highthief

So Germany, Japan, India and, for some reason, Brazil, all want the Security Council expanded to include them. Is it time to expand the council, and to acknowledge the fact that (well, Japan and Germany anyway) are huge players on the world stage?

I don't think you can admit India without freaking out Pakistan. And Brazil? They have nice beaches, but other than that...

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Pacifier

I think his is not the right direction for the UN to go. I think the Security Council with its too often mususered veto power should be abolished not be enlarged. So I'm a bit happy if the "political weight" of Germany gets recognised. But the UN needs reforms and thats a step in the wrong direction.

But if the Council stays, new nations should be a part of it.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Mephisto2

I absolutely agree that this should happen.

Brazil is included as it is the regional superpower for South America. I don't see why you think their inclusion is not appropriate.

India also has over 1 billion people, so it makes sense that they should also be included.

And, as you state, Germany and Japan are real world players. They were obviously excluded as the losers of WWII, but that was fifty years ago. Time to move on.


Mr Mephisto

highthief

Brazil is not in the top ten for military spendng, it has not played an active role in various military situations around the world, it is not one of the largest economies, AFAIK.

By the logic of saying they the region's "superpower", then Australia and Nigeria should be on the council too.

India would simply be a destabilizing influence. Pakistan would hit the roof if India had that sort of influence above them.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Mephisto2

Military spending and militarism is not the only measure of a nation's importance. That, perhaps, is a lesson still to be learned by the US.

Brazil is the most populous country in South America. It has the largest economy. It is the power-broker of the region. These alone are reasons enough. The fact that it hasn't invaded any countries recently should not be held against it. Quite the contrary in my opinion.

Japan and the US represent the APAC region. Australia is nothing more than en extension of US foreign, military and economic policy anyway.

With regards to Africa, if anyone should be included, then it should be South Africa.

You think India would be destabilizing. I do not. Just because one of its neighbours, with which it has gone to war three times in the past 30 years, would object means nothing. China is objecting to Japan being granted access, yet I support it. Besides, I have seen nothing to suggest Pakistan has objected and India's strategic goal of permanent Security Council membership has been known for years.

Why not consider what is right, what is equitable, what is representative, rather than "who spends the most on guns" and what "some US allied tinpot dictator cares"?


Mr Mephisto

j8ear

I definately think it is time to change the Permanent members of the UN Security Council.

However adding Germany is laughable. Germany is a bit player at best on the world stage. As is France. The first change, imho, should be the removal of France and the inclusion of India. Russia, I'm not sure about, they are there because of the nuclear capability and rightly so in Cold War years...now however, they are probably in line with France economically. Politically they are important, but that is about it. Japan is definetely worthy of consideration.

Brazil? What country is that in? ;-)

Let's remember how the original permanent members of the UN security Council became so. The theory of "GREAT POWER UNANIMITY," defined a great power as those with the a nuclear capability. This club has vastly increased in scope lately, and imho, will eventually grow to include every nation on the planet. Nuclear power, whether peaceful or military is technological progess and cannot and will not be stopped. Obstructed but not stopped.

This is all fun and games though, since a change to the permanent members of the UN security council is pratically impossible. Why would any current member do anything more then pay lip service to the idea of loosing their edge on the world stage?

Because some have theorized that it is the "right thing to do?" That is amusing.

The right thing to do is to look out for YOUR country's interests first. Ceding power does not forward this goal, imho.

You know what would be really fun? Finally creating a Palestinian State and then giving both Israel and Palestine a permenant seat? I bet that would make for interesting backroom politiking Heck, it might even result in some real break throughs.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

highthief

Military spending and militarism is not the only measure of a nation's importance. That, perhaps, is a lesson still to be learned by the US.

The Security Council is essentially, the military decision maker of the UN. Military experience, knowledge and ability are therefore pretty important aspects to consider when selecting a new member. Are they the only criteria? No. But to ignore it would be rather foolhardy.

Brazil is the most populous country in South America. It has the largest economy. It is the power-broker of the region. These alone are reasons enough. The fact that it hasn't invaded any countries recently should not be held against it. Quite the contrary in my opinion.

So military experience, within a strongly military body, counts for nothing, but population does? But it doesn't get Nigeria (the most populous African nation) a vote from you?

Japan and the US represent the APAC region. Australia is nothing more than en extension of US foreign, military and economic policy anyway.

Poor Australia. No respect. They are a more stable democracy and a more egalitarian society than either Brazil or India. Should that not count for something?

With regards to Africa, if anyone should be included, then it should be South Africa.

But Nigeria has a greater population, and that was important for Brazil. South Africa (I actually think they are a better choice than Nigeria. I think anyone is a better choice than Nigeria, really. Well, maybe not Sudan) however, are they really representative of African society? Still a lot of white power there, and it is, in many ways, disimilar to the rest of Africa.

You think India would be destabilizing. I do not. Just because one of its neighbours, with which it has gone to war three times in the past 30 years, would object means nothing. China is objecting to Japan being granted access, yet I support it. Besides, I have seen nothing to suggest Pakistan has objected and India's strategic goal of permanent Security Council membership has been known for years.

So, other nations going to war = bad. India going to war x 3 with another nuclear power (albeit they warred pre-nukes) = credentials? That's a head scratcher.

Why not consider what is right, what is equitable, what is representative, rather than "who spends the most on guns" and what "some US allied tinpot dictator cares"?

Not sure what "allied tinpot dictator" you speak of. Not sure what the US has to do with this conversation (though I understand they are generally opposed to an expansion of the Council). I think Japan and Germany are far, far more influential and egalitarian countries than India and Brazil, don't you? I'd rather have their even handedness and general alliance with democratic principles on the council than the other two.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

highthief

Both nations (France and Germany) are in the top ten (maybe top five) in terms of military spending and economic power. Why would sub them out for poorer, less powerful, less advanced nations?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

j8ear

You're right. 4 and 6 in fact. Here are the top 16 compiled by globalsecurity.org:

United States $466.0 billion FY04 actual [see Note 8]
China $65 billion 2004 [see Note 1]
Russia $50 billion [see Note 6]
France $46.5 billion 2000
Japan $44.7 billion FY05
Germany $38.8 billion 2002
United Kingdom $31.7 billion 2002
Italy $20.2 billion 2002
Saudi Arabia $18.3 billion FY00
Korea, South $16.18 billion FY04
Brazil $13.408 billion FY99
India $12,079.7 million FY01
Iran $9.7 billion FY00
Australia $9.3 billion FY01/02 est.
Israel $8.97 billion FY02
Spain $8.6 billion 2002

From here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/spending.htm

I wonder why france and germany are so high? Probably because of arms exports like "Mirage" aircraft from France and "H&K" firearms from Germany.

Interesting.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Mephisto2

My goodness highthief. For someone who started a thread asking if expansion of the Security Council was a good idea, you've certainly got a strange habit of putting words into people's mouths when they respond!


Macro socio-political management is not like boxing. You don't "get better" because you've already been in a few fights. Some would argue that countries with little or no military background would be a good addition to the Security Council, as they would bring no baggage or international military alliances to the table. Personally, I'm not sure of that, but I don't subscribe to your contention that only countries with large-scale military pasts be included.

The Security Council is an organ of dispute resolution. Believe it or not, military action is only the last resort. And, most importantly, their decisions do not mean those countries themselves provide troops. By way of example, since the Beirut bomb and the Somalia debacle, the US has provided very few UN peace-keepers. But that doesn't stop them from being very important players on the world stage and on the Security Council.

I didn't say "it counts for nothing". Stop putting words into my mouth.

The rest of your response is therefore predicated on false statements, made by yourself, but I shall address them as much as I can.

With regards to Nigeria, I made the mistake of assuming South Africa was the larger state. Thank you for enlightening me. I believe there's one small catch though. They don't want a permanent seat on the Security Council now, do they? Oppps....

No respect? I live in Australia mate.

With regards to them being more egalitarian than India or Brazil, on what basis do you make that statement? India is the largest democracy in the world. Bigger than even the US! :-) Brazil is also a florishing democracy. Why do you think Australia is "better"? Has it got something to do with race? Or Occidentalism?

However, if you want to bring "stability" and "egalitarianism" into the formula, where does that leave your friend the Nigerians? Hmmm.... There was a recent transfer of power from the military to civilian rule, but it's hardly anything compared to the shining beacons of democracy exemplified by Brazil and India after all.

One final thing too. Australia has no interest in a permanent seat on the Security Council either.

I didn't realise Nigeria was so much larger than RSA.

A lot of "white power" still in South Africa? Erm... are you thinking of the same country as I am? The ANC have been in power since apartheid was dismantled. The Nationalist Party (the only "white power" party in the state) was actually disbanded this year. I think you might be confused.

Huh?!! Who said the wars were credentials?

Pakistan would make a fuss if India did anything. They even went to war 3 times. That's the whole point. It's got nothing to do with India's credentials for a seat on the Security Council. You're trying to infer something I didn't say or imply.

I speak of Musharaff.

As much as Nigeria does. Or is mentioning other countries in a post not permitted?

If you're talking about South America then, no. If you're talking about Asia, then no.

Well, I'm surprised at that sweeping generalization. So Brazil and India are not even handed? Why?

And India has been a healthy democracy since 1948. Brazil, admittedly, only since 1985. But it's the best choice if we're considering a South American member.


Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

The only reason to expand the security council is to make 100% certain that the security council does nothing important ever again.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

Whilst I disagree you on a fundamental level, as usual, you continue to make me smile.


Mr Mephisto

EULA

I'm for the expansion as long as the US resigns from the UN.

Mephisto2

Why?


Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus

if speaking about the security council in particular, military presence is the most important factor. they are the ones passing resolutions that (ostensibly) could lead to military enforcement, doesn't it make sense for the nations who would provide resources for any effort the security council signs up for to be the ones to vote on it? as if the UN didn't already have legitimacy problems...

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Mephisto2

The US does not provide forces for UN peace-keeping (at least since Somalia and Beirut), and these are the troops that the Security Council usually send. A nation's capacity or willingness to furnish troops to UN Missions should not be used as "entry credentials" for the Security Council. Then we'd end up with an even more lopsided two tier organization.

Mr Mephisto

j8ear

Don't forget about the Balkins. Plenty of American GI's were invovled in the Balkins. Serbia, Bosnia, Hertzogovenia (sp?), They were under psuedo-UN command, and were operating as a peace-keeping mission.

Anyway, I think your mistaken about what the permanent members of the Security Council are all about. They are what are considered the great powers, and each has a veto on any resolution preesented to the council. It was so structured to ensure THE GREAT POWER Unanimity. Original inclusion was based on Nuclear capability, afaik. "Great power" involves economic clout, but is certainly based primarily on military capability.

I agree that it might be worthwhile to modify thes requirements, but again it requires GREAT POWER unanimity. I see that as too high a bar to over come.

The whole notion of fairness and representation, and all that feel good, ideal stuff (which is laudable but unrealistic), that doesn't even exist in the UN at all, is what the general assembly is supposed to be about. It doesn't exist because of the Security Council, more specifically it's permanent members.

Remember that the rotating members have no veto power.

It is partially for these reasons that the UN is such a joke. There is nothing democratic or particularly just about it. Essentially everything boils down to what the US, UK, France, Russia, and China can agree on. For this to change they must also agree.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.