UN Security Council

Aug 28, 2014
614
684
Singapore
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers, Chelsea
Now I know that it will probably never change but I have felt that the Security Council's biggest weakness in dealing with conflicts has been giving the 5 permanent members the right to veto. Created in the aftermath of WW2 I understand why this happened and yes the Council have done some good things but I have felt that over the years that the Security Council has somewhat failed in its original goal which was to maintain world peace.
If you could change the way in which the Security Council operated, how would you change it?

For me I would:
Remove the veto so only majority rules on resolutions,
Keep the permanent members but include Germany and Brazil,
Still have 15 members, so thats 7 permanent members and 8 members on a rotating basis which they do now,
Rotating regions are:
Asia-Pacific - 2 Members
Africa - 2 Members
Europe + Other - 2 Members
Latin America + Caribbean - 2 Members
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Sep 4, 2014
3,641
1,682
AFL Club
Melbourne
5 biggest arms dealers = 5 security council members.

Probably need to change that first.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Sep 4, 2014
3,641
1,682
AFL Club
Melbourne
Probably a gigantic pan-Arab and pan-Asian Socialist uprising in the middle east, south asia and north africa backed by the economic power of the BRICS nations and the absolute demolition of Europe economically (dead culturally for centuries already), combined with the long promised realisation of the socialist dream in the latin world. Then a cultural and spiritual shift away from violence, in all forms. Complete and utter disarmament. War could be removed from the UN's sphere of influence, and we can just focus on health and education. And art and science.

That'd about do it.

Unfortunately I think we're going to get a pan-Arab Islamic extremist state mired in a dreadful quagmire against moderate forces and ethnic divisions in the middle east for the near future, whilst latin america in particular gets fiddled with by the nightmarish US corporate regime.

I like Ban Ki Moon and the goals of the UN. Its good to have it and its ideals are still very relevant.

But until its 'one nation, one vote' or even better 'one person, one vote' its inherently undemocratic. And undemocratic institutions have a use by date, it tends to be around the point the monopolists have taken all they can from the poor and have to eat eachother. We might be getting close to that but its probably a fair way off.
 
Great thread.

The power of veto makes the UNSC absolutely pointless. I'd be happier if a veto required a minimum of two votes of the permanent members at a minimum - majority obviously ideal.

I like the majority of your suggestions, although if we're putting aside WW2 bias, you would include Germany and probably Japan.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Sep 4, 2014
3,641
1,682
AFL Club
Melbourne
On a numbers basis, you'd say that Europe is massively over represented at present.

world-population-distribution-by-continent.gif


Can't vouch for accuracy (used google images). But if that's even remotely close (within 5%).... damn.

Ideally I'd want all of the following PERMANENTLY on any security council:

Iran, Turkey, China, India, Russia, Germany, Vietnam, France, Brazil, Mexico, Japan(?), Indonesia, Philippines

For some of these countries its anticipation of upcoming status (Indonesia, Philippines) and getting these countries more included/supported by the international community and showing good faith before issues come up.

The world community screwed up Vietnamese and Iranian modernisation something awful. WE owe it to the next nations not to make the same mistakes.
 
Aug 28, 2014
614
684
Singapore
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers, Chelsea
Great thread.

The power of veto makes the UNSC absolutely pointless. I'd be happier if a veto required a minimum of two votes of the permanent members at a minimum - majority obviously ideal.

I like the majority of your suggestions, although if we're putting aside WW2 bias, you would include Germany and probably Japan.
Yeh I probably should have included Japan come to think of it. I was just makin sure that the rotating countries had more members than the permanant ones and that the overall numbers were odd so there can't be any tied votes.
 
Yeh I probably should have included Japan come to think of it. I was just makin sure that the rotating countries had more members than the permanant ones and that the overall numbers were odd so there can't be any tied votes.
I'd take Japan over Brazil :)
 
Iran, Turkey, China, India, Russia, Germany, Vietnam, France, Brazil, Mexico, Japan(?), Indonesia, Philippines
I'd suggest those bolded countries would need to fix up their domestic policies before being aloud to vote on international policies.

One could argue the same for China and Russia, but too late on that front.

France is already a permanent member - I have no idea why, other than the fact they were invaded and conquered so many times and saved by other countries that people felt sorry for them.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Sep 4, 2014
3,641
1,682
AFL Club
Melbourne
France is arguably the most badass military nation in Europe and a cultural powerhouse (one of the few countries who can claim to really promote freedom and mean it). Can't blame them for WW2 after the way their soldiers bled for Europe in WW1 either.

I'm cool with the Frogs being there. The Poms on the other hand declared war on Tibet for no reason just over 100 years ago, they can't be trusted with wars. I'd say if you're having two representatives from Europe you'd want France and Germany, with Spain or Italy as a potential third or rotating member.

And that's what is such a missed opportunity with countries like Iran. By shunning their nations politically, we pushed their people under the foot of autocracy and its hard for us to help them back out. Now we criticise their regime for treating their people too harshly, but we didn't help matters.
 

medusala

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Aug 14, 2004
37,209
8,423
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
France is already a permanent member - I have no idea why, other than the fact they were invaded and conquered so many times and saved by other countries that people felt sorry for them.

:thumbsu::thumbsu:

France is arguably the most badass military nation in Europe and a cultural powerhouse (one of the few countries who can claim to really promote freedom and mean it).

Humour.
 
Nov 17, 2013
4,911
10,955
Victoria
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Sheffield Wednesday
Permanent members were all chosen following WWII (Largest, victorious nations). If my memory serves me correctly, they were also the first five nations to possess nuclear weapons.

I generally agree with OP, but I'd probably include Japan or India instead of Brazil. I doubt the Chinese would be too happy about either joining though, so I can't see it happening.
 
Aug 28, 2014
614
684
Singapore
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers, Chelsea
France is already a permanent member - I have no idea why, other than the fact they were invaded and conquered so many times and saved by other countries that people felt sorry for them.
Yeh they fell to the Germans pretty quickly and I don't think they really paid such a huge role in WW2. Least deserving member of the 5 permanent members for sure.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Sep 4, 2014
3,641
1,682
AFL Club
Melbourne
Yeh they fell to the Germans pretty quickly and I don't think they really paid such a huge role in WW2. Least deserving member of the 5 permanent members for sure.

Go and read about the battle of Verdun in WW1.

Then look up Verdun on a modern day satellite like google earth.

Then tell me the French don't deserve anything because of their cowardly military history :)
 

Tasmaniac

Club Legend
Oct 5, 2004
1,422
650
Here, there, everywhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
It's too late to do anything about it. If the General Assembly somehow tried to strip the veto i suspect the big players (US, China, Russia) would just walk out.

Then you'd have a re-run of the League of Nations. The UN needs the big powers if it wants to be anything more than a talking shop and humanitarian agency.

Edit: As far as adding more permanent members to the SC, you have to walk the fine line between being representative and turning the whole SC into just another bloated, stagnant committee of talkers.
 

Tasmaniac

Club Legend
Oct 5, 2004
1,422
650
Here, there, everywhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
The power of veto makes the UNSC absolutely pointless. I'd be happier if a veto required a minimum of two votes of the permanent members at a minimum - majority obviously ideal

This would be a bit of an improvement. Would tend to favour the West with 3 votes. Russia and China to draw closer as they cover each others interests at the SC.
 

The Coup

Premiership Player
Sep 4, 2014
3,641
1,682
AFL Club
Melbourne
Isn't that what it is now?

For all of its failings (Rwanda, E.Timor, Cambodia) the UN is the best and most effective, most inclusive, such organisation we've ever seen. If you care about peace, its important to remember that.
 

Tasmaniac

Club Legend
Oct 5, 2004
1,422
650
Here, there, everywhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn
Isn't that what it is now?

Occasionaly they get a few things done. Would need to do a bit of research as to what. Korean War springs to mind. Think the initial Somalian invervention under the UN. Would be some others I guess (Haiti?).

Also the cash the big players put in, I think the US is the largest contributor by a long way (although they are well behind on their dues, as many others are too). Less cash, less humanitarian interventions.

Also without the possibility of the big stick from the US, you might find more terrorists/freedom fighters prepared to take pot shots at UN peacekeepers (although that happens too).
 
Aug 28, 2014
614
684
Singapore
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers, Chelsea
For all of its failings (Rwanda, E.Timor, Cambodia) the UN is the best and most effective, most inclusive, such organisation we've ever seen. If you care about peace, its important to remember that.
I agree but I think it comes down to the veto or threat of veto on certain resolutions that can water the resolutions down to the point that they aren't effective enough.
 

Freo2012

Premiership Player
Aug 19, 2010
4,675
2,118
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
South Fremantle
There has always been war, there always will be war. The human race is all about having more than others, in case you all have not worked it out yet - there are not enough resources in the world for everyone on the planet to enjoy a "middle class" existence like many enjoy in the West - and in resources I mean natural resources and cheap labor resources. Do not for one minute believe modern technology will solve the labor aspect - all it does is create an Elysium world (which if you study economics and growth you would realize we are increasingly becoming). Human race civilization is all about subjecting others for your own benefit, a form of slavery that we like to call capitalism. Don't get me wrong I believe in free market capitalism but with proper controls. Those Georgia Guidestone brethren are probably right to a degree, but WTF has the right to decide who can and cannot live in this world.

At the end of the day its survival of the fittest, and the fittest in modern civilization is those with real power (primarily monetary), not the natural selection of nature - our developed brains have much to answer for, with respect to where the human race is heading.
 

cannot

Norm Smith Medallist
Nov 30, 2016
5,054
4,967
^^ ""Flat World Champions".
AFL Club
Richmond
Media Goes Quiet as Russia Exposes US Lies at Security Council

Russia just called out the West for using the UN to promote regime change — but no one reported it

Russia's deputy United Nations ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said that the West's "obsession with regime change is what hinders this Security Council."

He noted that for Washington and its partners, "everything is guided by regime change" and allegations that Assad used chemical weapons in an attack in Idlib province on Tuesday are based on "falsified reports from the White Helmets", an organization that has been "discredited long ago".

Safronkov pointed out that "the White Helmets are getting mixed up in their reports. Their versions keep changing. They speak of bombs from helicopters, then from planes".

the UK "does nothing" for Syria except "submit drafts meant to provoke" and "pressure investigations" into reporting politically favorable results.

 
Last edited:
Media Goes Quiet as Russia Exposes US Lies at Security Council

Russia just called out the West for using the UN to promote regime change — but no one reported it

Russia's deputy United Nations ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said that the West's "obsession with regime change is what hinders this Security Council."

He noted that for Washington and its partners, "everything is guided by regime change" and allegations that Assad used chemical weapons in an attack in Idlib province on Tuesday are based on "falsified reports from the White Helmets", an organization that has been "discredited long ago".

Safronkov pointed out that "the White Helmets are getting mixed up in their reports. Their versions keep changing. They speak of bombs from helicopters, then from planes".

the UK "does nothing" for Syria except "submit drafts meant to provoke" and "pressure investigations" into reporting politically favorable results.



Puty not happy with trumpy?
 
Back