What's new

Recommendation for NEW UNSC:

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think a region-wise more or less considering the population would be good. e.g.

North America: USA
South America: Brazil
EU: Germany and France (Economic Block so 2 representations)
Africa: South Africa
Eurossia: Russia (bridge between Europe and Asia)
Asia Pacific: China , India , Indonesia, Japan (Population+Economic+Religion block thats why 4 representations)
 
.
I donno wat you guys discussing.

If you all think that any of the current P5 countries will ever relinquish their UNSC seats then it is absurd and that will never happen. So the only way to move forward is to expand it.

India, Indonesia, Germany, Japan, Brazil, SA are all strong contenders in their own ways.

I don't think Indonesia has any chance~India, Germany, Japan, Brazil, SA can if they give up the Veto power~~
 
.
Indonesia wouldn't have a chance considering it's history.

Australia would b ea good option.
 
. .
I donno wat you guys discussing.

If you all think that any of the current P5 countries will ever relinquish their UNSC seats then it is absurd and that will never happen. So the only way to move forward is to expand it.

India, Indonesia, Germany, Japan, Brazil, SA are all strong contenders in their own ways.

Japan and Indonesia are never getting seats as long as China sits on the P5. India and Germany are the best candidates. Brazil and SA have far too many internal problems and far too weak militaries to compete.
 
.
my opinion:

permanent member:
1-USA
2-UNITED KINGDOM
3-CHINA
4-RUSSIA
5-INDIA
6-____________

France need not to be as permanent member because UK is here to represent European union. and now india is one of the four largest economy of the world so that india should be one of the permanent member of UNSC. But i think there should be one muslim country in UNSC for making the balance.
 
.
Indonesia wouldn't have a chance considering it's history.

Australia would b ea good option.

not need australia as a permanent member of UNSC because EU,USA and Australia all come in same category.
 
.
I believe the criteria shouldn't be having a big military or a big economy, in fact the people who need representation most is the one who have been neglected namely countries in "Africa & Asia" the only problem here is they would be easily influenced by other powers
 
.
1. Somalia
2. Sudan
3.congo
4. Afghanistan
5.zimbabwe
complete reform of unsc
 
. .
1. USA - Only Super Power and capable of influencing most of the Nations in the world
2. RUSSIA - one of the world's strongest energy power and the second best military power (if you are not counting any alliance like NATO). Still have some influence around the world, especially with India and ME
3. China - A Great Power (in future there will not be any Nation with so called "Super Power" status). It has one of the most powerful Economy and Military, also increasing it's influence around the world by each day.
4. Germany - For it's Economy, Military & Political Power in EU.
5. India - Future Great power. Maintains one of the powerful Military and has a fast growing Economy. Going to be most populous Nation in the world and also one of the most diversed Nation in terms of race and religion
6. Brazil - Future Great power. It's has one of the worlds fastest growing economy and relatively has a good diplomatic relation with pretty much every Nation in the world
7. South Africa - A Good Economy and the most stabilised & powerful Nation in African Continent
8. Pakistan - Except the last 1 or 2 decades, the country has done very well with it's Economy. The only Islamic Nation to posses a Nuke and has one of the most powerful Military. With proper governance, it can certainly return to it's hey days.
9. UK - You can't write them off, they are still one of the strongest Military and economy power. They carry a lot of influence in EU.
10. France - As I said for UK

Also we should also revisit the Veto power given to all the permanent UNSC, as one Nation cannot decide the fate of our planet.
 
Last edited:
.
One of the important criteria could be a country's donor contributions to UN and other UN affiliated organizations. As well as their armed forces performing operations under the UN mandate.
That indirectly relates to economy and military power but not all countries contribute according to their capacity.

Also UNSC permanant members might be charged a fixed 0.5% of their GDP that has to be provided for UN budget regardless of other member contributions
 
.
My recommendation is abolish the security council let the general assembly of all nation be the decision maker for the world
 
.
One of the important criteria could be a country's donor contributions to UN and other UN affiliated organizations. As well as their armed forces performing operations under the UN mandate.
That indirectly relates to economy and military power but not all countries contribute according to their capacity.

Also UNSC permanant members might be charged a fixed 0.5% of their GDP that has to be provided for UN budget regardless of other member contributions

0.5%!!!! do you even know how much that is?!?!?!??!
from the us alone it be like ~60 billion then china would give ~25 billion france/uk gives ~14 billion each, russia would have to give ~8.5 billion

thats about 111.5 billion per year from just the p5 and currently the UN runs on only about 2 billions a year total. no government will agree to give 0.5 percent of GDP to the UN cause they dont get enough in return
thats about
 
.
No way India can be given a permanent seat with veto powers. India has many resolutions against it pending at the UN, with veto powers it can simply ignore all the resolutions. Either they resolve these issues, or forfeit their claim to veto powers.

Quite frankly the UNSC is nothing but a superiority club and it should be dissolved. Why should there be veto powers when we have voting power.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom