Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Gubook Janggoon
Sultan
Retired Global Moderator
Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Security Council Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 21:12 |
As you all probably know, a few countries are vying for seats on the
permanent security council. Who do you support and why? I'm thinking India because they are a rising power.
Edited by Gubukjanggoon
|
|
Murph
Consul
Joined: 28-Nov-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 319
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 21:57 |
india is the second largest country in the world, is predicted to be the largest in like 30 years, and has (i think) the 3rd largest military in the world
this definitely merits a position on the security council
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 23:21 |
India , yes, better global represntation. South Africa dn Japan will never get on the security council if I have anything do do about it!
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 08:29 |
All of them.
or even better: none of them and get rid of the old permanent seats and vetoes (sp?) as well.
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 10:38 |
What MixT said, idealy we want a reform of the present system.
If it had to be just one, i'd go with Japan, as they contribute the second most to the UN budget.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
babyblue
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 11:33 |
i voted none...there's enough already. there was only intented to be five nations-Britain, France, China, Russia and the US. why do we need more? japan and germany? never...like the UN was created partially because of them...and Cywr..i don't think you can bribe your way in...
|
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 11:39 |
Its not a matter of bribing your way in, its a matter of having some
clout to counter the economic mismanagement that takes place in the UN.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
babyblue
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 11:45 |
what does the economic mismanagement within the UN has anything to do with japan making the second largest contribution therefore it's entitled to a seat?
|
|
|
Cywr
King
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 11:54 |
Its gives the people who provide the bulk of the funds more leverage.
They are not going to oppose funding for vacination programs and the
like, but they sure as hell will be more demanding when it comes to
stuff like this food-for-oil fiasco.
|
Arrrgh!!"
|
|
babyblue
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 12:00 |
ok...i see what you mean... then let the existing nations make the decision on how the money's spent then....like...if i donate to the salvation army or something, i don't expect them to give me a position in their organisation so that i can be part of the decision making process on how my money's gonna be spent. if i don't like what they're doing with my money, i won't donate to them..simple as that...though this might be a pretty extreme example....but you know what i mean.
Edited by babyblue
|
|
|
Gubook Janggoon
Sultan
Retired Global Moderator
Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 13:28 |
Would the five permanent members ever give up their seats? Is it
realistic to think of abolishing the permanent seats?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 14:56 |
Originally posted by babyblue
japan and germany? never...like the UN was created partially because of them... |
60 years ago, yes...
Japan and Germany (especially Germany) are completely different
countries now compared what they were 60 years ago. You can't keep
them out of the security counsil because of that.
Why not keep France out because of the Napoleonic wars?
|
|
Serge L
Baron
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 485
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 16:25 |
I'd add all of them and even more . . . but abolish the veto power.
Sure, it would be difficult to convince the present 5 permanent members to give-up their veto -- yet it's not such an impossible task -- they do realize that that paralyzes the UNSC.
Somebody proposed a moratoria of the veto, at least for a certain time and/or for certain subjects, just to get everyone accustomed to the idea.
|
|
JanusRook
Sultan
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 18:07 |
Nobody does what the UN says anyway so does it even really matter who's on the security council.
|
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.
Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 21:10 |
Yeah, isn't that the truth. I'm waiting for them to fall apart like the League of Nations, I bet it'll occur during a big war. Or if they try to sanction a really powerful country like Russia or India.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
babyblue
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1174
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 23:56 |
Originally posted by MixcoatlToltecahtecuhtli
Why not keep France out because of the Napoleonic wars? |
because the U.N weren't formed right after the Napoleonic wars...and France was a founding member of the U.N. So i think the case is rather different.
|
|
|
coolstorm
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 09:06 |
"Japan and Germany (especially Germany) are completely different countries now compared what they were 60 years ago. You can't keep them out of the security counsil because of that."
That would be true for Germany but wrong for Japan. The Japanese government has shown no regret for what it did in WW2 while, on the other hand, Germany has apologized formally to the invaded countries.
Japan, up to this point, is trying to cover up by changing the content in its history books.
They have never apologized to any countries or people they invaded. The military spending of Japan is also second largest in the world, showing its aggression. Japan is an aggressive nation by nature. They are also cunny like a smiling wolf.
In Japan, young people are not taught that Japan invaded other countries. They are taught that Japan helped its neighbors get rid of Western and American Imperialism and joined the fight.
I voted for Germany.
But none of the old permanent members will allow the new comers to have veto power. The new comers can either be permanent members without veto power or temporary members with temporary veto power. These are the two options being discussed now. Due to historical reasons, China and all East Asian countries such as N and S Koreas will never let Japan be a permanent security council member with veto power.
Out of my curiosity, why is Nigeria on the list?
Edited by coolstorm
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 09:13 |
Originally posted by coolstorm
Out of my curiosity, why is Nigeria on the list? |
They've asked for a security counsil seat. It's the most populous African country (more that 100 million inhabitants)
|
|
coolstorm
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Nov-2004
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1066
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 09:23 |
"They've asked for a security counsil seat. It's the most populous African country (more that 100 million inhabitants)"
indonesia also has over 100 million inhabitants. it's not on the list because of its poor economy and lack of power.
nigeria is a poor country afterall although it is relatively less poor compared to other african nations.
i dun think it can be a permanent member due to its lack of power and influence on the global stage.
it does not have a strong military to carry out un operations. it doesn't have the budget to support anything. it doesn't have the technology. it doesn't have a strong economy.
why is it on the list? italy, canada, australia, korea, indonesia, argentina should all be considered proir to nigeria. no offense to nigerians.
Edited by coolstorm
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 10:03 |
I think people want to see an African country represented in the UNSC.
Out of all African countries, Nigeria is the best choice, although it
has many flaws.
|
|