Which of the G4 countries (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan) deserves to be admitted as a permanent member of the UNSC? (school, standard of living)

[Greysholic]

Originally Posted by F18

Lol, don't need to get all angry and infuriated. Take a chill pill.

More like sedatives lmao.

[karleb]

Japan

[deneb78]

I actually think they should significantly expand the UN SC to include all G20 members as permanent members and then have another 5 countries rotate periodically for a total of 25 members.

[Daywalk]

Originally Posted by deneb78

I actually think they should significantly expand the UN SC to include all G20 members as permanent members and then have another 5 countries rotate periodically for a total of 25 members.

Agreed that they should expand to 25 members, but EU is not a UN member and Africa needs more representation. the composition should be as follows:-
9 permanent members - Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, United States
2 African powers - To be rotated between the 4 powerful African countries: Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa
4 members - To be rotated between 9 G20 members not represented above (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Italy, South Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Turkey)
10 members - To be elected from the rest of the world like before

[Ariete]

One permanent rotating seat for the Nordic Countries, please. Iceland will go first, as it has never been.

[Daywalk]

Originally Posted by Ariete

One permanent rotating seat for the Nordic Countries, please. Iceland will go first, as it has never been.

You kidding me? To get one permanent seat for a quorum of 25 means that your total population should equate to roughly 4% (1/25) of the population or economy... Nordic countries are nowhere near that!

[Bettafish]

Originally Posted by LINative

It should not matter if China "hates" Japan. I understand China has differences with Japan and also India for that matter, but the real question is, are Japan and India wealthy, able and powerful enough to contribute to world security?

It does matter, because China will simply veto.

[Bettafish]

Originally Posted by Ariete

Not that your Sino-centric or Asian-centric textbooks do either of the nazi atrocities. Otherwise we wouldn't seen scenes like these:









I would like to know what you would think if I did a Unit 731 or Nanking Massacre cosplay? Not overly enthusiastic I guess?

Chinese textbooks do cover the Holocaust and all Chinese (who finished middle school) know about it.
Many westerners never heard of Nanjing on the other hand.

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by Daywalk

You kidding me? To get one permanent seat for a quorum of 25 means that your total population should equate to roughly 4% (1/25) of the population or economy... Nordic countries are nowhere near that!

Together we are the 11th largest economy in the world, and have a stellar economic and human rights record. I can honestly not think of a better candidate. And we already got a permanent seat on the Economic and Human Rights councils, so the security council would fit in great.

And who decides who "should"? Why the hell would Argentina, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Australia or South Korea deserve a semi-permanent seat but not us?

All in the room: who do you think will promote human rights better: Saudi Arabia or Sweden?

edit: and oh yes, not to mention all the money and peacekeepers we have sent to further world peace during these past six decades. Even today Sweden pays more than Argentina and Norway more than India to the UN budget. Today there's 10 times the peacekeepers from Finland on the field compared to Mexico. Hell yes we deserve representation if the narco-state Mexico or authoritarian-semi-monarchy Turkey gets it.

[deneb78]

Yeah maybe instead of the EU for the 20th seat in the G20 members since it is a block of nations and not a UN member, we could have a seat dedicated to the Nordic countries that rotate... great idea