Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Today at my uni the German Ambassador to Australia (a man of 20+ years experience in the UN and diplomatic corp) gave a talk to our UN society and other interested guests about the proposal on the board to exband the permanant Security Council from 5 to 10 with new members being Germany, India, Brazil........

My question is do you think the security council A.) Should be enlarged beyond the five current nations (who are the ones who won WWII) and B.) should it be these nations that get the new posistions?

Personally I am all for it........

UN has become a farse

It still has its place, and it is better then the alternative; no UN.

Aye. Supporting the UN and attempting to make it work better is a far more appealing idea than abandoning it entirely. I'm sure ther's some nice metaphors I could use here, but I'm too afraid that people might think I meant "appalling" instead of "appealing."

I think it has outplayed its role

I think that in the changing world, the modern world, its role is more vital then ever, it is a body that can manage so much, help so many, and I mean, if it manages to stop one war, if it manages to help people, then it is succeeding, as a body that is able to help humanity, to work out problems before they come to blows, and as a symbol of unity and comradeship......

they are a usless tool because of the veto right of certain members of UN.

there is no negativ whith the idea of the UN but lately it seems like its payback time for vetos of the past. The Un seems crippled in even passing a simplests of thing

Yes, the veto is a questionable tool, but then nations are allowed to think differently, and having such a power can insure an unwise action is not forced upon the whole, that there can be some manner of stop mechinism that can prevent strongarming.

And the UN is only as good as the nations that make it up, it is unfortunate if nations with Veto maintain grudges.

The current UN is a joke.

I'm all in favor of making any changes that might change that image.

Like?

*sigh*

well if ANY changes aren't good enough. I suppose I might try to name a few.

Lets see, more members, a stricter policy against those who break their sanctions, more financial support from nations other than the United States.

It's my personal belief that when all the countries of the world can become members of the United Nations....this world will finally start to act as one. Synergy is everything...

excuse me, Norway are paying their dues by far. Dont know why a small country like Norway should pour in Money to that 5 nation marionette organisation called the UN. I agree that some of the larger countries that have a healthy economy could chip in a bit more.

The US isn't the only country doing anything you know
You make it sound like they are the only ones responsible for the operation of the UN......

And I support the notion of Germany joining, because of it's influence in the world thus far, but what others would be included?

I think only countries that show great contributions to the world should be able to join.

jesus, it was a GENERAL statement. If you want me to add asterisks for all the countries that give their dues...best of luck. I'm American...since when haven't we done things 1/2 ass?

I'm sorry that I make it seem as if the US is the only country providing financial support....that was most certainly not my intention. I said "more" countries provide financial support because of people like finti's views that just because a country is small...they should do what they can.

I'm not asking small economies to pour out everything they have, but if it's for the better good of humanity as a whole? Then why not spend more than "the average"? Does it always have to be about the nation you live in? Why not the planet you live on?

Germany the country that brought the world Zyklon B, not just for rodents anymore...

If you are going to make great contributions a requirement... I think that you need to better define great contributions.


I recently heard a speaker at my university who is the UN ambassador from Sierra Leone. According to him the United Nations has a large part to play still, especially in developing countries and concerning issues of internation justice/international court system. He made a lot of interesting points, and I think more permanent members of the Security Council would be an improvement, and I think that Germany could be an important part of a new security council... i just had to say that they did contribute to a couple million innocent deaths in the last 70 years, but the USA's hands are not blood free either so I dunno...

UN should give N. Korea a break and let them join...........maybe.

Would they join even if they had the chance..

yeah and you clearly missed out on my views, do what you canyes, but pouring it in there....nah that is a is a diffrence. It is time for those,at least among European countries who think they matter a bit more than the rest of the continent (chough chough germanyitalyandfrance chough chough) to take their turn, let them pay till it hurts for awhile and let see how long their government will hold power

Norway has domestic problems to deal actually plenty of them, and I think my country has an obligation of giving aid and help towards its own taxpaying countrymen that are struggling, to treat the elder of our society with decency. Not like it is today because they say they lack the financial resources. What a load of crap at the moment Norway is among the richest countries in the world and we easily throw money at the UN. But when the health department asks for money to better the situation of our countries elder they get a thumb down. That makes people react and they are fed up with a government that are more concerned about aid abroad than the domestic needs.

doubtful

I think now with the discussion of having a new council it is time to get rid of this rediculous "organisation"

First of all the main security members should be changed...

Perhaps:
Japan
Germany
Italy
basically the axis powers
and various more countries that illude my mind at this moment, like an Arabic or Spain or even Isreal.
It has been a long time since WW2 and the present situation says:
Britian, US, France, China, and Russia

Some good points, and one of Germany's main claims is that in terms or nations who make contributions it ranks 3rd, technically 2nd. The contributions range from the funds it donates to various other physical aspects. The UN has no real equipment, when it does something, it is up to nations to donate or buy this. In terms of the 5 current members very few make such contributions... and that is only part of it, ideally by expanding it it will allow greater representation, more chance for debate and lead to other changes and better management, as at the moment the nations that "contribute" the most, outside the US, have no say in the management of such things, and a good deal of it is squandered.....

Germany maybe, but I think India (along with Pakistan) seem too unstable. I mean, they can't get along with their neighbors......


The Security Council should probably just be the nations that supply the bulk of peacekeeping troops.

I personally believe that; Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany & the United States only got to be on the Security Council because they were the prime victors of World War II, the same goes with the League of Nations. Taiwan joined the Security Council in 1949-1954 until the seventies when they realized that Mainland China, Peoples Republic of China was the power to represent Asia on the Security Council.

With the new nations wishing to become permament members of the Security Council and nations that are relatively known military powers that hold greatness. These nations do not hold economical and financial capabilities to make the UN Security Council stronger in action. For Economic embargos as a use of peaceful force in a resolution.

On this subject, I believe the nations should be voted into the Security Council, like the temporary security council for four to five years.

germany was not a victor of WWII

if you look at how much it is compare to their BNP they wouldnt rank as high. The ranking is how much % it amount up to of the total UN budget so of course big countries can donate a higher amount simply due to its large population. If everybody gave as big % share of their BNP we would have taken a step further.

I bet the UN was the role model for Gorge Lucas when he created how the imperial senate should be like

Hahaha. Possibly, possibly. And its true, the nations on the Permanent Security council at the moment, those 5 with the veto power, are only there as they were the victors of WWII, as the UN replaced the defunct League. Certainly there is something to be said for updating it. And from what I see, stablity isn't a main focus, India has the worlds largest population, and is one of the fastest growing economies, and has nuclear capabilities, and as such it believes it deserves a stronger voice. Which is perhaps a good point, especially when you look at the Council and see that it is primarily westernised, there is no Middle or Near Eastern voice, Asia (the economic giant of this era) is only slightly represented, and there is nothing from Africa.

so when do we get rid of it then

When the UN gets an annoying member called Jar Jar?

yeah

they have that in the Swedish representative

Is this discussion based on who should pay more money into the UN or who should actually be allowed to join? It's been hard to follow so far

a bit of both I think. Swedens should pay Norways share

And what Finti says goes, right?

swedish? I thought the french were always the mocking stock

right

havent started yet

oh they still are...

and i don't see that changing anytime in the near future...

I sense a certain sympathy here.......?

On another level. The United Nations hasn't done anything correctly over the Darfur issue. Instead of causing economic sanctions or whatever they are doing against Ethiopia. It is not working. This is a place where they should make a resolution to enter with force and make peace and protect the people from hostilities since their government has failed to do so.

Argh, I absolutely hate when people say that force should be used in order to make peace. Do you seriously see that having the desired effect? Where, exactly has that method worked thus far?

The UN is a power game, an attempt to establish a world order that would be fair to everyone!!! But the rules of the game in the recent decade hav violated and broken thats why it looks like joke.
Expanding the permanent members is a good initiative, but only if the rules of play are respect otherwise there will be no effect. And one of the rules says that no arm conflict or no strike will be materialized unless its endorsed by the Security council! The last events violated this rule! So coming to the original topics, if the rules of the UN are not respected we don't need such a farse! Maybe we should have another international body that would show the true face of the leading counties in the world, something that would reflect who pulls the strems in the world. Because like this, some economic forces, hiden behind their governments are trying to full the rest of the world, that at least in UN everyone is equal and that their economically motivated moves are for the well being of the international peace!

a famouse philosopher/writer once said: "Would you agree to build a temple of Love if ints groun a life child is burried?"

So its the same with the curent situation, you can not cause a war on behalf of the peace... simply those two state of minds, or situations don't go together

in other words: just get rid of the UN already and keep laughing at the french