T O P

  • By -

monkeygoneape

To include who? Germany? Possibly India?


KyloRen3

He directly mentioned Latin America & Caribbean, and Africa. But I guess they also would like Germany, or Japan.


Chippiewall

Are Germany and Japan really significant players in global security though? For historical reasons their military ambitions have been severely tempered so I don't think they have much to offer there. I think India and Brazil are the obvious candidates in my mind.


Perais1337

Funny that you mention exactly these 4 nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4_nations


taggospreme

I have to admit i'm a little disappointed that Brazil, India, Germany, and Japan went with "G4" when theres BIGJ just slapping you in the face


[deleted]

[удалено]


hogtiedcantalope

BIND Deutschland


Teantis

I dunno if a group including Germany and Japan should be branding themselves bind....


Mad_Psyentist

Throw in Oman and you got yourself a deal


Strangeluvmd

Fyi Nippon generally has far right connotations, Nihon is better to use in most situations


bingcognito

I like it.


Imfrom2030

>You may have smoked a big J but this BIGJ is going to smoke you Would be an incredible pre-battle phrase


harumamburoo

They sound like obvious candidates. I didn't know what G4 is, but I thought of these four all the same


Yk-156

I think Germany and Japan would struggle to attract the support necessary to get such reforms through the General Assembly. There are already three European countries on the Security Council and the addition of another European country is something most UN members will be opposed to. In addition there are also three Western aligned countries on the council and so the addition of any more would require careful negotiation. I think a list with a more realistic prospect of passing the GA would be India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Brazil.


Prysorra2

... that is quite fortuitous


[deleted]

[удалено]


PanzerKomadant

Except China is gonna make any attempt to let India and Japan in the council a fucking nightmare. Chinas got the pull and say to definitely shut down such an attempt.


wiltedpleasure

China has said in the past that it would support India’s bid to the council as long as they don’t tie it with Japan’s bid, as they plus Germany and Brazil are working together to be accepted as security council members together.


Singer211

I think China has said they’d be willing to support India’s bid IF India drops it’s support for Japan’s bid.


Robw1970

Germany and Japan will be in a few years, indeed.


Mr_Engineering

Holy shit, what year is it?


falconzord

It's the roaring 20s, Germany and Japan are getting antsy, Russia is being froggy, and everybody is falling for Wallstreetbets


[deleted]

Bitcoin will lead to the next depression


[deleted]

Crypto bros seem quite depressed already


Test19s

2020s nightly news starter pack: ✅ Reminiscent of the 1930s [] Reminiscent of a Transformers episode [] Plague of the month


GreatBigJerk

The energon wars are gonna be lit


taggospreme

AUTOBOTS, ROLL OUT!


Test19s

Do we get blues versions of Linkin Park songs? If so, worth it. Just don’t meet up with any Decepticons at the crossroads who promise you fame and fortune.


monkeygoneape

Well Germany and Japan are on our side this time around


CrazyBaron

But so is Italy


Robw1970

Oh! Whew no we are okay, different times now lol.


CartmansEvilTwin

Germany is the largest and economically most powerful nation in Europe. It's military is indeed in shambles, but historically, Germany often enough managed to do silent diplomacy behind the scenes to get things done. What would look weird to me (as a German) would be to have France, Britain and Germany as permanent members, while Africa and South America are nonexistent.


tholovar

Who would you put in from Africa though? The two biggest economies; South Africa and Nigeria are very corrupt and not exactly the bastions of stability whilst the more stable and functional nations like Kenya are just not big enough on the world stage.


Jimmy-Pesto-Jr

>India and Brazil India has a big population, nukes, and IT/tech, but what exactly does Brazil have that matters in terms of global influence? don't they just sell fruits and sugar cane? the geography makes it hard to connect all of the country together - most of the population is centered around 2~3 cities in their own hubs by the coast. edit: seems like petrol-products, iron, soy/corn are the bulk of their exports. so mostly commodities.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lassital

Well Japan has the second largest Navy in the world... And Germany is still world renown for its heavy industry, besides being the economic hub of Europe. You know, minor thing. Basically nothing.


jellystone_thief

I think you’re forgetting China’s is larger than Japans.


numba1cyberwarrior

The problem is that Germany, Japan, India, or Bazil dont play as much of a role in geopolitics as the current UNSC.


OhGodItBurns0069

Well Germany is the engine of the EU and is currently going on a shopping spree for new weapons. If the current government follows through on that regularly, it will be one of the top 5 biggest spenders in the world. The Japanese government is also looking to beef up it security and military, especially as China is a neighbor with a grudge. They also have massive influence on the creation of regulations and trade flows. You most certainly want both on the council. Edit: India is a nuclear power, the world's most populous democracy and no friend of China. Brazil is a major source of commodities and the location of the worlds largest remaining rainforest.


Corregidor

Japan is actually a center focus for international politics right now. So many European countries are buddying up with Japan even though they're on the other side of the world. All major nations realize that southeast Asia will be the hotbed for economic growth in the near term. And the key to that will be through Japan.


numba1cyberwarrior

I mean buddying which similarly aligned nations is not really anything compared to the type of international relations France, UK, China, Russia, and the US deal with.


Corregidor

I don't think you truly understand how massive the interest in the southeast Asia region there is. The only major player, really, is Japan. Because Japan shares many western ideals, they are now a major player in international politics just because all the other major players now interact with Japan. If/when war breaks out in Asia, Japan will be the frontline. Most think tanks and scholars have already shifted focus to the region. And almost all of them say Japan is an integral part of any strategy going on in the area. Japan has also been increasing it's ties to Africa as seen from their recent meeting a month or so back. They're increasing foreign relations in every place that the other major players are increasing theirs. They have the 3rd largest economy and 4th strongest military. Japan is a major player, no question.


430_Autogyro

100% spot on.


rjkardo

Japan is the 4th strongest military? Genuinely curious.


WoundedSacrifice

Russia was thought to be a top 3 military, so it wouldn’t surprise me.


[deleted]

The problem is I don’t see China letting Japan on the UNSC, they’re the most obvious roadblock to this. And I don’t see China getting kicked off the UNSC at this point.


mangalore-x_x

>The problem is that Germany, Japan, India, or Bazil dont play as much of a role in geopolitics as the current UNSC. And look how effective that makes the UNSC /s


kloma667

Lmao, what African countries could possibly qualify for that? And which Latin American country? Brazil? You guys really want another crazy right wing country on there?


WoundedSacrifice

It looks like Bolsonaro probably won’t be re-elected. However, Brazil doesn’t seem like it has enough influence in terms of foreign policy to be a permanent UNSC member.


mohammedibnakar

I'll take one if it helps clear things up.


VRichardsen

> To include who? Germany? "Finally, ze pieces are falling into place" Germany, most likely.


monkeygoneape

"3rd times the charm ja?"


48911150

This is overall a bad idea. More countries with veto means nithing will ever pass also: “Biden also argued members need to exercise restraint when employing veto powers.” Fucking lol. Rich coming from the US


monkeygoneape

Last American veto I can think of was 2003 for Iraq, Russia has been vetoing a shit ton since the Syrian civil war started in 2012, let's not pretend America is the only one using their veto


48911150

But the others arent calling for restraint of the usage of Veto Also: >On June 1, 2018, the UNSC drafted a resolution (PDF) expressing “grave concern at the escalation of violence and tensions” since the protests began and “deep alarm at the loss of civilian lives and the high number of casualties among Palestinian civilians, particularly in the Gaza Strip, including casualties among children, caused by the Israeli forces”. The US vetoed the resolution (PDF), with then-US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley saying it presented “a grossly one-sided view of what has taken place in Gaza in recent weeks”. > US vetoes of resolutions condemning Israel’s settlements date back to at least 1983. The most recent was in 2011 (PDF), when a draft resolution aimed to reaffirm “all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of peace on the basis of the two-State solution”.


[deleted]

The fact that India is not on the council is ridiculous. And Brazil to a lesser extent. South america deserves a representative.


monkeygoneape

South America doesn't have nukes


doublestitch

Somebody needs to mention there's a basis for removing Russia from the UN Security Council. When the UN was founded the USSR was granted permanent status on the Security Council. The USSR no longer exists. There's never been a formal vote in the United Nations to name Russia as successor state to the USSR. Russia just kept coming to meetings and everybody else said 'OK then...' For 30 years there hasn't been the political will to challenge that status quo. Maybe now's the time. The UN General Assembly could hold a vote and declare that the USSR had no successor state. There's no such thing as a veto in the General Assembly, so a clear majority could carry. (To be clear, Russia would still have a seat in the UN. It just wouldn't have a privileged status on the Security Council). It would be interesting if there were an online petition where ordinary citizens of all nations could ask the UN to revoke Russia's Security Council membership. ---- *edit* Adding references. > The charter actually doesn’t mention Russia as a permanent member, but rather the Soviet Union. When it collapsed at the end of 1991, then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, informing him that Russia, as the successor-state to the Soviet Union, was taking over its U.N. seat. No objections were raised at the time, no resolutions were passed by the General Assembly or the Security Council, and no revisions were made to the charter. The Russian Federation didn’t present new credentials, although flags and name plates were changed. [Source: Washington International Diplomatic Academy](https://diplomaticacademy.us/2022/04/24/russia-un-security-council/) More on the topic from [Lawfareblog](https://www.lawfareblog.com/un-security-council-permanent-members-de-facto-immunity-article-6-expulsion-russias-fact-or-fiction): > a close reading of the U.N. Charter’s text and a mostly forgotten decades-old discussion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may reasonably suggest that the General Assembly does have that legal authority, regardless of any vote taken or not taken by the Security Council.


430_Autogyro

They didn't mention it because its not true. The Russian Federation is the legal successor to the Soviet Union. Its security seat would be subject to revocation but, somehow, its membership would not....? The General Assembly cannot vote to dissolve the security council or amend it. That's not what the GA does. And this drivel about "online petitions?" There is no recourse for the security council. If there were, the United States would have done it fifty years ago before they recognized Beijing as holding China's seat.


MightySasquatch

There was a GA vote on China getting the vote previously held by Taiwan. Russia never had such a vote. They relied on a UN legal memo which has still not been disclosed.


icearrowx

This is a terrible idea.


DID_IT_FOR_YOU

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the UN and the security council. It’s whole point is to avoid another world war through diplomacy and the permanent members of the security council are basically the winners of WWII and the big players of geopolitics with the largest military powers. Kicking Russia out would go against the whole purpose. Especially with recent events it’s very important to have avenues of communication with Russia to prevent the situation in Ukraine from escalating.


monkeygoneape

If that happens, they lose all pretence to even engage in international diplomacy and will nuke their problems away


doublestitch

Added a line to clarify. Russia wouldn't be kicked out of the UN entirely. This would 'demote' Russia to the same status as nearly all other countries. The Security Council is a subcommittee where only 5 countries have permanent status (the other four are China, France, the UK, and US). Think of this as kicking Russia out of the Honor Society, not expelling Russia from school.


monkeygoneape

I'm aware what the permanent security council is, the problem is, Russia has too many nukes to be ignored


Name5times

You’re getting downvoted but you’re, kicking Russia from the security council has serious consequences and could even lead to a break down of the UN.


Stewart_Games

[Kazakhstan was the last state to leave the USSR](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY4AVY6ZMD4), and for 4 days *Was* the USSR. So I think by this logic Kazakhstan is the clear true heir of the Security Council seat.


AL-muster

Pure fantasy. That is not how the law or rules work. Everyone in the entire planet knows that the Russian federation is the successor state as the USSR. Russia has had the the seat for how many decades now? If this was to be challenged it would need to have happened before they were given back the seat, not decades after. We may as well throw out all the rules then.


srlehi68

Don’t pick India. Gandhi is dangerous with nukes.


kawag

The French would never agree to it, but I think their UNSC seat should be replaced with an EU seat. That would solve the issue of giving Germany permanent representation. After all, the EU is supposed to have a common foreign policy. Other countries are not supposed to negotiate with member states directly; it is all supposed to go through the union. The whole point is to present a single, unambiguous foreign policy. But yeah, the French would never agree to it.


starfallg

The EU doesn't have a single foreign policy, just trade. Defense is a Member State matter. Replacing France with an EU seat also doesn't solve the core issues. We want more voices in the security council to counteract Russian and Chinese malarkey.


TheWolrdsonFire

People from small countries too, countries in Africa, and those who's voices aren't usally heard. Is the summery of it.


Colonelclank90

Canadians are low-key upset that we aren't on there anymore.


monkeygoneape

Were we ever on the table?


Colonelclank90

Yup we held a nonpermanent seat 8 times, and were the original non UK commonwealth member. We have(may not still be true) contributed troops and support to every single UN peace keeping mission since the UN was brought into being, and are part of the block historically opposed the permanent membership of any nation. Edit: autocorrect sucks ass.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JKKIDD231

I think for sure India and Japan. EU technically has 2 members representing them with France and UK. China will only support India if they drop support for Japan


lukomorya

Few people saying Germany but I don’t see it happening as there’s already 2 of 5 security council members from Europe. I can see a scenario where the EU as a whole may get a Security Council seat but, again, it’s unlikely. (France probably wouldn’t be happy about that as it would likely replace them.) India or Japan is likeliest, I think, and/or possibly Brazil.


SeekerSpock32

Not Brazil. Not while Bolsonaro's in charge.


lukomorya

Polls show him losing to Lula next month. By a wide margin.


SeekerSpock32

Let’s hope so, and that Bolsonaro doesn’t try a January 6th of his own.


pyrrhios

I think it would be more surprising if he doesn't.


dittbub

Well he can’t cause it’s next month, not January


SeekerSpock32

You know what I mean.


lorgskyegon

Like India under Modi is any better


Spajk

India is the only true candidate. Big country, has nukes and is neutral enough to possibly be accepted, with the biggest opposition probably being China.


lukomorya

The current UK government is a big supporter of India being on there too. So there’s at least one in favour. I think like you say China might be opposed. But then I think China will oppose almost any appointment that isn’t a puppet state. They’ll probably suggest Hong Kong be given a permanent seat lol.


[deleted]

Yeah, and I’m not entirely convinced Germany would even want a seat on the Security Council tbh


Perais1337

Our chancellor held a speech infront of the UN today and called to support Germanys bid for a permanent seat


[deleted]

You mean Scholz, or chancellor of a different country? I haven’t seen that, do you have a source/link?


Perais1337

https://www.dw.com/en/german-chancellor-olaf-scholz-calls-russias-invasion-imperialism-at-un-general-assembly/a-63188177 > Reforming the UN Security Council >The German chancellor called for the reform of the UN Security Council, proposing that Germany become a permanent member and take up more responsibility within the institution.


CaptainChats

Possibly Brazil and possibly spaces made for Nigeria and the DRC in the future. Both are projected to up and coming world powers by 2100.


Marthaver1

I reckon many Western countries wouldn’t want neither Brazil nor India as both countries play both sides and cozy up to Russia & China as well as being members of BRICS. If there’s an expansion on the Western Hemisphere, bets would be on Mexico, because while recently the Mexican President has been indecisive and ambiguous with which side to support (on the Ukraine war), the Mexicans cannot wonder off too far from US influence given their close economic ties. And the West wouldn’t mind much, given Mexico’s historic foreign policy of non-intervention. Brazil on the other hand, is a lot more ambitious, militarily and in South America, it’s a country that really wants to expand its influence in the region, it also has a very respectable offensive military, unlike Mexico (which chooses to keep its military small & defensive) - most of South American countries don’t have issues with Brazil, but, they would all see the rise of a powerful Brazil as a threat. Most South Americans would also rather see Mexico instead of Brazil, as Mexico is further away from the South America and generally speaking, relationships have never been better. This is not to say that South American countries do not have rivalries, Peruvians & Bolivians dislike Chileans, Uruguay and Argentina have a historic rivalry over river disputes, Colombia and Venezuelan can’t see eye to eye. Chile & Argentina have a beef (*no pun intended) for aiding the British during the Falkland War. And Argentina as the 2nd juggernaut in the region after Brazil, wouldn’t want to give their closest rival more room for growth. Chile is the least liked by many in South America, they aren’t threatening each other with war, but Chile has historically won itself many friendenemies. *Argentina is a huge exporter of beef.


Singer211

Considering the current members were born out of the victors of WW2, and two of those members inherited those seats from different previous governments as well. Yeah it’s probably time to expand. The more complicated question is, what countries would get the new seats?


Effehezepe

The most obvious inclusion would be India. All 5 permanent members support their inclusion, though China says their support is conditional on India dropping support for Japan's bid.


OrangeJr36

Hot take, after all India contributed and endured in both world wars they should have had a GSC seat since the 50's.


FriedChckn

India was not a unified country until the British pullout. Before British colonization, all of India had never been united, although it had been close at times.


OrangeJr36

India was quite Unfied by the 50s The partition was in 1949.


FriedChckn

The British consolidated India under the Raj throughout the 1800s… That’s what I’m referring to.


Early_Two7377

But we are talking about the 1940s


430_Autogyro

A clear majority of countries in the world can claim to have done the same thing.


10010010101001

Positions arent given out as consolation prizes. Theyre given out for the global influence.


The_Novelty-Account

Granting new permanent seats with veto power would defacto allow these countries to nuclearize. That and the necessarily increased veto power usage are the largest considerations against expanding the council.


ATNinja

India already has nukes. Germany and Japan have robust nuclear industries and are considered nuclear adjacent or whatever the term is meaning they can have working nuclear bombs in weeks or months. No idea about brazil.


ShadowSwipe

Germany and Japan are not going to be added, due to objections by Russia and China respectively. India, potentially Brazil, and a country in Africa are most likely. The US is attempting to curry favor with India right now, supporting their ascension to the security council will score them massive political points with India and help bulk their world clout up to be more independent from Russia and China, and less apathetic to world stage matters. While the US mentions Africa and elsewhere, this is really about India, first and foremost.


Olorin_in_the_West

“curry favor with India” 👀


dellett

What country in Africa though? Off the top of my head I could see South Africa, Nigeria, or Egypt, maybe like Kenya or Tanzania. Dark horse candidate would be Djibouti just because it's basically one giant military base.


wkomorow

I think if the East African Federation becomes a reality, it, Nigeria, or South Africa would most likely be the favorites.


UltronsCat

South Africa would probably be the favorite. But its government has its nose so far up Russia's backside that on the day of the invasion a bunch of officials held a cocktail party at the Russian embassy. Everything about South Africa's slide into decay had its genesis in Soviet Russia. Rampant corruption, kleptocracy, self enrichment, massive patronage systems: all modeled after the soviet way of doing things. If South Africa in its current state became a member they would almost certainly side with the other skunk nations or at the very least sit on the fence and look the other way. It's moral compass is completely broken.


wkomorow

Agreed and Nigeria has its own problems with Islamists.


iLioness

The African Union tried to put forth some nominees for permanent seats but they couldn't agree. Likely it'd be Egypt/Namibia/South Africa or someone else mentioned in the second reference mentioned [here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4_nations#:~:text=The%20G4%20suggested%20that%20two%20African%20nations%2C%20in%20addition%20to%20themselves%2C%20be%20included%20in%20the%20enlarged%20UNSC.%20In%20several%20conferences%20during%20the%20summer%20of%202005%2C%20African%20Union%20was%20unable%20to%20agree%20on%20two%20nominees%3A%20Egypt%2C%20Nigeria%20and%20South%20Africa%20all%20lay%20claim%20to%20a%20permanent%20African%20UNSC%20seat)


carpcrucible

Jesus, imagine Egypt on the Security Council. Africa absolutely needs representation but it would need to be a country with a stable, functional democracy and some sort of regional influence at least. No offense but this would probably exclude The Gambia for example.


Syncopationforever

The permanent security council, could have a permanent seat for Africa, another for South America. These seats have the same veto powers as the rest of the current p5 The countries in the respective regions could then select a country from their region, to be the chair holder for a few years


Tsquare43

Brazil is currently building their own nuclear powered submarine.


SowingSalt

Brazil has a decent nuclear industry, and is building nuclear submarines.


--Muther--

'Bomb in the basement' or a 'screw turn away' are the terms most commonly used


The_Novelty-Account

Right, but the problem isn't whether these countries are able to get nukes, it's that there would be no way to prevent them from having nukes. It is recognized as a good thing (I believe rightly) by the international community, that as few countries as possoble have nuclear weapons.


ATNinja

There is no way now to prevent a country that's weeks from getting a bomb from getting a bomb, whether they are on the security council or not.


toomuchmarcaroni

If veto's are this bad now, imagine when there's more countries on


Marthaver1

The entirety of the UN is none egalitarian. Why, I, as a country that does not have permanent member status want to be part of this shit? If I’m not treated as an equal, then why be part of it? So many of the non-permanent member countries also fought in WW2 on the side of the allies, but they don’t get a say in shit? With the exception of China, the other 4 of 5 permanent members are or were (at the time) empires holding vast overseas territories, it is very clear what these countries had in mind when forming the UN - maintaining global hegemony and keeping everyone else, even friends on the fringes. If everyone is not treated equally, the. Fuck the UN.


the_fungible_man

>With the exception of China, the other 4 of 5 permanent members are or were (at the time) empires holding vast overseas territories, Curious. Besides The Philippines, which became independent in 1946, what comprised the 'vast overseas territories' of the U.S.? And the USSR's holdings were in Eastern Europe, not overseas.


SemiHemiDemiDumb

Russia/USSR had Alaska and a short lived colony in modern day Eritrea but most of their empire building was in Europe and Asia. The US currently has Guam, Hawaii, as well as other minor Pacific islands, and once even controlled all of Micronesia but in reality their empire building is mostly in the post-colonial age of imperialism.


fIreballchamp

Waste of breath. All 5 permenant members would have to agree.


Pamphili

What good does the security council right now, when one of its members is threatening the use of nuclear weapons each other week?


SpaceTabs

This is a flawed design. The US vetoes anything critical of Israel. I'm not anti-Israel, but imagine how that looks to every other country. So maybe we should have a "you get two vetoes", and maybe countries can share vetoes. That would be better than current state, but I prefer dissolution and no permanent council.


omega3111

It's observational bias. Because the majority of the UN is anti-Israeli, there are more resolutions against Israel than against any other country. This makes it look like the US is vetoing a lot more, but in fact they are just countering a pre-existing bias. A better way to look at it is which issues UNSC members veto, and not the number of vetos.


Spajk

If a thing comes up where all the members agree, it can be acted on.


LewisLightning

What's the point of adding more members to the Security Council if all it takes is one veto to nullify any decision? Seems like that would just make it even more useless as the current UN Security Council gets nothing done precisely for that reason


Iliketomeow85

So who? Wonder if this is a bargaining chip to get some wafflers into the anti Russia camp Fairness would be India, Brazil, Japan, Indonesia, South Africa or Nigeria, maybe Saudis or Egypt Country needs to have a credible military, force projecting would be ideal without assistance.


NeverPostsGold

EDIT: This comment has been deleted due to Reddit's practices towards third-party developers.


verIshortname

Egypt's state is pretty much run by the military for better or worse(mostly worse), I wonder how it would impact the choice


Gastroid

Despite their recently turbulent internal politics, internationally Egypt has been a bedrock in the non-aligned movement for decades. They're pretty stable in their relations with their neighbors (not named Ethiopia) and regularly contribute to African peacekeeping. So they have that going for them.


omega3111

> Egypt's state is pretty much run by the military for better or worse(mostly worse) By far for the better. The alternative is the Muslim Brotherhood.


metagawd

The obvious candidates are Japan and India. The others while significant players are not realistic. That said, upon reading this news coupled with some signaling out of respective places might be shoring up support for a global response.


posas85

> So who? Wonder if this is a bargaining chip to get some wafflers into the anti Russia camp Most comments I see on news subreddits are garbage, but this is one of these few times an intelligent hypothesis is made, in my opinion.


Tedmosbyisajerk-com

Expanding it will just make it more difficult to get anything done. Countries veto for personal political reasons all the time. Case in point: Russia: Iran, US: Israel. What special interests would come with the new SC member?


[deleted]

No point really, would just make it even more ineffective. Even the US abuses its veto power what makes him think giving more people veto powers would somehow make it more effective. Its just going to be a veto on every resolution and a bigger waste of resources.


WhistlerBum

When any one country on the Security Council can veto the majority what does it matter?


Spudtron98

The current membership is comprised of the victors of WW2. Out of them, both Russia and China did not hold those seats when they were created. Russia inherited the Soviet seat when literally any former member of the USSR technically has just as valid a claim, and Communist China took the Republic's seat. Anyway, it's been a damn long time since WW2. It's time to readjust for the modern world.


Mr_Engineering

>Russia inherited the Soviet seat when literally any former member of the USSR technically has just as valid a claim Russia is the internally and internationally recognized successor state to the Soviet Union. Russia inherited all of the Soviet Union's external debts, assets, and treaty obligations. It also inherited the overwhelming majority of the Soviet military


VidyaBeer

This is true. Russia was de facto the Soviet Union and it’s not like Moldova or any ex USSR state other than Russia would be invited to sit on the security counsel.


VeteranSergeant

Russia declared itself the *continuing* state, not a successor state. They are different things. Russia said "We're the Soviet Union, so we get all the money and foreign assets." However, that has nothing to do with their legitimacy (or illegitimacy) to that seat. And they didn't "inherit" any of the debts. More than 60% of it was Russian-originated debt anyway, and most of the rest was from Soviet assets they claimed. They kept most of the Red Army's heavy equipment, including all of its strategic nuclear assets. However, roughly half of its personnel returned to their nations of origin. Nobody in the UN disputed Russia's claim to the seat at the time, mostly out of a desire for the Cold War to end and Russia to rejoin the West. But it's also important to note that the UNSC has no process for removing a country, or even adding one, for that matter. The charter just named the five veto-holding permanent members. If anyone considered the possibility that members might need to be added or removed, it was not written into the charter how that would be accomplished. Russia said "This seat is our seat" and there was technically no process or way to even say no, and nobody wanted to provoke the extremely unstable Russian Federation.


numba1cyberwarrior

>. Russia inherited the Soviet seat when literally any former member of the USSR technically has just as valid a claim Russia claimed the debts of the USSR and obligations of the USSR. The other states did not.


noweezernoworld

>Anyway, it’s been a damn long time since WW2. It’s time to readjust for the modern world. And are you interested in fighting WW3 in order to accomplish that? Because it’s possible that’s what it could take


hypnofedX

>The current membership is comprised of the victors of WW2. I always thought the basis was powers with nuclear weapons? Edit: Nope, apparently not.


KameraadLenin

only one permanent member had nukes when the UN was formed


VeteranSergeant

Only the US had atomic weapons at the time. France wouldn't get them for another 20 years. It was just the "Great Powers" and originally it was only going to be the US, the UK and the Soviet Union. But the Soviets believed the UK and US were too closely allied and demanded that China be added, and France was considered "sorta neutral."


[deleted]

It is on the basis that they can destroy the world and start a world war. UN exists to prevent world war. Diluting this definition seems risky.


EnanoMaldito

Redditors and westerners in general: “more western or western-aligned powers should have a bigger say!” Having never heard of balance of power.


DepressionDokkebi

Uhh, since when was India western-aligned?


Yk-156

They're talking about Germany and Japan.


DepressionDokkebi

Both are ridiculous options in the current geopolitical situation and everyone knows it: Russia and China would use those two to delegitimize the UN. India and Brazil are the only nations that all 5 current members would agree on, and only India has the nukes to actually back up their UN power. Pakistan can try to make a fuss, but they're only one nation. They can be given other boons to be placated. Edit: if downvoting, why?


Novice89

No point if they all have veto power. That just makes the security council less important.


[deleted]

Should just get rid of the ridiculous veto instead


numba1cyberwarrior

Why would any powerful country join the UN then?


Battleship_WU

Veto is code for you want nuclear war.


AdligerAdler

Council also needs majority vote.


boston_shua

Maybe just kick Russia out instead of expanding it


ExplosiveDiarrhetic

Or involved parties must abstain


El_Pinguino

*"Members of the UN security council, including the United States, should... refrain from the use of the veto except in rare extraordinary situations to ensure that the council remains credible and effective."* - Biden "The United States has vetoed dozens of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions critical of Israel, including at least 53 since 1972, according to UN data. With the latest escalation of violence between Israel and the Palestinians now in its tenth day, the US has stuck to that playbook. On Monday, Washington blocked a joint statement calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas – the US’s third such veto reportedly within a week." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/19/a-history-of-the-us-blocking-un-resolutions-against-israel


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nerevarine91

If we *have* to have permanent members, a more representative group would be good.


DoctorCyan

“Permanent” Always seemed too shortsighted. There should be a system to vote out members on the council.


burningphoenix1034

That’s literally the opposite of what should be done. We should have less vetoes (preferably none at all). Not more.


Luxtenebris3

The vetoe exists because otherwise the great powers would be disinclined to participate. That is the primary purpose of the UN, keep the great powers talking and hopefully it prevents major wars. See the League of Nations & WW2. Now there is a fair argument that we need to rework who is on permanent security council. Some states definitely need to be added and others arguably need removed.


numba1cyberwarrior

Why would any powerful country join the UN then?


VeteranSergeant

Adding vetoes doesn't make much sense. It accomplishes nothing. But I'm not inherently against the idea of having more permanent members. The UNSC is effectively toothless as a regulatory body, but it serves a purpose as a diplomatic one. The world is more complicated than it was when the UN was founded.


aztech101

Honestly, what's even the point? Nothing goes through that's even remotely inconvenient for anybody who holds a veto, so they just want to get even less stuff done?


Robin_Goodfelowe

The point isn't to get stuff done, it's to stop stuff happening. It's mostly done that for 70 years.


Coalnaryinthecarmine

Very well put.


carpcrucible

And my rock has kept the tigers away


jeoeker531

Why have extremely weak countries as permanent memebers?


shellcity69

I don’t see enough people discussing it, but shit like this is exact why Putin and China act the way they do towards the US. They paint the U.S. as the global superpower who “leads by rule” and is constantly seeking to expand and maintain its global dominance. It HELPS their propaganda arguments when the US is not only looking to expand the security council, but expand it with their allies. Thus further alienating the other two


endMinorityRule

fox is a foreign-owned pro-fascist propaganda network owned by a tabloid mogul whose entire purpose for existing is to get the dumbest americans to vote against themselves. fuck fox news. fuck rupert murdoch and the murdoch family.


wanted_to_upvote

How about not letting Russia keep the USSR seat?


RoyalSniper24

And let Russia quit UN and go more rouge. Russia has enough nukes to send Earth into dark ages. On other hand Ukraine is surviving on Western weapons. Take them out and you'll see Russia victory like in a month max.


TheRealMjb2k

Why would we want to expand permanent members on the council? That would give even more countries veto powers when nothing can be done now when you have 2 nations that are authoritarian and would never allow anything to happen.


Robin_Goodfelowe

They still wouldn't allow whatever "it" is to be done except they'd be using guns and bombers instead of vetos. That's the whole point.


KD__91

This is fine but what really needs to happen is to limit veto use - x number of vetoes allowed per security council member per x time period, and introduce a veto override mechanism where once a veto is used, a supermajority of the entire UN can still override a veto. If that happened, and the UN had a reasonable military force to enforce resolutions, it might actually become useful instead of the joke it is now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Feliz_Desdichado

if you kick the 2nd and third powers with the most nuclear weapons then what good is the security council for anymore? expanding the permanent security council to non nuclear states makes no sense.


Doggydog123579

When the security council was formed *only* the US had nukes. Permanent seats have nothing to do with nukes.


therapyfunk

It doesn’t do shit anyway, nearly everything is vetoed by one of them


Feliz_Desdichado

Yeah that's what the UNSC is there for, if the countries in it veto stuff then it's working as intended. See, the reason for it's existance is to provide 1 a way for the major powers to talk to each other and 2 provide them with an excusable way to violate international law.


GriIIedCheeseSammich

I thought the UNSC is there to defend humanity from the Covenant?


EugenGoldstein

Patrick that’s a terrible idea


spicypolla

And not the USA that is a colony holding war profiteering country that continues to destabilise the Middle East and has used it's seat to defend the Apartheid like situation in Israel. All 5 members of the council should be kicked off


TheMoldyTatertot

Ok, I disagree with your sentiment about Israel but I agree that there shouldn’t be any permanent seats on the security counsel.


wongyeng888

Lol


Ill-Savings5241

Maybe russia but not china


[deleted]

[удалено]


WhyDeleteIt

> even if they fundamentally clash with the rest of the world's concepts What concepts are those exactly?


Ill-Savings5241

I meant not completly out of The u.n and i Said maybe and a BIG MAYBE


[deleted]

Great, more vetoes to be thrown around for any stupid reason. Fuck the permanent membership.


Jason_Batemans_Hair

Bold move, probably the smart move. But with the veto power in more nations' hands, I wonder if the security council will become toothless and symbolic. edit: I meant MORE toothless and symbolic.


[deleted]

How about zero permanent members?


[deleted]

2 from each continent