Should new perm members be added to the UN security council?
SwordFish_13
Active member
Hi,
Not Just Chinese Friends here ..............But chinese Government Too has Supporting and Backing india's Candidature
:shock: Really ...........i didn't knew that
Seriously though India-China Don't have any real differences .......their Borders have always been peacful.........and lately China has Given Up Claims to it's terrotory in north-eastern India have strenthened the ties...............i don't know why there should he a hatered among the two neighbours..................is there any reason i don't know that we should hate each other :?: :lol:
Peace
-=SF_13=-
Not Just Chinese Friends here ..............But chinese Government Too has Supporting and Backing india's Candidature
:shock: Really ...........i didn't knew that
Seriously though India-China Don't have any real differences .......their Borders have always been peacful.........and lately China has Given Up Claims to it's terrotory in north-eastern India have strenthened the ties...............i don't know why there should he a hatered among the two neighbours..................is there any reason i don't know that we should hate each other :?: :lol:
Peace
-=SF_13=-
FlyingFrog
Active member
Of course no need for India and China to hate each other. Why should we.
In such long history, China and India had only one short border conflict. We should look forward.
Btw, our Buddha comes from India too
In such long history, China and India had only one short border conflict. We should look forward.
Btw, our Buddha comes from India too
peronally i think china shouldnot claim the land in southern tibet...
since tibet is not ours in the first place
but it is no harm to get more lands right..anyway
the current permanent member system is a bit obsolete, and not fair, doesn't truly represent the voice of differnent nations
we should have maybe 2 nations in each continent to be pernemnt members ,BUT the new members should not have veto power,
if they do, UN security meeting will be a mass PPL blocking each other on everything
since tibet is not ours in the first place
but it is no harm to get more lands right..anyway
the current permanent member system is a bit obsolete, and not fair, doesn't truly represent the voice of differnent nations
we should have maybe 2 nations in each continent to be pernemnt members ,BUT the new members should not have veto power,
if they do, UN security meeting will be a mass PPL blocking each other on everything
well, i have to say first that german military is one the best in the world, it doesn't take pretty long for german to become top few military power once there is no restrictions for German military
the problem is that some ppl still feel unsecure about letting German ppl have weapons.
but let me note one thing, if whole Europe can come together, and form a single voice, this Gernamny issue will not exsit and becomes a problem
the problem is that some ppl still feel unsecure about letting German ppl have weapons.
but let me note one thing, if whole Europe can come together, and form a single voice, this Gernamny issue will not exsit and becomes a problem
Chocobo_Blitzer
Active member
I don't see any reason to add Germany? Not one..?
What FlyingFrog said some posts above is true it shouldn't represnt only developed countries it should be a mixture of developed countries and developing countries
USA,Germany,U.K.,France on one side and Russia,China,India on the other would be balanced.
Add Japan and Brazil to either sides to balance out :lol:
USA,Germany,U.K.,France on one side and Russia,China,India on the other would be balanced.
Add Japan and Brazil to either sides to balance out :lol:
Not granting the new countries veto power is like inviting someone to dinner without any food.
It will be the same scenario again as earlier if these new countries aren't given the veto power.Instead don't revamp it at all.
It will be the same scenario again as earlier if these new countries aren't given the veto power.Instead don't revamp it at all.
I was talking about FlyingFrog's post , scroll up on the second pagePLABuddy said:
Take India, India is a democracy, a non-aggressive nation...
same applies to Brazil or Japan, Germany ...there's no way the veto power could be used in a wrong way unless you give it to North Korea.
Its like this if the UN wants to revamp the UNSC really then they know the veto power should be with all perm. members, otherwise it will only be a superficial revamp.
same applies to Brazil or Japan, Germany ...there's no way the veto power could be used in a wrong way unless you give it to North Korea.
Its like this if the UN wants to revamp the UNSC really then they know the veto power should be with all perm. members, otherwise it will only be a superficial revamp.
Seems like a lot of the objections against the main candidates (Japan,Germany,India,Brazil) are pretty emotional. E.g. Italy's objection against a german seat is just a defiant reaction to the situation in european politics where France,UK and Germany make the decisions and Italy takes a back seat. (more or less)
Given the facts that new permanent members will be admitted and that Italy will most likely not be one of them, I dont see how the admission of any other candidate instead of Germany would serve Italy better.
The situation with Mexico/Argentina vs. Brazil and S.Korea vs. Japan seems pretty much the same. (Although there's also the issue of the Japan not admitting war crimes in Korea, etc.)
Also, I dont see why one of the new permanent members should necesarily be African. I mean, the main job of the UNSC should be to prevent and solve crisis. So candidates aptitude should be determined by stableness, intl reputation and influence, ability to react to crisis, willingness to use those abilities, etc.
Nigeria for example lacks most of those. Their only plus is their military and their commitment to peacekeeping missions in the region. But internally they have lots of problems, in half of the country sharia courts form the legislature, intl reputation and economic power are mediocre at best. S.Africa seems a little better overall, but they support the Mugabe regime, their military is rather small, GDP/capita ist below 3000$, not much on the pro side.
Judging from these facts, even smaller western countries like Switzerland would be better suited for a permanent seat. (Though Switzerland probably wouldn't accept due to neutrality reasons)
Given the facts that new permanent members will be admitted and that Italy will most likely not be one of them, I dont see how the admission of any other candidate instead of Germany would serve Italy better.
The situation with Mexico/Argentina vs. Brazil and S.Korea vs. Japan seems pretty much the same. (Although there's also the issue of the Japan not admitting war crimes in Korea, etc.)
Also, I dont see why one of the new permanent members should necesarily be African. I mean, the main job of the UNSC should be to prevent and solve crisis. So candidates aptitude should be determined by stableness, intl reputation and influence, ability to react to crisis, willingness to use those abilities, etc.
Nigeria for example lacks most of those. Their only plus is their military and their commitment to peacekeeping missions in the region. But internally they have lots of problems, in half of the country sharia courts form the legislature, intl reputation and economic power are mediocre at best. S.Africa seems a little better overall, but they support the Mugabe regime, their military is rather small, GDP/capita ist below 3000$, not much on the pro side.
Judging from these facts, even smaller western countries like Switzerland would be better suited for a permanent seat. (Though Switzerland probably wouldn't accept due to neutrality reasons)
france should be removed, and replaced by EU.
India should be included to balance things between the 5 current members.
germany, as above, part of EU voice. i mean if france and germany are so keep on EU economically, they should be keep on it haveing one voice in UN too... cant have things both ways IMO.
brasil? i see no benefit from including brasil.
Japan? i think it should be given a seat, but only if it takes steps to achnowlege what happened in WW2... some kind of talks with countries like Korea where cjapan can help itself but more korea to repair relations.
India should be included to balance things between the 5 current members.
germany, as above, part of EU voice. i mean if france and germany are so keep on EU economically, they should be keep on it haveing one voice in UN too... cant have things both ways IMO.
brasil? i see no benefit from including brasil.
Japan? i think it should be given a seat, but only if it takes steps to achnowlege what happened in WW2... some kind of talks with countries like Korea where cjapan can help itself but more korea to repair relations.