany. That is all.

[Deleted]

Remove France and UK and give the spot to the EU instead. Also give a spot to Japan

Why do Japan deserve a spot?

[Laize]

Why do Japan deserve a spot?

I would ask why we should remove the UK. They're quite capable.