United Nations Reform or Bust

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT
United Nations Reform or Bust

Ok I don't know how to properly title this thread? 

This thread is about the United Nations. Its 5 permanent members that have veto power China, Russia, United States, France and Britain. 

This thread is also about countries like India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan,Nigeria, Mexico and Ethiopia. All have very large populations well in excess of Britain and France and a few there have larger populations compared to Russia. But no equal voice at the UN! Now I missed some other countries that should be on the list so I will just post a link of countries ranked by population

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)

Now if you look at at this link, say the top 10 nations or top 20, then look at the UN, there's a huge disconect! Obviously there has to be reform. And until there is reform, are we going to keep posting crap about how the UN is the way to go?!?!?!?!

As far as I'm concerned, the UN decisions are like some other posters comments, we only feel the UN is a credible organisation when we agree with its position. When we disagree, we fall back on the fact that the UN is a racist body and this destroys its credibility.

WWWTT

Here's some more good related info!

https://www.dw.com/en/will-the-un-security-council-ever-be-reformed/a-41...

Still, this hasn't prevented aspirants from reinforcing their efforts to achieve expansion of the UNSC membership. India, Japan, Germany and Brazil have even formed a grouping (G4) to support each other's bids for permanent seats. They invoke terms like representativeness, accountability and equity to support their candidacies.

But their bids have elicited opposition from their regional rivals - Pakistan opposes India's candidacy; China and South Korea are against Japan's bid; a host of European nations do not support Germany becoming a permanent member and Latin American countries like Argentina are not in favor of a seat for Brazil.

WWWTT

Now from my link in post #2, I can't figure out any rhyme or reason behind some of these countries blocking other countries bid for permant membership at the UN??? I kind of get some of it, but I believe it looks like there is many countries that don't want to see another country's status elevated above their own status.

So then why should any country have any sort of status elevated above any others? Very odd?

cco

You might look into the reason the permanent members are those 5 particular states. Hint: It comes from the last time Japan and Germany were allies.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

cco wrote:

You might look into the reason the permanent members are those 5 particular states. Hint: It comes from the last time Japan and Germany were allies.

Thank you for your condescension.  I think most of us know that the original arrangement came out of World War II.  However, VE Day and VJ Day were seventy-three years ago(as are the unnecessary nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and we are now in an entirely different world.  There is no longer any valid reason for those five countries to be privileged among all others in the UN power structure.  It's time for the UN to recognize that Latin America, Africa, the Arab/Muslim countries and the REST of Asia deserve the same say in that body as the major players in a now-ancient conflict.

voice of the damned

Ken Burch wrote:

cco wrote:

You might look into the reason the permanent members are those 5 particular states. Hint: It comes from the last time Japan and Germany were allies.

Thank you for your condescension.  I think most of us know that the original arrangement came out of World War II.  However, VE Day and VJ Day were seventy-three years ago(as are the unnecessary nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and we are now in an entirely different world.  There is no longer any valid reason for those five countries to be privileged among all others in the UN power structure.  It's time for the UN to recognize that Latin America, Africa, the Arab/Muslim countries and the REST of Asia deserve the same say in that body as the major players in a now-ancient conflict.

So, you're basically saying abolish the Security Council?

Because the only other option I can see is allowing a few more countries, considered representative of their respective regions, onto the permanent list. However, for the reasons outlined earlier on this thread, it would be kind of hard to get agreement on which countries those should be.

Martin N.

The UN has morphed from a tool of imperialist powers into a corrupt, immoral vehicle populated by remittance men and greasy pole climbers. A pox on all their houses.

Better to start over and learn from both the League and United Nations to get it righ or at least improved.

JKR

I think the 5 permanent members like the status quo so with their veto powers the status quo is intrenched and there won't be much reform and the UN won't go bust. What the 5 permanent members might do is give a few highly populated regional countries like India and Brazil permanent status but without a veto power. I think the UN has many weaknesses but they mostly reflect the state of the world.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think the UN has many weaknesses but they mostly reflect the state of the world.

Including all the world's little squabbles.

WWWTT

Indonesia recently won a seat on the security council for the UN. I found this while searching for any attempts by Indonesia for permanent membership.

https://www.kemlu.go.id/en/berita/Pages/Indonesia%E2%80%99s-Candidature-...

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2150034/ind...

Now I found it odd that I could not find any desire from the Indonesian government for permanent membership at the UN??? Indonesia is the 4th most populated country, has a large economy, is the largest archipegalo and in the top 20 countries by land mass. Also, it is the most populated Islamic nation.

JKR

What benefit does a state obtain from being one of the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Two years of your enemies having to suck it?

WWWTT

JKR wrote:
What benefit does a state obtain from being one of the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council?

That's a good question. And I do not know? I can only guess?

However from what I have read, When candidate nations are soliciting votes, peace and conflict resolving are their main focus in their pitches for this seat.