I see, in that case then, Japan is out of the question. And somewhere, in the inevitable future we'll have to remove France and UK and add Brazil and India when they're greater powers.
Aside from the humanitarian good that they do, they're essentially useless. I'd say they're all bark and no bite, but they aren't even barking any more.
The Veto is one of those things that can be good and can be bad. Personally I like the idea that in an ideal world with 5 objective heads, a person can object to a conflict purely on the merits on what's in front of them as opposed to using a veto to further their own agenda. Sadly that isn't and likely never will be the case, especially with the current permanent members, again, unlikely to change either.
I think they should scale back and focus purely on peace keeping forces(Which I think they currently already have) and humanitarian efforts.
I have a better idea. Lets just dissolve the UN.
You forgot an option for "Abolish the UN."
Really short answer: Might makes right.
The only thing that can force a powerful country to do something is an even more powerful country. Small and weak countries have always been existing at the mercy of their stronger neighbours, their only chance of survival has always been to find a powerful country to protect them. The current situation gives you 5 powers the smaller country can align themselves with.
You want my opinion on the security council? Abolish it. The UN's great, but a circle jerk for the powerful? No thanks. Besides the principle side of it, it hasn't even been of any practical use.
Edit: A reform where every country gets to participate to a degree might be a better idea, but that wouldn't be any more useful than the current security council is because countries simply don't care if they get outvoted at a non-binding issue. The UN doesn't bind anyone to do anything when it comes to security issues, their resolutions are more like suggestions.
Last edited by Wikiy; 2013-09-07 at 07:52 PM.
Why does it make sense for a country the size of the United States to have the same voting power as a country like Togo or Chad in the UN? I can guarantee without the Security Council countries like the US, Russia, the UK, France, and China would pay even -less- attention to the UN than they do presently.
What you, like most other people that say "disband the Security Council!" fail to realize is that it does exactly what it is designed to do - act as a forum for discussion between the world powers where they do not run the risk of being trampled on by a majority and they can occasionally decide to take unified action against a country that is acting up.
If anything, what needs to be disbanded is the General Assembly because it perpetuates the belief that all of these small, peripheral countries are of any importance in the international stage.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
Veto power is correct. The make up of the permanent security council needs changing though.
I'd make it:
US
Russia
China
EU
India
Britain and France don't belong, its not 1790. Economically and militarily they are small players now. Give the EU a spot. Then fill in the 5th spot with India, which has about 1/7 of humanity.
When you see someone in a thread making the same canned responses over and over, click their name, click view forum posts, and see if they are a troll. Then don't feed them."Gamer" is not a bad word. I identify as a gamer. When calling out those who persecute and harass, the word you're looking for is "asshole." @_DonAdams
When you see someone in a thread making the same canned responses over and over, click their name, click view forum posts, and see if they are a troll. Then don't feed them."Gamer" is not a bad word. I identify as a gamer. When calling out those who persecute and harass, the word you're looking for is "asshole." @_DonAdams
The EU is not a contiguous nation, giving it a seat would be like giving NATO or NAFTA a seat. Both Britain and France remain nuclear powers and still leagues ahead of most other nations, and removing them would be an impossibility anyway. Adding India and Germany at this juncture, maybe Japan, would be the best "reform".
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
I did say every country gets to participate to a degree, didn't I? With that I meant a degree appropriate to the population of any given country.
Well, if you have a bunch of small countries agreeing on something, they become important.
Oh, right, I forgot, in your world, might makes right, and since a gazillion people spread out through a dozen countries don't really have the might to do much since they're not united, it must mean their opinion doesn't count. And that really makes perfect sense, seeing as the might of the larger countries is almost never put to use. So it's not even might makes right at this point, it's might-that's-never-gonna-get-used-and-doesn't-really-matter makes right.
Oh, do I love me some realpolitik stuck-in-the-past people.