Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Currently, only the U.S, UK, France, Russia, and China are permanent members. They are the only ones that can veto any resolution and have much influence over peacekeeping, offensive action, and sanctioning. The world has changed much since the end of WWII and I think more nations should be added to the list of permanent members.
I think the UN would be better equipped to handle global issues if it had a broader range of veto power-wielding members. I'd expand it by adding Germany, Japan, and India immediately and would consider Brazil for the near future. Further down the line I'd negotiate letting some of the others listed on the poll in, provided they cleaned house a bit. I listed some countries perhaps not for their capability for overseeing world affairs but by virtue of them fully becoming regional powers. Having a permanent member from every region would give the UN more credibility IMO.
What do you think?
Last edited by destinedtodave; 03-26-2009 at 10:55 PM..
I think that the USA would be better served if we kicked the UN the hell out of our country.
The UN is a pathetic organization as is which is why if it's going to succeed it will need more international input. I understand your idea and believe me I'm patriotic and against any future one-world government idea but kicking the UN out of NY would be one of the dumbest things we could do right now. Isolationism didn't last long the last time we tried it and would be even more pointless in today's world.
UN is the only organization in the World that resembles World democracy.
No surprise, rightwingers hate democracy.
Don't mistake isolationism for right-wing ideology. The UN is such a new and revolutionary thing when you look at the history of civilization. It's not very effective now but it has the capability to really solve some world problems. Also, I'd love for the U.S. not to have to be the world police anymore (this includes both military conflicts and the ridiculous amount of aid given by us).
I think the UN would be better equipped to handle global issues if it had a broader range of veto power-wielding members. I'd expand it by adding Germany, Japan, and India
Mostly agreed. Not Germany, not yet. Germany with Brazil. Definitely Japan and India now.
You have to keep the permanant members at odd numbers. Resolutions are binary, yes or no; you can never have two sides squaring off with an odd number of members.
Japan is a model nation to be emulated (post wwII and =/ 90s financial policy). India's population numbers China, and India is, I think, much less imperialistic and much more democratic than the Chinese.
But I have to contradict myself. Giving the UK, France and Germany, all part of the same Union, three voices in the matter greatly over influences. The three voices need to speak as one. Here's my break down: The (eastern) Slavs have governed the northeastern part of Asia since the 900s. China has governed, emperor style, central Asia off and on for the last three thousand years. Alternately, Europe has a history of fragmentation and has very infrequently been united across the Danube. At some point the Europeans being a Union now, need to consumate that relation and speak in one voice.
Mostly agreed. Not Germany, not yet. Germany with Brazil. Definitely Japan and India now.
You have to keep the permanant members at odd numbers. Resolutions are binary, yes or no; you can never have two sides squaring off with an odd number of members.
Japan is a model nation to be emulated (post wwII and =/ 90s financial policy). India's population numbers China, and India is, I think, much less imperialistic and much more democratic than the Chinese.
But I have to contradict myself. Giving the UK, France and Germany, all part of the same Union, three voices in the matter greatly over influences. The three voices need to speak as one. Here's my break down: The (eastern) Slavs have governed the northeastern part of Asia since the 900s. China has governed, emperor style, central Asia off and on for the last three thousand years. Alternately, Europe has a history of fragmentation and has very infrequently been united across the Danube. At some point the Europeans being a Union now, need to consumate that relation and speak in one voice.
That's a good point about keeping it odd numbered but regardless of the number each nation has lots of power because they solely have veto ability. But everything you said about Japan can be said about Germany. The only reason it isn't in the security council is because it was fragmented during the cold war. It is a model nation of efficiency in Europe, and has the 4th largest economy in the world.
I do think having all these small (relatively) European countries is a bit redundant. I'd be willing to bring in Germany in the place of France or the UK. Regardless, I'd place Germany after Japan but before India as deserving to be in. It's not about population or else why would France be in instead of Indonesia?
Personally, I'm not a big fan of the EU, and I think history will prove me right. However, that's for another discussion and I agree that they should speak with one voice out of Brussels eventually.
Germany, India, Japan, and Brazil should all be added.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
