UN Security Council

[jimbogumbo]

There is some talk of restructuring the SC. Arguments for include reshaping it to better reflect the current world (as opposed to the 1945 state of things) or simply tossing out Russia. If it were to be reshaped which countries  should be in the SC?

[Sun_Worshiper]

First thing to say is that a reshaping of the SC is unlikely. China could veto any effort to toss out Russia(as could Russia itself, maybe) and would block India from joining, France wouldn't want Germany, UK would not want EU to have a seat, etc. And when we talk about restructuring, we are really talking about permanent members, as other countries are always members on a non-permanent, rotating basis.

All that said, the SC is out of date given global power dynamics. A more balanced and modern approach would give every continent representation, make India a permanent member, and give France's seat to the EU.

There is also a case for eliminating all permanent membership and veto power, but that's another matter.

[jimbogumbo]

Yeah, I don't think it would happen, but if it did...

The proposal of the EU and India along with the US and China makes sense to me, and would have 4 of the top five economies on. Japan would make 5 of 5. I like that, because economic clout is currently not in the mix enough for the way the world operates now, IMHO.

[Parasaurolophus]

I would like to see it restructured. As is, it's a big obstacle to worldwide accountability.

The trouble wth kicking out Russia, to my mind, is that the reasons--while perfectly legitimate--all apply equally well to the case for kicking out the US.

[jimbogumbo]

There are tons that legitimately should be kicked out. I'd personally vote for the Saudis. But, no one else with lots of resources in the developed world (to my knowledge) has blatantly grabbed a neighboring country's territory with force since the Geneva Convention, let alone threatened to use nuclear weapons to back it up.

Anyway, for my thought exercise I was looking at who really holds the non-military resources. I don't like the veto power for anyone.

[mahagonny]

What would happen if Texas decided to secede?

[jimbogumbo]

What would happen if Texas decided to secede?

If you are talking about Texas's economy it wouldn't effect the US ranking-still the largest by quite a bit. The biggest state economy is California's, and if it left it still wouldn't change the ranking.

[Sun_Worshiper]

What would happen if Texas decided to secede?

If you are talking about Texas's economy it wouldn't effect the US ranking-still the largest by quite a bit. The biggest state economy is California's, and if it left it still wouldn't change the ranking.

And none of that matters for UNSC membership anyway.

[jimbogumbo]

I know. I would prefer that economy be a factor, because I think it's an important point re global security.

[Parasaurolophus]

There are tons that legitimately should be kicked out. I'd personally vote for the Saudis. But, no one else with lots of resources in the developed world (to my knowledge) has blatantly grabbed a neighboring country's territory with force since the Geneva Convention, let alone threatened to use nuclear weapons to back it up.

Anyway, for my thought exercise I was looking at who really holds the non-military resources. I don't like the veto power for anyone.

I don't think the first part of that is at all right, and I worry that it moves the goalposts in a bad direction, but I also don't need to duke it out with you over it.

I'm actually replying because I agree very strongly with your last sentence--the existence of the veto really seems to undermine the institution's ability to do much of anything useful, especially because it's precisely the permanent members of the SC which should be coming in for the most censure, most of the time. I guess that's probably mostly by design, but... well, shrug. I'd be curious to learn about the historical rationale--I assume it's just that it was more or less the only way to get the big powers to agree to participate. Or does it serve any other substantive purpose?

(I probably learned this in high school, but I've since forgotten. And I confess that I don't have the energy to wade through whatever the Internet has to say about it.)

[marshwiggle]

There are tons that legitimately should be kicked out. I'd personally vote for the Saudis. But, no one else with lots of resources in the developed world (to my knowledge) has blatantly grabbed a neighboring country's territory with force since the Geneva Convention, let alone threatened to use nuclear weapons to back it up.

Anyway, for my thought exercise I was looking at who really holds the non-military resources. I don't like the veto power for anyone.

I don't think the first part of that is at all right, and I worry that it moves the goalposts in a bad direction, but I also don't need to duke it out with you over it.

I'm actually replying because I agree very strongly with your last sentence--the existence of the veto really seems to undermine the institution's ability to do much of anything useful, especially because it's precisely the permanent members of the SC which should be coming in for the most censure, most of the time. I guess that's probably mostly by design, but... well, shrug. I'd be curious to learn about the historical rationale--I assume it's just that it was more or less the only way to get the big powers to agree to participate. Or does it serve any other substantive purpose?

(I probably learned this in high school, but I've since forgotten. And I confess that I don't have the energy to wade through whatever the Internet has to say about it.)

Given recent (an historical) actions of big powers, they can (and will) clearly do what they want regardless of what others think. Having them at least nominally as part of a bigger consensus is still better than having them totally outside. At least being "inside" they have to provide some sort of rationale for their actions. (For instance, see how China didn't endorse Russia's annexation of Ukraine because of how "territorial integrity" fits their "one China" policy.) Even the big powers would rather have approval than not.

[jimbogumbo]

Para, you need never duke it out with me on anything. I don't have any ego involved when I haven't really done research on something. I just appreciate your perspective.