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.....
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 14th, 2004 09:14 PM
