India proposes UN reform.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Modi at the UN.

 

If India becomes a permanent member of the Security Council complete with veto, should one of the existing members be removed?

 

If not, then should there be more permanent members to make an odd number?  Who?

 

India has a good argument for the seat since they have such a huge population.  They are also members of the Nuclear Club.

[Wiimeiser 452]

If it matters, just add one more so it's a lucky seven.

[Easy Bakes 253]

just add the EU and India.

[LexusInfernus 908]

just add the EU and India.

Which would either give the UK and France double powers or it would mean the UK and France have to step down, which is something they will never accept. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

just add the EU and India.

The EU is not a nation.  It is a treaty cartel.

 

To add a populous nation as a counterbalance to India, how about Japan?

[Easy Bakes 253]

 

just add the EU and India.

Which would either give the UK and France double powers or it would mean the UK and France have to step down, which is something they will never accept. 

 

Opps

 

So add India and  an elected rep from the African members. Or As City master said Brazil or a rep from the south American nations to represent their interests  or all 3

 

just add the EU and India.

The EU is not a nation.  It is a treaty cartel.

 

To add a populous nation as a counterbalance to India, how about Japan?

 

That might work except that would most likely get  Japan fighting with China again.

[Charlie_Zane 963]

India is a great candidate for a new permanent member, along with the three other current proposals: Japan, Germany and Brazil. 

 

Japan would be the best candidate for a second addition, but then all the permanent member would be in either Europe or Asia, (apart from the States), so Brazil should also be considered as a future permanent member, before or even after India.

[jmsepe 2,039]

Not bad but if I must say but how about we remove that veto power for permanent members. As I can see it, no matter how much deliberations are taken, it is always fait accompli. And I agree, I believe Japan needs to be there too if India wishes to have a permanent seat. 

[Odainsaker 2,137]

China has made it pretty clear that they would never allow their nationalist rival Japan to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The irony of Beijing trying to veto such a Japanese seat is that the People's Republic of China's own permanent seat was controversially handed to them after being taken away from the Republic of China over the bitter objections of Taipei. If an original UN charter Security Council member like Taiwan's objections can be legalistically shoved aside, then so can Beijing's hypocritical objections. Of course, that will also be the day Beijing's ambassadors walk out of the council and launch all their nuclear missiles at Japan, The Philippines, and North America.

[NielsC007 499]

If one country has to go out I think it's Russia, judging by the state of their economy. However, the country that has to take that place I'm still debating. As Japan and Germany both are very influential and play a big role in the world's economy. Brazil also seems like a strong candidate. I don't really see India taking the place as of yet. I think it needs a few more decades of stability.

 

The conflicts that might happen when debating which country should take the seat I'm putting aside here. I think there'll never be a solution that'll all parties can agree on.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The whole shebang needs to get over the WW II attitudes.  The current permanent members are the "victors' of the last world conflict.  Two generations is more than enough for them to get over any apprehensions.

 

All things considered in light of the current world order, the old status quo has long since lost any claim to status it may have had in 1945.  Perhaps the best thing would be to dissolve the Security Council and replace it with a new World Peace Organization with the largest population blocs taking the lead.  Both the European Union and the countries of South America need representation, but in the case of the EU, it would mean a secondary place for the individual members of that coalition.  It is certainly time for many old hurts to be healed.

[SharkSark 397]

China has made it pretty clear that they would never allow their nationalist rival Japan to gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The irony of Beijing trying to veto such a Japanese seat is that the People's Republic of China's own permanent seat was controversially handed to them after being taken away from the Republic of China over the bitter objections of Taipei. If an original UN charter Security Council member like Taiwan objections can be legalistically shoved aside, then so can Beijing's hypocritical objections. Of course, that will also be the day Beijing's ambassadors walk out of the council and launch all their nuclear missiles at Japan, The Philippines, and North America.

Bro first of all do you think china's gonna take such a drastic measure use your brain bruh ! china won't do it  first of all if you say it's militarily strong puff ! it's just remixed soviet stuff and on the other hand do you think china would survive an invasion by USA leave NATO alone and nuking nope they won't even dare at this situation just over a seat at the U.N nope they won't launch nukes dude their military is in shatters there 30% of their fighters don't go above the altitude of 45,000 Ft compared to 1500 combat fighters against 3000 combat fighters and count couple of thousand more ! Well do you know that  the american companies and firms depend on china for their income and  cheap manufacturing if american congress puts a ban on that and  they move the whole manufacturing base to India or some south-east asian country chinese's economy's going to be affected . So all in all china won't nuke someone for a United nations seat that's just simple minded strategies.

[SharkSark 397]

If one country has to go out I think it's Russia, judging by the state of their economy. However, the country that has to take that place I'm still debating. As Japan and Germany both are very influential and play a big role in the world's economy. Brazil also seems like a strong candidate. I don't really see India taking the place as of yet. I think it needs a few more decades of stability.

 

The conflicts that might happen when debating which country should take the seat I'm putting aside here. I think there'll never be a solution that'll all parties can agree on.

Well i don't know if you find this aggressive then i am really sorry well India plays a huge role in the international political sphere we are the only trustable ally in south-east asia and we have the 3 rd largest economy if seen by purchasing parity,our economy's the 10th largest well and we are the largest democracy in the world with 65% of our population is below the age of 35 imagine Germany and japan would need a young workforce well especially USA and we are probably the only stable and peaceful nuclear country in whole south-east asia well there's a lot plus hard to believe but all 5 of the permanent members agree on having India as a permanent member even china.

[jmsepe 2,039]

Avoid double posting Sart. 

 

I don't understand this permanent seats either. The real irony is that UN was created to solve international problems democratically but is there real democracy in the UN Security Council? This is nothing but tyranny to have France, China, US, Russia and UK decide everything on a matter of veto. South America and Africa are not even well represented. UNSC is nothing but a big joke. At the end of the day, people still don't want to step down their power and superiority. It is like abolishing nobility but still calls yourself a noble.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Sari, please take a few minutes and edit your posts for readability.  Run on text like that is nearly impossible to understand, and a wall of text like that is unlikely to be understood the way you want it to be.  Slow down, take your time, and get it the way it should be for reading.  If those last two posts represent you as a person, it does not speak well of you.

[Easy Bakes 253]

So we Add India, South America, Africa and one( maybe an Islamic country?) other to keep the number odd.

not that this will ever happen but its good dream for have all Cultures   represented right? or at have least a veto to keep the giants in line.

 

Or the UK , France and Germany can have a say in how The EU gets to use the veto

[jmsepe 2,039]

The thing is, it is obvious that more often than not, economic capacity is tantamount to influence. With EU being the largest agglomerated economy in the world, it is automatically noted that they have greater voice. It has always been like this even in microeconomics, employees are nothing but subordinate to the rich employers. Look at the other organizations, IMF has always been headed by a EU persona, ADB in which Japan holds the largest stake has always been headed by a Japanese. You can't deny it, those who have much are more or less rulers of those who have less. In the same principle, it's not a matter of cultural representation or anything related to democratic principles at all. UN in general has been and will always be ruled by those economic tiger countries unless a new economic system is implemented or the world falls to anarchy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

What you are saying is the world is an oligarchy of the plutocrats.

[jmsepe 2,039]

Isn't it? Normally people who have more wealth decides the fate of those who have none. History revolves around people with power and money. 

  Edited September 29, 2014 by jmsepe  

[Xenocity 343]

No, the last thing the UN needs is more countries with veto power!

 

The current proposed reforms would add 5 more permanent members with veto power, but that would only further render the UN useless.

 

Currently the 5 permanent members are the 5 most powerful countries in the world militarily and indirectly  economically.

 

1. U.S. - is the world's most powerful country by military, economy, and monetary
2. China - is the second largest country economically, and Mandiran is the second most spoken language after English.
3. France is the 5th largest economy, but has indirect economic control over it's former empire, French is one of the most widely spoken language and it has one of the biggest navy and airforce in the world
4. UK is the 6th biggest economy in the world, has major influence on most of it's former colonies and has trade agreements with them. They also have one the biggest navy's and airforce's in the world with bases all over. Also English is the most widely spoken laguage in the world
5. Russia is the 8th biggest economy in the world, the biggest energy reserves in the world, second to the U.S. in nuclear arms, and has one of the biggest standing armies in the world.

These 5 countries also fund the majority of the UN's budget with the U.S. paying the biggest share at almost 20%, followed by China and Japan.

These 5 countries generally provide the most military equipment and people to UN missions.

 

Any change to the UN's charter and function has to be approved by the permanent 5.

So far they have vetoed any reorganization to the Security Council.

 

These countries are also lobbying to get permanent seats with veto power on Security Council:

1. Germany - 4th biggest economy in the world and is neck and neck with China for being the biggest exporter in the world
2. Vatican City - Catholicism is the biggest sect of any religion at 1.2 billion followers
3. Brazil - The second most populous country is the Americas, most populous in South America. Second biggest economy in the Americas (biggest in SA)
4. Japan - 3rd biggest economy in the world, second biggest exporter in Asia, the second biggest creator of technology behind the U.S.
5. Pakistan - the second biggest mulism country behind Indonesia, rivals India in military power.
6. Iran - biggest persian speaking country in the world
7. South Africa - the fastest growing economy in Africa, one of the fastest economies growing in the world, most poweful country in Africa
8. Canada - ummm... their navy finally got a boat!
9. Spain - former imperial power, still has influence over it's former colonies.

The amendment process goes as follows:

1. The proposed amendement(s) are submitted to the UN Secretary General and the Permanent 5 for approval
2. If approved by the 6 members above, it goes to the General Assembly for vote.
3. Needs 2/3rds of all the votes to secure passage in the General Assembly.
4. Goes to the Security Council for vote, needs 9 votes out of 15 to pass with no vetoes

 

Right now the Permanent 5 have blocked all meaningful reform via vetoes because they do not want to give up their power.

 

There is talk of giving France seat to the EU, so far the UK and Russia oppose it.

There is talk of combinding the France and UK seats into a single EU seat, again the above two countries oppose it.

 

The UK currently is opposed to having the EU admitted to the UN, it's subsequent organs, and most international institutions.

Right now this is due to the UK fearing the rising power of the EU and the UK is still refusing to fully integrate into the EU (right now they are a special member like Denmark).

 

 

No meaningful reform can happen until the other countries agree to foot the bill for operating the UN, provide the majority of people to the missions and provide the necessarly military support.

So far the majority of countries aren't willing to do that.

Isn't it? Normally people who have more wealth decides the fate of those who have none. History revolves around people with power and money. 

Not necessary. In many cases that's true.

 

Currently the wealthest and most powerful countries (the Permanent 5) foot the bill for the major international institutions including the UN.

Until another group of countries is willing to provide the majority of the money, the military equipment, and the people to these organizations they will never gain full say.

[jmsepe 2,039]

I beg to disagree, what UN needs is not more countries with veto power but to equally distribute this veto rights to ALL UN members. 

[Xenocity 343]

I beg to disagree, what UN needs is not more countries with veto power but to equally distribute this veto rights to ALL UN members. 

Actually getting rid of veto right is better.

Though this means countries will have to pay equally into the pot, which many do not want to do.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The veto power is that it takes only one NO to stop anything.  The veto power is obsolete and should be done away with.  However, no country whose UN dues are not paid up should be allowed on the Security Council, and 2/3 majority should be needed to carry a resolution.

 

I still think the UNSC should be replaced entirely by a body called the World Peace Organization, and this organization should have its own rapid reaction force paid for by a levy on all members.  Any member not paid up should be reduced to observer status.

[SharkSark 397]

Yes sir i read that and it sounds really rude sorry for my behaviour i would make sure to think before i write sorry for any inconvenience caused .

Well i think veto isn't legit any more its America doing whatever they want,Russia invading ukraine The UN security council should revamp their veto powers and functions it should be equal and democratic . 

[LexusInfernus 908]

On the contrary, the Veto power is vital. Yeah, it ensures the UN doesn't get anything done. And exactly for that reason its so important. It means that only in the most severe cases it will actually authorize anything, meaning that if the UNSC actually agrees on a course of action, it has a very high degree of legitimacy on a global level. If it just goes for a majority vote, then it means the UNSC basically turns into America's get out of jail free card, given that France and the UK will in most cases back the US thus automatically giving it a majority. It can then legitimize anything it likes and the UN becomes a puppet for the White House. With the Veto power it gives Russia and China at least some say in what the UN (which also acts in their name) does or does not do. 

 

The UN is a platform for civil diplomatic meetings, for discussions that should help bring countries closer together. If the UN just becomes the puppet for whatever block that has the most votes it becomes a way of legalizing things that shouldn't be legalized so easily. It is not an institute that is there to tell countries that its okay to just start dropping bombs on whoever looks at them in a funny way. 

 

Besides, the UN still allows for the use of military force without the UNSC's mandate if countries really must go to war to protect their interests. Its not that difficult. 

[mrsmartman 200]

The relative weight of vote by each country would also be an issue if veto power is removed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The relative weight of vote by each country would also be an issue if veto power is removed.

And how would you decide the weight?  Population?  GDP?  Military budget?  General frightfulness?

 

The veto powers of the current permanent members have been abused over and over for the aggrandizement of the voting countries.  It has become a "rotten" system, and must be revised.  Permanent membership should no longer depend on a 1940s agreement by the then "world powers" made under duress and in the fog of war.

 

Let us remember Winston Churchill's remark when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union: "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable remark on the Devil in the House."  We are now dealing with a permanent member who at one time was a member of the Axis powers.  Tergiversion is one of Russia's traits.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Let us remember Winston Churchill's remark when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union: "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable remark on the Devil in the House."  We are now dealing with a permanent member who at one time was a member of the Axis powers.  Tergiversion is one of Russia's traits.

 

Uhm what? Last I checked Germany, Italia or Japan were not permanent members of the UNSC.

 

And whats Russias fault here? Not signing off on needless wars? And that makes them the bad guys that are abusing the UNSC veto power? Really?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If you were born after 1950 I understand your problem.  However, did you ever hear the expression (coined by WSC) "the iron curtain"?  Why would the rest of the victors of WW II sit at a table and share a blocking vote with the "enemy"?  I am a 1937 model myself, and I've been around long enough to remember some of the problems we had with the Soviets.  MAD anyone?

[LexusInfernus 908]

If you were born after 1950 I understand your problem.  However, did you ever hear the expression (coined by WSC) "the iron curtain"?  Why would the rest of the victors of WW II sit at a table and share a blocking vote with the "enemy"?  I am a 1937 model myself, and I've been around long enough to remember some of the problems we had with the Soviets.  MAD anyone?

Why? Well for one, that was one very easy and basic way to prevent open warfare. By actively limiting when you can go to war, you create more room for moderation and de-escalation of conflicts. You force yourself and the other party to first see if there is another option. You also create a rulebook both parties have to play by and that only helps create order in the anarchy of international relations. It makes the other more predictable and if the other guy is more predictable, you once again ease tensions. And look, the Soviets and the Americans never went to open war against the other. They limited themselves to supporting third parties in a bunch of smaller scale, local conflicts. 

 

Now what if the Russians and Chinese didn't have a blocking vote? What might have happened if America found evidence of Soviet support to the Vietcong and called for a vote to 'stop Soviet aggression in the sovereign state of South Vietnam'? The UNSC would have passed, the US and Russia would be at war, and the world would have died under a nuclear haze. Thank god that such scenarios were made impossible from the start by giving the Soviets a way to say no and prevent the US from beginning a war that would have ended all human life on the planet. 

 

As for MAD, I think you don't understand what it stands for if you say that the Soviets caused it. Its Mutual Assured Destruction. Mutual as in the West bears just as much responsibility for teetering on the brink of a nuclear holocaust as the Soviets. In hindsight, I would even argue that the West is actually even the most responsible for this. For the most part, Stalin had absolutely no interest in going beyond what he got at Jalta. He wanted a buffer zone and he got one. That was enough for him. But the West came up with the specter of the Reds under your bed. The idea that the sole drive of communism was to expand outward, and that the Soviet Union was constantly about to launch its massive offensive to overrun the capitalist West. That was never the case, that was just the US being its usual paranoid self, being scared of imagined enemies (paranoia is deeply ingrained in US culture) but because they believed in their own paranoid delusions, they based their entire foreign policy on it. Now tell me, what would you do if you run a country and you have a neighbor that is convinced you are about to attack him and in order to defend himself he points a bunch of nuclear missiles at you and parks a huge army next to your border. You respond by placing your own army at your side of the border to make sure that other guy doesn't attack you and so you have troops there in case of an invasion and you also point nuclear missiles at his country, just to make sure he doesn't use them. Of course your neighbor perceives that as proof of his paranoid delusions that you are about to attack him, so he continues building up troops and you then obviously respond to the same because by now you have a very good reason to believe you are about to be attacked. So you get an arms race. 

 

And thank god again for the UN, which doesn't get anything done, because it does allow for high level talks between diplomats (generally people who have some damn sense) who can then go back to their leaders and tell them that no, the other guy is not going to attack unless you attack first. And so it remains peaceful.