NationStates

All are Equal wrote:I think it's time to expand the number of permanent seats on the UNSC. Countries I'd see as viable candidates:

Germany
India
Japan
Canada
Brazil
Australia

What's everyone's opinion on this?

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:There shouldn't be permanent membership. It's made the UN an anti democratic institution.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:There shouldn't be permanent membership. It's made the UN an anti democratic institution.

South Americanastan wrote:

All are Equal wrote:I think it's time to expand the number of permanent seats on the UNSC. Countries I'd see as viable candidates:

Germany
India
Japan
Canada
Brazil
Australia

What's everyone's opinion on this?

I don't think it should be expanded. The UNSC permanent membership was chosen specifically to even out the two cold war blocs, and world politics are still drawn along those same old lines. Adding any new members would tip the balance. Not to mention the fact that none of these countries are world powers, which is what permanent membership is designed for.

South Reinkalistan wrote:Let's not expand the SC, let's dismantle it.

Punished UMN wrote:

South Reinkalistan wrote:Let's not expand the SC, let's dismantle it.

The Security Council is pretty necessary to protect the interests of the most powerful countries from having international law used to bludgeon them based on simple votes. Without them, there would be a much greater incentive for aggressive war on the part of the Permanent Members.

South Reinkalistan wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:The Security Council is pretty necessary to protect the interests of the most powerful countries from having international law used to bludgeon them based on simple votes. Without them, there would be a much greater incentive for aggressive war on the part of the Permanent Members.

It affords the UN a hegemonic structure which in turn cements the present world order. Obviously like all things it is just a shadow, it's a reflection of real, more basic power which in turn emerges from the ability to apply organised violence -- I digress. The point is that the ability of the present world powers to use the UN as a geopolitical battle-ground is affirming the present liberal dichotomies upon which our modern system relies. Considering the unreasonable excess and gross atrocity that results from this system, destabilising it is a good thing and thus the UNSC needs to go.

Punished UMN wrote:

South Reinkalistan wrote:

It affords the UN a hegemonic structure which in turn cements the present world order. Obviously like all things it is just a shadow, it's a reflection of real, more basic power which in turn emerges from the ability to apply organised violence -- I digress. The point is that the ability of the present world powers to use the UN as a geopolitical battle-ground is affirming the present liberal dichotomies upon which our modern system relies. Considering the unreasonable excess and gross atrocity that results from this system, destabilising it is a good thing and thus the UNSC needs to go.

If the institutional structure of the system did not protect their interests, they would just go back to the use of force to do so. Not being able to rely on international law to guarantee your interests and only having the law of the jungle is what led to the world wars. If you were to abolish the Security Council and the permanent memberships, the Permanent members would just disregard international law entirely. The permanent memberships just enshrine in law what is already known: that there are a certain handful of countries which are so much more powerful than the others, economically and militarily, that they dictate the rules by which the system operates. I don't think returning to the pre-War system of international relations is quite what people have in mind when they talk about dismantling the Security Council, but that's what they'd get.

South Reinkalistan wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:If the institutional structure of the system did not protect their interests, they would just go back to the use of force to do so. Not being able to rely on international law to guarantee your interests and only having the law of the jungle is what led to the world wars. If you were to abolish the Security Council and the permanent memberships, the Permanent members would just disregard international law entirely. The permanent memberships just enshrine in law what is already known: that there are a certain handful of countries which are so much more powerful than the others, economically and militarily, that they dictate the rules by which the system operates. I don't think returning to the pre-War system of international relations is quite what people have in mind when they talk about dismantling the Security Council, but that's what they'd get.

Oh of course. I'm not denying that, and I acknowledged it in what I wrote. I'm really agreeing with you in your analysis, just objecting to your conclusion: in my eyes, the pre-war system of international relations was so much more multipolar, and frankly a return to that would be great.

Punished UMN wrote:

South Reinkalistan wrote:

Oh of course. I'm not denying that, and I acknowledged it in what I wrote. I'm really agreeing with you in your analysis, just objecting to your conclusion: in my eyes, the pre-war system of international relations was so much more multipolar, and frankly a return to that would be great.

It was that system that left over one-hundred million dead in the first half of the twentieth century and many countries shattered socially and economically. There are still parts of the world that haven't recovered from the twentieth century crisis.

Resilient Acceleration wrote:The original purpose of the UN is pretty simple. It's not a global union that represents humanity. It's a forum for nuclear-powered world powers to peacefully resolve things based on their interests, so there won't be another random Sarajevo that leads to World War III and the end of civilization.

Of course, over time the global union things do develop (which do benefit everyone), but I don't think the main purpose has shifted that significantly. For this reason, I might actually support the inclusion of India, another nuclear power, in the council, especially since South Asia will be one of the most vulnerable spots that can trigger a gigantic war as climate change and water crises took its toll. The "might" is because Pakistan, another nuclear power, obviously won't be very happy. Then again, India don't (or at least not yet) have worldwide interest in far-flung countries that might collide with other major powers, so their inclusion isn't really that pressing, at least for now.

All are Equal wrote:I think it's time to expand the number of permanent seats on the UNSC. Countries I'd see as viable candidates:

Germany
India
Japan
Canada
Brazil
Australia

What's everyone's opinion on this?

Luziyca wrote:

All are Equal wrote:I think it's time to expand the number of permanent seats on the UNSC. Countries I'd see as viable candidates:

Germany
India
Japan
Canada
Brazil
Australia

What's everyone's opinion on this?

Why would you suggest these countries? Canada and Australia are basically American lackeys that are too small to really exert any influence, Japan's a regional power at best, and Germany is also a regional power (though we should consolidate the EU and give them France's spot in the SC). The only two from this list that could make sense are Brazil and India given their populations and their spheres of influence, but even then, I'm not sure if I support your suggestion.

If I could restructure the United Nations Security Council, and I had to keep permanent members, I'd certainly remove the United Kingdom given it's no longer really all that relevant beyond Europe, and I'd consider removing the United States because of their tendency to use force as a substitute for diplomacy. I'd certainly add India, for the reasons I've already mentioned, and might likely add Brazil for the same reasons. Ethiopia would probably be a good contender to be a permanent member, if only because they're among the largest African states population-wise and they are home to the African Union.

Though honestly, if I were you, OP, I'd expand your OP.

Luziyca wrote:

All are Equal wrote:I think it's time to expand the number of permanent seats on the UNSC. Countries I'd see as viable candidates:

Germany
India
Japan
Canada
Brazil
Australia

What's everyone's opinion on this?

Why would you suggest these countries? Canada and Australia are basically American lackeys that are too small to really exert any influence, Japan's a regional power at best, and Germany is also a regional power (though we should consolidate the EU and give them France's spot in the SC). The only two from this list that could make sense are Brazil and India given their populations and their spheres of influence, but even then, I'm not sure if I support your suggestion.

If I could restructure the United Nations Security Council, and I had to keep permanent members, I'd certainly remove the United Kingdom given it's no longer really all that relevant beyond Europe, and I'd consider removing the United States because of their tendency to use force as a substitute for diplomacy. I'd certainly add India, for the reasons I've already mentioned, and might likely add Brazil for the same reasons. Ethiopia would probably be a good contender to be a permanent member, if only because they're among the largest African states population-wise and they are home to the African Union.

Though honestly, if I were you, OP, I'd expand your OP.

Punished UMN wrote:-snip-

Punished UMN wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:There shouldn't be permanent membership. It's made the UN an anti democratic institution.

The UN is not meant to be a democratic institution. The purpose of the permanent membership is explicitly to protect the interests of the permanent members against those of the multitude of nations. I agree though that some nations should be added and others subtracted from the council. India should take Britain's place and the Islamic world should also have at least one permanent member.

Thermodolia wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:The UN is not meant to be a democratic institution. The purpose of the permanent membership is explicitly to protect the interests of the permanent members against those of the multitude of nations. I agree though that some nations should be added and others subtracted from the council. India should take Britain's place and the Islamic world should also have at least one permanent member.

No. The permanent members should remain as such. Tbh the PRC never should have been granted permanent membership