• The development of any software program, including, but not limited to, training a machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI) system, is prohibited using the contents and materials on this website.

UN Security Counsil

jensked

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
4,053
The UN Security Counsil is the most important body of the UN. It makes resolutions about the world's security.

It was founded after World War II and has 5 permanent members (USA, France, the UK, China and Russia), who can veto every decision. Even a 14 against 1 vote can be stoppen by the veto of one of the 5 permanent members.

Nowadays those 5 countries do not represent the real power. What do you think about that? Should the Security Counsil have other members, like one from each continent?
 
I think all countries should have equal amount of power... what if there was a bill that was to USA, France, UK, China and Russia's advantage and the rest of the world disagreed on it, then it would just cause chaos and every other country would just pull away from the UN
 
Andyhui said:
I think all countries should have equal amount of power
^They kinda tried that before, and when Italy said "We're attacking Ethiopia", the others said "you can't do that", Italy said "fine, we're doing it anyway and we won't play with you anymore". And so UN's predecessor was disbanded. Because the victors of ww2 has veto in the UN's security council is the reason why the UN hasn't disbanded, because the UN can't act against the interests of any of the superpowers.
 
that's true, but another reason the League of Nations (the UN predecessor in the interbellum) was disbanded, was because the USA never was a part of the League. US president Wilson made up the idea, but after the war, he lost the election. And the republicans didn't want to get involved in the world.

Anyhow :) I think they definitely should give other countries a chance. What about Germany...it is the economic engine of the EU, funded the Gulf War, but doesn't have a permanent seat. And France and the UK do.
 
I agree that Germany deserves a seat now (they didn't get one since they were the enemy in ww2). The cold war is over, and communism's dead so you'd think that UN would be more capable to intervene, but look at what happened during the Kosovo-crisis. The UN didn't act because Russia said no, probably because of the ethnic/cultural bond they share with the serbs. So NATO had to do the job. Putin has made it clear that Russia still has interest in the former USSR satelite states, and I don't really know how China feels about North Korea, but I don't see the UN doing anything there. So to me they have kind of become an organ to prevent disasters in Africa.
 
I actually think the whole 5 nations thing should be scrapped. I always thought my concept was better :D.

- Each continent would have it's own 'council' (African Union, EU, etc.).
- Each seperate council would elect representatives to the SC. The number of representatives elected per region would be determined by the current 'super-5'. So North America perhaps would get 2, Europe would get 4, Asia 2, Africa 2, etc.
- Get rid of the veto powers. Simple as that. Resolutions would either require a simple majority vote or a consensus (let's say >70% has to agree). This would be determined based on the magnitude of the resolution.
- Except for the United States (the only true superpower), no nation can be elected more than two times in a row.
- In extreme cases, only sanctioned by the Secretary General, a member of the former 5 victors would be able to veto a resolution if it harms them directly.

Yeah, has a lot of holes in it. I sure love Model U.N. :D.
 
That would entail a united south amerca, middle-east, africa, and asia. Good luck :lol:
 
Come again?

You mean they'd all form a big alliance against North America and Europe?

Well, that's why there's still veto power if the shit really hits the fan.

I know it sucks man, but it sounds good on paper :thumbsup:.
 
I don't think that the represntative states of those respective continents would be in agreement over much.

And yeah, if they ever did form a union (or bloc)...europe and north america would be in big big trouble
 
No one said they'd agree, but if the SC is supposed to overlook security in the world, I'd think it would be fair to represent all the continents of the world fairly. Right now, three of the five countries with permament membership are European. Out of the current 10 elected members, 3 more are European. I think you'd agree that the world is severely misrepresented. I just think it would be more fair if it was like the World Cup. Each continent gets a fixed number of seats and each continent gets to vote their own representatives in.
 
///M said:
I actually think the whole 5 nations thing should be scrapped. I always thought my concept was better :D.

- Each continent would have it's own 'council' (African Union, EU, etc.).
- Each seperate council would elect representatives to the SC. The number of representatives elected per region would be determined by the current 'super-5'. So North America perhaps would get 2, Europe would get 4, Asia 2, Africa 2, etc.
- Get rid of the veto powers. Simple as that. Resolutions would either require a simple majority vote or a consensus (let's say >70% has to agree). This would be determined based on the magnitude of the resolution.
- Except for the United States (the only true superpower), no nation can be elected more than two times in a row.
- In extreme cases, only sanctioned by the Secretary General, a member of the former 5 victors would be able to veto a resolution if it harms them directly.

Yeah, has a lot of holes in it. I sure love Model U.N. :D.

- Each continent would have it's own 'council' (African Union, EU, etc.).

The Australian council.

- Each seperate council would elect representatives to the SC. The number of representatives elected per region would be determined by the current 'super-5'. So North America perhaps would get 2, Europe would get 4, Asia 2, Africa 2, etc.

Australia 1

I'd say Australia would always be in it then... WOOOOOOO!!!!!
 
Well, the Western world always rants about democracy and I guess the UNSC is the ideal example of that :roll:

Its amazing that only 5 countries (whose combined population doesn't add up to that of China) gets to choose who gets attacked and who gets sanctioned and what is right and wrong.

Add to that the fact that even if 4 of the members come up with a really novel idea, the 5th member have all the power to shoot it down by simply vetoing. I can almost hear Lincoln shouting out 'for the people, by the people, of the people' in my background :)

If we don't let ourselves be fooled, this world has always been run by the contemporary superpower (USA in our times, Romans in the past). The superpower decides what is right and wrong and there isn't much else to it.

The UN and UNSC is just there to give some degree of legitimacy to the superpower's actions. And if the petty UN dares to call a particular action "illegal", the superpower isn't bothered in the least anyway.

So, IMO, the UNSC is just a show at best and a playground to settle "the booty" among the big boys at worst. Why even bother thinking of reforming it or modifying it?
 
jensked, I don't think the 3 billion out of the 6 billion world population who lives in miserable conditions really care whether there is dialogue or not between suited diplomats in a faraway, air-conditioned, tall building in New York otherwise known as the UN Headquarters :D
 
Top