reforms @ UNSC

[payeng]

In 1945, with the second World War coming to an end, the United Nations was established. With it came a whole host of organizations working under the auspices of the UN, the primary one being that of the Security Council. The established purpose of the Security Council was to maintain international peace and stability, consisting of representatives of all the member states with a core group of five permanent members (US, UK, Russia, France, China).

Since the initial establishment of the Security Council, however, innumerable changes have occurred in the state of affairs in the world. A number of nations have risen to great heights in terms of development, growth, and stability, demonstrating that they are worthy of greater leadership roles in the post-WWII era. Furthermore, with the conception and perpetuation of globalization, many feel that the the current status of the permanent members do not reflect the ubiquitous presence of globalism.

The countries currently vying for a permanent seat on the Security Council are Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, who are collectively called the G-4. Should they be given permanent seats on the Council?

link1

Other prospective permanent members:
-An African Representative (Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa)
-Membership of a Muslim-majority Nation

link2

[Cactus]

How does further inclusion of these countries contribute to maintaining international peace and stability? Not including them doesn't seriously threaten international peace or stability. The G4 nations don't have a serious alternative to the UNSC at the moment either. It can easily be guessed that inclusion of the two "prospective permanent members" will further hamstring the UN. In another 17 years if the EU bonds well and India progresses at its current rate, then maybe joining UK France and Germany into one seat and granting the vacant one to India may make some sense... until then, let the sleeping dogs lie.

[payeng]

'G4' is not a threat (nor it intends neither it can), but they are also members of the UNO, and amongst the largest contributors to this world body. In fact they are the most eligible candidature in the situation of UNSC expansion and reform.

My personal viewpoint is that being an world level security council and the armed wing of the UNO which includes 192 member states, UNSC should be expanded in a rational and justified manner to atleast eight plus permanent and about fifteen temporary states,not confined to the famous five and constitutional reforms like cession of the controversial VETO power. Instead of that majority voting like simple majority to certain decisions and absolute majority (like 2/3rd) in major decisions as stated by the reformed constitutional guidelines should be practiced.

Veto to a global issue is an inappropriate exercise of assigned power where a single Veto can prevent a resolution from being passed. There should be a democratic participation in the world body. Special powers in case of an emergency(such as in case of world war like situation) should also be assigned so that it can be prevented.

My personal viewpoint is also that a representative country from the African continent preferably South Africa should also represent the new reformed UNSC.

I even prefer japan because of its nature of defensive outlook.

[Cactus]

'G4' is not a threat (nor it intends neither it can), but they are also members of the UNO, and amongst the largest contributors to this world body. In fact they are the most eligible candidature in the situation of UNSC expansion and reform.

An old and established body of privilege doesn't extend its membership simply because someone new appears to be eligible. There must be some strong and pressing reason to do so - it is not "right", but its the way of the world. Take for instance this issue:

My personal viewpoint is that being an world level security council and the armed wing of the UNO which includes 192 member states, UNSC should be expanded in a rational and justified manner to atleast eight plus permanent and about fifteen temporary states,not confined to the famous five and constitutional reforms like cession of the controversial VETO power. Instead of that majority voting like simple majority to certain decisions and absolute majority (like 2/3rd) in major decisions as stated by the reformed constitutional guidelines should be practiced.

Veto to a global issue is an inappropriate exercise of assigned power where a single Veto can prevent a resolution from being passed. There should be a democratic participation in the world body. Special powers in case of an emergency(such as in case of world war like situation) should also be assigned so that it can be prevented.

The single overriding veto is the only way the UNSC kept the USSR involved, and thus itself relevant; it is also the only way Russia and PRChina are kept involved. Otherwise each would individually get outvoted by the three allied powers - US, UK and France. If the USSR couldn't have an overriding veto, it would have simply setup a parallel and competing international organization (as it did with many other things). Same with today's Russia and PRChina. As it is the prospect of inclusion of Germany and Japan raises some hackles in Kremlin and Moscow because of the weight they would add as US allies... but if they came in with an amended vetoing procedures, it would positively drive at least one of these countries to setup a competing international body.

[NUS]

My opinion:

UNSC was good enough for post-WWII and Cold War era, but now it is almost useless. (Thanks to US efforts.) The force of UN was in free-will of UNSC members to obey to SC decisions. (Mostly because they were afraid of each other.)
Now, then US is basically doing what they want, and the rest are about to follow same policy (Russia) UNSC is useless. More members with veto will solve nothing. (See EU as example - all countries have veto, and any serious question turns EU into a cow on ice.)

I think in about 10 years new international organization with new set of rules will be created. Or we all will die horribly. :)

[martinmystry]

I don't think that any of the G-4 can become permanent member because that would make the UN more irrelevant and complex.If any of these are indeed to be accommodated then they have to change the veto system to which russia and china are certainly going to object.So for atleast another 10 years it would be best not to make any changes to the UN permanent members.

[payeng]

There should be more democratic approach in the UN regarding UNSC

Cold war is over now and new time demands that there should be a proportionally equal representation in the world body.

[Cactus]

UNSC was good enough for post-WWII and Cold War era, but now it is almost useless. (Thanks to US efforts.) The force of UN was in free-will of UNSC members to obey to SC decisions. (Mostly because they were afraid of each other.)
Now, then US is basically doing what they want, and the rest are about to follow same policy (Russia) UNSC is useless. More members with veto will solve nothing. (See EU as example - all countries have veto, and any serious question turns EU into a cow on ice.)

Look at the events of Cold War carefully, the superpowers did what they want regardless of the UNSC. It was only for a narrow window of time in 1990s that the world submitted itself (sort of) to the UN diktats.

[Cactus]

There should be more democratic approach in the UN regarding UNSC

Cold war is over now and new time demands that there should be a proportionally equal representation in the world body.

How does giving Pakistan approximately 3 times the representation over UK contribute to world peace and stability (which was the point of the UNSC in the first place)?

[payeng]

How does giving Pakistan approximately 3 times the representation over UK contribute to world peace and stability (which was the point of the UNSC in the first place)?

I mean proportionally equal representation, and the formula of such proportion depends upon the reformers.

Pakistani still support militancy as 'Freedom Fighters' how come they contribute to world peace?

[Deltacamelately]

How does giving Pakistan approximately 3 times the representation over UK contribute to world peace and stability (which was the point of the UNSC in the first place)?

I second that.
Give them a permanent seat with VETO power and everything will be fine and sorted out. ;)

[Cactus]

I mean proportionally equal representation, and the formula of such proportion depends upon the reformers.

You also said "democratic" - which implies giving representation on basis of population, ergo as P'stan has 3 times the population of UK it would have 3 times the representation.

Pakistani still support militancy as 'Freedom Fighters' how come they contribute to world peace?

Sarcasm Sensor: OFF.

[Cactus]

I second that.
Give them a permanent seat with VETO power and everything will be fine and sorted out. ;)

:)) Hey, its the perfect candidate for:

Other prospective permanent members:
-An African Representative (Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa)
-Membership of a Muslim-majority Nation

[payeng]

You also said "democratic" - which implies giving representation on basis of population, ergo as P'stan has 3 times the population of UK it would have 3 times the representation.

UNO represents the interests of the govts. of the nations and not necessarily the individuals within those nations.Hence the statement of representation of the population of a nation is void.

[payeng]

My support is for the G4 and an Africian representative state.

My personal viewpoint: religious aspect should not be encouraged to represent in the UNSC reforms