New UNSC ?

[KRAIT]

yes you right, I just remember the possibly 2 from Africa also (South Africa and Nigeria which is a Muslim nation also). I forgot these two

I meant out of current 4 may be 2 will be added.....but your point is right too...I did forgot these 2

 

[Yogi]

and with this list a new thing where maybe 2/3 can veto something or something like that because like this if one vetos it will be too stupid , oh yeah i forgot india now they will start fighting me lol i will add

I liked ur 2/3 veto concept but the big question is why would the P5 agree unanimously(as any of them can veto) on a resolution which will alter their powers n status in geo politlcs to such a great extent

This is the dirty game of geo politics dude n nobody is gonna sacrifice their power, their leverage for a better world order

One more thing i would suggest to replace saudi arabia with South Africa bcoz iran indonesia n turkey r sufficient to represent muslim world but south africa is must for african representation in new world order

 

[Icewolf]

I think UNSC should go to nuclear powers... They decide the fate of the world

 

[Hello_10]

I meant out of current 4 may be 2 will be added.....but your point is right too...I did forgot these 2

i get your point. yes its also argued that first India and Brazil may be added and then we may add the others next. it may be either 6 at a time or first 2, then 2, then 1 and 1, something like this, still being discussed.......

 

[kalu_miah]

If we use kalu_miah's world order then we have the following regions and there should be one country representing each region (they can rotate and choose a different country after some limited term), unless they already have a functioning regional union where foreign policy has been centralized (EU?):

North America: USA
UNASUR: Brazil, Mexico
African Union: South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt
EU: EU, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain
GCC+: Turkey, Saudi Arabia
Eurasia+: Russia, Iran, Pakistan
India: India
China+Taiwan: China
ASEAN: Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines
East Asia: Japan, South Korea

No veto power for anyone, majority vote rules, if there is a tie 5-5, then we have a stalemate, nothing can be done about it, till someone changes mind.

 

[KRAIT]

i get your point. yes its also argued that first India and Brazil may be added and then we may add the others next. it may be either 6 at a time or first 2, then 2, then 1 and 1, something like this, still being discussed.......

Seems about right....more practical and logical way...

 

[faithfulguy]

The UNSC is not going to add, remove or change any of the rules in the next 10-20 years. For that to happen, a nation that is not a UNSC permanent member must emerge to make UNSC obsolete. No such country exists now or in the foreseeable future. So all these plans and suggestions in this thread will have no chance of becoming a reality.

 

[xuxu1457]

too many member only make the UN be a vegetable market, and can't make any resolution, Non-permanent members can re-election is ok

 

[Hello_10]

there are few things which I have said on PDF many times but there are always new people who raise the same question and then get confused with few basic things........

first, if you want to measure 'strength' of an economy, not its power to import, then you need its PPP value which adjust exchange rate. here we find GDP of India was $4.45tn in 2011 but its still manipulated by the US/UK since 2006. as, till 2005, we had a different way of measuring GDP on PPP which used to include 'estimated' 'undocumented' part of GDP also. and I remember, this way GDP of high population 'developing' countries was around 60% to 70% higher, of the country like Brazil/Turkey it was around 10% higher. and for the developed nations, the difference was hardly around 1% to 3%. like as below:

for 2005, India's GDP at PPP is estimated at $ 5.16 trillion or $ 3.19 trillion depending on whether the old or new conversion factor is used

It's official: India's a trillion-$ economy - Times Of India

means, GDP of India on PPP was already $5.16tn in 2005 and since then India registered around 9% growth on average for 2006, 2007, 2008 and then around 8% on average in 2009, 2010, 2010 period. (these British SHiiiTs were mainly behind all these manipulating of India's datas, I personally know this.........)

this way, if GDP of India was $4.45tn in 2011 by new method then it would be around $7.5tn on PPP by 2011 if we consider the old method which was in application till 2005

also, its true that population of India is 1.2bil but 850mil people might have hardly $2.0tn share in it, leaving around $5.3tn for rest of 350mil Middle Class with per capita income of around $17,000 on PPP which is close to Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland etc. hence you may say, India has 850mil people with per capita income around $2,500 and rest 350mil population with $17,000 on PPP........

when you consider India, you would alway think that even if population of India may become 2.0bil one day, their 350mil middle class is more in number than US also, the so called 'strongest' in your list, with projected growth rate over 7% for next 20 years, the minimum

India GDP Annual Growth Rate

few more on this topic, here we find, average growth rate of India from first quarter 2006 till december qurater 2011, stood at around 8.6%, on 'annual' basis. hence if we consider even 8.5% annual growth rate of india for the six year time between 2006 to 2011, and considering GDP on PPP of India at $5.16tn in 2005, we may calculate its value by 2011 as below:

GDP on PPP of India by end 2011 = 5.16*1.085*1.085*1.085*1.085*1.085*1.085 = $8.42tn

but we would also get to know that PPP value consider value of goods and serivces in US$ term, means we would include the factor of inflation of United States also. and if we consider average 1.5% inflation of US for those six year, with considering an overall factor of just 1.08 only then also, the GDP on PPP of India comes around = 8.42 * 1.08 = $9.1tn by 2011.

and it still hasn't included Value Added effects also. but we also know that the undocumented part of GDP might not have registered the similar growth as the accurate datas which we consider in New Method, so I would put GDP on PPP of India at least at $8.0tn by 2011.

again, for those who have further interests, we know that share of agriculture was aroud 17% in India's GDP in 2011 therefore, we find share of agriculture in indian economy, 0.17 * 8.0 = $1.36tn, on which 52% population of india is dependent. means around 600mil people based in agriculture in india have per capita income = $2,266.

this way, 8.0 - 1.36 = $6.64tn is left for rest of 600mil people based in industry and service in India, with per capita income of around $11,000 on PPP which is higher than Brazil..........

again, we have news that a third of the population of cities are either in slum or in bit better condition only, so we would consider per capita income of 300mil living in cities in low condition at hardly $2,500 which takes a share of $660bil hence we are then left with around 6.64 - 0.65 = $6.00tn, around, for rest of 300 mil people, the so called Middle Class of India with per capita income around $20,000 on PPP. but it is estimated that agriculture sector also have around 50mil Middle Class whose share is more 'undocumented' as agriculture is also non-taxable business in India. so we find total middle class of India around 350mil with per capita income around $18,000 on PPP.......

 

[Hello_10]

If we use kalu_miah's world order then we have the following regions and there should be one country representing each region (they can rotate and choose a different country after some limited term), unless they already have a functioning regional union where foreign policy has been centralized (EU?):

North America: USA
UNASUR: Brazil, Mexico
African Union: South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt
EU: EU, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain
GCC+: Turkey, Saudi Arabia
Eurasia+: Russia, Iran, Pakistan
India: India
China+Taiwan: China
ASEAN: Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines
East Asia: Japan, South Korea

No veto power for anyone, majority vote rules, if there is a tie 5-5, then we have a stalemate, nothing can be done about it, till someone changes mind.

it is argued that now we find Indonesia to be more deserving than Japan for a permanent seat in UNSC. as by even 2020, bigger Indonesian economy on PPP, with its twice population than Japan with holding a very strategic location, Indonesia will become more deserving nation for a UNSC seat in place of Japan, a Muslim nation also

its mainly the US who is the main enemy of Japan in its efforts for UNSC seat. Japan has been paying around 20% of total UN's expenses for a very long, similar to US, but US/UK always kept Japan out of G4 till early last decade which faded its chances. and when Japan realised that they need a powerful group like G4 for its claim, till then now China has now become very strong to keep Japan out of this context. I find Indonesia to be having stronger claim than Japan if the expansion of UNSC is delayed till 2020........

one more good thing for Turkey's members, that is, it is also argued that Turkey may put the biggest challenge in front of Germany by 2020 itself, for one from EU area for UNSC seat. an emerging economy among E7, a NATO member itself with support from Muslim nations also, Turkey will become as desrving nation for UNSC from EU as Germany by 2020,

 

[KRAIT]

^ If one really wants to give seat based on religion along with other factors, Indonesia is good choice. Agree with you.

 

[Hello_10]

^ If one really wants to give seat based on religion along with other factors, Indonesia is good choice. Agree with you.

its all about fall of OECD economies with growing E7, the 7 largest emerging economies which includes Indonesia and Turkey both. but if we see the liberal status then we find Turkey a better model/ example, for Muslim nations than Indonesia, which I would put on the second spot after Turkey. and by the passage of time, OECD would hardly maintain their economy size, if they dont fall in coming decades, while the E7 would only grow............

but yes its also true that Turkey is also one of those NATO nations who train/arm and fund terrorists like in Syria right now, which Indonesia never did. but its OK as its 'legal' for NATO members to do so

 

[KRAIT]

its all about fall of OECD economies with growing E7, the 7 largest emerging economies which includes Indonesia and Turkey both. but if we see the liberal status then we find Turkey a better model/ example, for Muslim nations than Indonesia, which I would put on the second spot after Turkey. and by the passage of time, OECD would hardly maintain their economy size, if they dont fall in coming decades, while the E7 would only grow............

but yes its also true that Turkey is also one of those nations who train terrorists like in Syria right now, which Indonesia never did. but its OK as NATO members are 'legal' to do so

Indonesia will bring add balance to the UN SC....We have US-UK-France on one side, Russia-China on other, lets add India and Indonesia.

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

Indonesia will bring add balance to the UN SC....We have US-UK-France on one side, Russia-China on other, lets add India and Indonesia.

US-UK-france has represented India. India can follow their decisions. Brazil should be added

 

[kalu_miah]

it is argued that now we find Indonesia to be more deserving than Japan for a permanent seat in UNSC. as by even 2020, bigger Indonesian economy on PPP, with its twice population than Japan with holding a very strategic location, Indonesia will become more deserving nation for a UNSC seat, a Muslim nation also

its mainly the US who is the main enemy of Japan in its efforts for UNSC seat. Japan has been paying around 20% of total UN's expenses for a very long, similar to US, but US/UK always kept Japan out of G4 till early last decade which faded its chances. and when Japan realised that they need a powerful group like G4 for its claim, till then now China has now become very strong to keep Japan out of this context. I find Indonesia to be having stronger claim than Japan if the expansion of UNSC is delayed till 2020........

one more good thing for Turkey's members, that is, it is also argued that Turkey may put the biggest challenge in front of Germany by 2020 itself, for one from EU area for UNSC seat. an emerging economy among E7, a NATO member itself with support from Muslim nations also, Turkey will become as desrving nation for UNSC from EU as Germany by 2020,

Indonesia as the biggest ASEAN state and representing ASEAN should get a shot.

About Japan, it is an enigma, the two nukes must have broken that nations spirit and it still has not recovered. All of ASEAN, including some of us here in South Asia wait for Japan to become active and take up a leadership role in this region, may be form a ASEAN+. If it wants to go ahead, no one can stop it. But it is still sleep walking. Till it can solve its own leadership problems, it will remain marginalized. As Imperial Japan it did great, but now its leadership in Asia is zero. Germany has EU to its credit, what does Japan have?

Turkey may have a shot, I am not so sure. If it can work with Saudi Arabia to create an integrated greater GCC area, like GCC+, and also help Russia to create a Eurasia+, and if Russia refuses, bring Iran, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the 5 Central Asian stans later in a union with GCC+, then Turkey will have a good shot, now its a little too early I think.

There are a lot of countries with leadership potentials, but they need to take right steps to achieve their own economic growth leveraging their regions integration and growth, just like Germany did in EU (avoiding the common currency fiasco), which will increase their economy's size as well as their international or global clout.

Empires are always being built, broken and slipping away, 21st century empires will be built by bold nations with regional unions in my opinion.