The first steps in Kofi Annan's called for reforms at the UN are emerging.


Like any reform proposal there is some controversy involved.

Germany Starts UN Reform Resolution
True to form...

No veto for India, Brazil, Japan, Germany: US

Let's debate the wisdom of that stance and security council reform in general.

Should the Security Council expand to include more permanent members?

Which countries should they be?

Should some or all of these members be granted veto power? Which?

What reforms of the UNSC are needed?

Should the Security Council expand to include more permanent members?

Which countries should they be?

Should some or all of these members be granted veto power? Which?

What reforms of the UNSC are needed?

I would be happy to see the Security Council to expand, but I think countries need to have a little more than economic muscle to get in. The memebrs of the Security Council all have military forces, which they use to guarantee security for the world to conduct its trade and general economic affairs.

Japan and Germany cannot provide much in the way of military might, so are really reliant on the US (and the UK and France to a much lesser extent) to provide security for them.

So I don't think they should be sitting on the security council until they show a comparable willingness to commit troops to maintaining world security.

Expansion of the Security Council should be possible, with a minimum standard of entry - main economic might and the ability to guarantee security to their particular region of the world. Neither Japan or Germany could do this.

I am not sure how best to set these standards, I should imagine that the EU should be given one seat (in effect counting the UK and France as one country) and perhaps include India or Brazil (dependent on what levels are set). I'm thinking of a collection of regional super-powers really, so the US (global super-power) the EU (semi-global), Russia, China (pan-Asian), India (South Asia), Brazil (South America) etc.


Veto power should be retained only in those situations where a member has the power to actually disrupt plans by force. So the US could have a veto over everything (because it could effectively stop anyone anywhere), the UK/France could have a veto over European affairs, China and Russia over Asian affairs etc etc. If seats start being awarded on a regional basis, then it would make sense to bring in South Africa, as it is its regional super-power. however it would never be able to veto anything, so should be given a seat, but no veto power.

Should the Security Council expand to include more permanent members?

Yes. The current situation reflects the world as it was after WW2. 60 years have passed, the world has changed... the Security Council must reflect the change!

Which countries should they be?


Japan, China, Brazil, the EU. About the latest, I do not know if the UK and France are ready to give up their seats, since their foreign policies are not aligned.

Should some or all of these members be granted veto power? Which?


Yes. All of them. There can't be a better world if nations are weary of one another.

What reforms of the UNSC are needed?

The UNSC needs to clarify its role and ambitions to all other nations of the UN for the next 30 to 50 years. Because world peace takes time to happen.

In what way do American, British, French, Russian or Chinese troops provide or guarantee security through their military power? How do the US commit troops to maintain world security?
It doesn't work the way that military power solves conflicts, it generates them. Economic power helps to prevent escalation of conflict.

Germany and Japan are 2nd and 3rd on the list of paying UN members. It's time that deserves respect.
Germany has troops in Afghanistan, Kosovo, the Red Sea, to maintain and provide security.

Should the Security Council expand to include more permanent members?
Yes, as the world changes the institutions concerning world affairs have to change or will cease to exist.

Which countries should they be?
Japan, Germany, Brasil, India.


err, Horyok, China already has a seat.....

Should some or all of these members be granted veto power? Which?
The current five members have shown to a good extend how much their veto-power stands against common sense as soon as national interests come into play.
No, majority voting would make this body very efficient, but that I won't life to see that come into effect. Therefore, no more veto powers.

What reforms of the UNSC are needed?

See statement above. Majority voting would be #1 on my priority list...

American troops keep the peace across half the world. They keep North Korea out of South Korea and they are the only reason China has not invaded Taiwan. The presence of American troops in Germany kept the Soviet Union at bay - i.e. out of Western Europe over the cold war. Europe doesn't go to war with itself because American troops maintain the peace. This has allowed the EU to develop, which makes it more unlikely that war would break out in Europe, but our peace is underpinned by America at the moment.

I never said Chinese or Russian troops guaranteed security. They could, but they don't. They both have the ability to guarantee regional security, so are more deserving of a place on the Security Council. Britain sends peacekeepers out across the world, as does France - and a lot of other countries do to, but



No economic power can only develop in a world at peace. The only way to keep a world at peace is (sadly) through the existence of a global 'policeman' - a role which America has taken on, because most of the rest of the world won't accept the responsiblity.

The idea that economic power alone or EU 'soft' power alone can guarantee world peace is woefully naive and has ignored the last several thousand years of human history - which is one of nasty, brutish conflict.

(Edited for spelling)

Should the Security Council expand to include more permanent members?
Heck let's go all the way and give every single member of the United Nations a seat. That's about the only way Israel will ever be allowed to be a member.

Which countries should they be? As above

Should some or all of these members be granted veto power? Which? All of them. That is about the only way that the UN can't cause any harm since it will never again be able to pass another worthless resolution. The United Nations is a totally worthless organization of dictatorships that perpetuate international hatred and racism.

What reforms of the UNSC are needed?Get rid of the entire system, not just the SC.

I am not saying that economic power solves military conflicts, I am saying that when a conflict arises, economic power may be the better way to deal with the situation instead of bringing military power into the equation.

"nasty brutish conflict" may be a great part of human history, but what is that famous saying? "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I chose to ignore loreng59's post, yet it reminded me of a reform proposal, which might eliminate the power of dictatorships in the UN by admitting only countries as members which have (minimal) democratic elections and institutions. Though the number of members would decrease dramatically as well as the problem with how to decide what country is democratic and what is not.

I agree with the idea that economic incentives can often be used to resolve military conflict before they happen, but I think that military power remains necessary as the final option to resolving or ending a conflict.

I don't think that anyone can rely solely on economic might to get things done. It may not always work and then military power can be used as the fall back option.



A good idea, but the UN was not set up to bring about global democracy. The UN was set up to prevent large wars breaking out across the planet, especially as by the 1950s, several countries had the ability to destroy large areas with nuclear weapons. Restricting UN membership to countries that meet certain democratic requirements would change the purpose of the UN and possible remove its main reason for existence - i.e. as a forum for discussion to peacefully resolve conflicts.

I also doubt that exclusion from the UN would have much impact on dictators anyway. The military junta ruling Myanmar has survived despite almost universal condemnation from the economically powerful western countries in the world. Most dictators tend to portray the rest of the world as 'evil' to some degree anyway, as a way of justifying their own rule.

... discuss conflicts to find peaceful solutions. The more each party is able to understand their and the opponent's position and to express their position, the more likely they will actually find an accepted solution without using force. Here are some benefit in an enlargement.
With the years the UN also grew into a body promoting a globally aware society. They deal with wars and dictators, but also with environmental problems, preservation and development of culture and heritage, international science and social or ethical mis-conceptions. With an increasing speed in globalization, in future there could be a lot more to deal with.

Should the Security Council expand to include more permanent members?

Yes.

Which countries should they be?

Democratic countries, that do not commit serious human rights abuses, and that are capable (either monetarily, or militarily) of making significant contributions to world security.

Should some or all of these members be granted veto power? Which?

Veto power should be removed from all countries period.

What reforms of the UNSC are needed?

Other then veto power, countries like China (which have undemocratic authoritarian governments), should be kicked out. Neither of these things will happen, but they should.

What makes you think that discussing conflicts leads to peaceful solutions. All I have seen so far is that the UN is all to happy to discuss problems, whilst nothing concrete is achieved, whether by peaceful means or otherwise.

The genocide in Sudan was discussed and discussed. As was the genocide in Rwanda. I didn't see any peaceful solution being found - unless you count 'doing nothing and watching people be murdered' as a peaceful solution.

At the end of the day, there are governments that are totalitarian or reliously fanatical or have a deep seated hatred of another group and are not interested in finding peaceful solutions to problems. The security council should be composed of the countries that are willing to use both military and economic force to keep the peace. The US, UK and France have, through peacekeeping efforts, shown that they deserve their seats (although the UK and France probably shouldn't be held as equal to the US). China may do - once it grows up a bit - I'm undecided on Russia - although it has potential to become a major power again.

What makes you think that discussing conflicts leads to peaceful solutions. All I have seen so far is that the UN is all to happy to discuss problems, whilst nothing concrete is achieved, whether by peaceful means or otherwise.

The genocide in Sudan was discussed and discussed. As was the genocide in Rwanda. I didn't see any peaceful solution being found - unless you count 'doing nothing and watching people be murdered' as a peaceful solution.

I don't think there was a peaceful solution for Rwanda, because peace talks take time, and the entire Tutsi population was killed in about a month. However, peace talks have successfully created a ceasefire in Sundan that has thus far lasted about two years, is being guarded by thousands of African Union troops. More deaths are occurring now from poverty (especially in the refugee camps), then from homicide.

Overall, peacefull discussion can solve problems and often does. Though it doesnt always work...

Those incidents also happened because it was just not of anybody's interest to find a solution. Be it finding or making a solution in time or at all.

We still measure differently for different parts of the world, sometimes we have to because of the way things are and sometimes we choose to because it is easier, that is to say because it might be too much of an effort to fight (...politically) for someone's right.

I believe there is always someone who can reach into someone else. For some people it might be better you, for some it might be better me. For some it might be better the one down the road, talking to that mad, fanatical or deep hatred person and make him realize the situation he is in and the situation he might put others into.

The best way to value and show appreciation for a responsibility or job you do for a community is to demonstrate you re genuinely doing it for the community. Leadership is about doing a job and doing it according to the rules. Again various personalities might have different approaches but that's just what is needed for a culturally manyfold global society.

ack! all the idealism is suffocating.



No I don't think so. I think the rotating thing is adequate for now. And I especially reject Germany's bid. We already have 2 EU members on the UNSC..the last thing we need is another or we just might as well call it the EUSC. I recognize the argument that the current UNSC is outdated..but I feel if you are going to push forward or pursue the need of reform based on this ideal alone then we must all admit that the UN entirely is outdated.
So I can think of far more important avenues of reform then offering more seats at the mad hatters tea party.


Well it is just an exercise of the futile to see nations demanding more of a decision making role within the UN when the very thing that seems to make the UN ineffective is it's inability to make decisions. I would rather the UN pursued reforms in it's accountability...especially in regards to UN peacekeepers, I would rather we saw reforms aimed at making the UN's functions more transparent, better training of peacekeepers would be a start too, also I would like to see demands that nations who sit upon the UNSC have to contribute more than just empty chatter implemented.

The UK might be officially a member of the EU, but isn't it really a lot more committed to support Anglo-Saxon / US American views than European views. Therefore, European (!) nations are way under-represented in the UNSC.


What kind of a logic is that? Since WE OURSELVES are 'unable to make decision', how can someone else make them? And on this ground: What is the point in reforming the system, when something on the top doesn't work?

Oh yes the Anglo-Saxon connection. How can you claim under representation?.. you have France, UK Greece and Denmark sitting up on the throne currently. What Europeans account for something like 12% of the world's population and yet you claim you are under represented on the UNSC with 3 out of 15 seats..and that is excluding the less representative Europeans..aka Anglo-Saxons.
If the EUs goal of a cohesive foreign policy is a possibility then which EU member nation was representing this in the UNSC would not matter...why must it be Germany?
As I said before I think the rotating system is just fine.


And you counter this argument by claiming that if those sitting on the UNSC can not agree to make decisions the best way to "fix" this is to make more nations permanently there obstructing things. Again as I said several times..I believe the rotating system works well.
There are many things within the UN that function and operate without any oversight or control of the UNSC. My concerns for reform lie with many other functions of the UN...the more feasible and readily available ones..like oversight for peacekeeping troops or accountability and transparency for UN humanitarian missions.
I personally feel that many of the UN functions are needed I am just not so easily convinced the purpose or oversight of the UNSC is.

Bucket, is it please possible for you to come down and leave all that aggressive and polemic attitude OUTSIDE of this debate chat??? You lower the quality of the whole debate, the 'international debate' in particular and I am not interested in continuing the chat with this attitude!

The rotation system within the UNSC doesn't allow rotating countries to follow their foreign policy within the UN without constantly referring to the permanent members, who obviously have a permanent input into UN policy. Day-to-day and milestone decisions on various issues might be made without the input of various rotating members states and therefore their input is 'floating'.

To me, the number of rotating SC members as a measuring tool for the representation of a continent is therefore irrelevant; similar is the permanent representation of the UK and France with their ongoing global relationships as former colonial empires of 2/3 of the world on the one hand and their considerations for Europe on the other. Europe is about a lot more than Anglo-French policies and making this visible in a new UNSC is a long needed update to today's world. The US in particular might benefit from this politically updated set up to Europe and it's broader political accessibility.
And it is this broader acessibility, which should also form part of a future common EU foreign policy, which is also still a long way to go.
Why Germany? There are a few major European countries with a considerable population, culture and economy. Of these, Germany in the center of Europe - and with a strong federal structure within - has BY FAR the most grown neighbors, intersections and interrelationships with other smaller and medium sized European nations: politically, socially, culturally and economically.

I do not think more heads are automatically causing 'more obstruction'? There are big companies which run much smoother than smaller ones..... I am not claiming that political solutions are getting solved easier, but if the principle is right, there is at least a starting point.

I think if you have a problem you should report it to the admin.



I disagree. I don't believe their is such a thing as a "UN policy" The UN is just the vehicle. The UN does have a charter...but not something we could constructively define as a policy. Also by this argument then none of the seats on the UNSC should be rotating and all should be permanent and I have not seen any kind of reform such as this even addressed in the UN. I think the rotating system allows for more input and dependency for the non-permanent nations. If they were all permanent then I would imagine all the smaller nations would succumb to the larger nations policies and very defined alliances would be formed....permanently.



I don't think you would have to waste much time convincing Americans of this. They are for the most part more than aware of German foreign policy. Was it a benefit for Americans during this floating period of accessibility...I doubt it.

I focus on Germany because of the G-4..she is the only European nation.

Besides China won't approve Japan in a millionbazillion years. The political landscape of the world perhaps has changed since 1945 but not that much.

Ok. No 'UN policy', but individual national state's foreign policy which get's an approval by the UN as an 'international accepted approach'. I agree on the rotation system being a good solution for smaller countries, but bigger countries need to legitimate their involvement through a permanent position. The development of alliances to pursue one's personal interests is only natural. To drop grown up ethics and human values over personal interest is the one which is causing 'permanent' camps.
Since you come up with alternatives to the SC, I would prefer a gremium which gets its legitimitation from somewhere else altogether; maybe completely state-independent. (?)


Accessibility can only give access. To benefit from it through collaboration, it will also require to actually get into someone's picture and talk. If this doesn't happen, it will be hard to get together.


If you disagree per se on European input into world matters, that's a prejudice. Moreover, blocking out Germany might just increase the imbalance which might also cause your potential personal prejudice. And for your information: EU member states cover nearly 40% of the UN budget. This alone makes it quite a European influenced institution.


Please let s separate here OUR OPINIONS from what someone else might say...

To be honest I don't see there being a huge shift in the world's political structure to warrant viewing any other nation as being bigger and needed on the UNSC. The only exception I would make for this would be India. Why..?.. because she actually is bigger and has shifted the political landscape in her region tremendously..she is a nuclear power and that is the biggest you can get I think..for now.



I never said I disagreed on European input into world matters. I disagree with an over abundance or an unfair majority of European views on the UNSC. And calling me prejudice after you generalized several nations and their idealogy and loyalties as being a relation to their race...comes off a bit silly.


I never claimed the EU wasn't European influenced..it was borne from European ideals...or what we used to call colonization or the League of Nations. I just feel we are not in a recession of European ideals in the UN and I don't see adding Germany as very urgent. Also if we honestly wanted to update the UNSC to better reflect the modern world perhaps asking someone from Africa or the ME might be a better start.
The US alone supports the UN financially more than any other nation and it has always been the American children that were sent to die for "the UN as an 'international accepted approach' and I doubt that convinces you America should somehow have a stranglehold on UN institutions.


What someone else? China? You have any indication that China was planning to welcome Japan and India into the UNSC?

Of the 4 G-4 the only one I think who has any legitimacy asking to move on up would be India. She is the world's largest democracy. She is a nuclear power and she has a pretty sizable military. She is without question a threat in her region and a stabilizer. That is the point of the UNSC to have all the big guns at the table in hopes they can convince one another of the importance of peace. Last thing we need are less capable nations behaving like they too have bargaining power..it would not only be confusing but a distraction.

None of the above is meant to be rude..just realistic. Collective Security which is the basic principle of the UN charter has really only ever been proven the least bit successful in regards to militaristic alliances not ideological ones.

I happen to be a big believer that the most important thing we all must realize about the UN is that the UN is in theory and in practice very limited. Many wars or conflicts in this world go unchallenged or even mentioned in the great halls of the UNSC. Only the nations truly united bother to chat, discuss or even have an interest in peace between one another. ..many others do not, will not and have no desire to join in all the fun.

Only 'the big guns', right? Is that some new kind of 'Wild West Vision' for the world? If you only see the military achievements thats your personal view. Historiography is clear about a lot more achievements. My reality includes 'big guns' of a different quality and those that are solving issues more resolved (resolving?, I need to find the right words in English). And yes, the UN was born on European experience because it was Europe that experienced two World Wars and all what lead to that hell hole.


All nations want welfare for their people. You and I know, that the only way to achieve this, is peace and a way to get along with each other. If you constantly need to show your gun to achieve this, you have done only half of a peace and little in reaching out for more long term stability.
There are different ways to enforce your policy, militarily will be the hardest, which will surely be understood by the dumbest, but don't you see that we should try to build on something more constructive?

The big guns was a reference to nuclear armory...not John Wayne. I thought that I was fairly clear with my argument and that it wouldn't have gotten confusing.


You don't have the slightest grasp on my personal view...believe me. What I really said was that Collective Security is the basis or principle behind the United Nations Security Council and that it has only ever been proven the least bit successful when it has involved military alliances. History is very clear about this too.


Well then these other "big guns" should be more than content to sit on the many other UN bodies. The UNSC is but one and it just happens to be the one who is responsible for making demands on nations..or resolutions. It is the only body of the UN that is permitted to act in order to enforce it's demands..and one of it's actions is military action. So I feel that those on the permanent member council should at the very least be able to carry out resolutions by military action if needed. How can we have demands being made by those unable to enforce them? How can we allow other nations to make decisions to commit troops without the threat or I would say security that they knew it meant their citizens were being sent to fight and die and their nation's resources expended?


All nation' s governments being represented in the UN don't want or are the least bit bothered with the welfare of their people. We are not united as a world on this issue at all. In Zimbabwe they currently are bulldozing over the poor..crushing young children to death..and you can't find one African leader to speak out against this type of "solution" to urban blight...not one.

My point is that 'big guns' - or leaders in general - should not only be defined as such by their military power, but also by their mature civilized nature. (This was the reason for my reference to the Wild West, which had less influence of this and where therefore the older or physically week tempted to be overrun by more powerful members of society.)
I am not questioning the civilized nature of any nation, I only want to make my definition of leadership clear.

I agree that SC member nations should take responsibilities in manyfold ways within the UN.


In my opinion, many times there are different ways of enforcing a policy and more important there are different ways of achieving a desired solution without even asking for an enforcement.


If the SC decides to take military actions it should only be lead by those, carrying out these actions. Still there should be room for a cooperation in a wider field of such actions and it would be for the benefit of all to share those burdens.

In thinking about this thread I believe one important perspective on the distribution of permanent seats has been over looked.

I suspect the ability to project force around the globe should no longer be the qualifiers.

The UK and France are moving into a time where they (by their own choice) will no longer be able to and I seriously doubt India or China ever would.

As of right no only the US has the ability to work on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan.

The security council should take on a more regional basis. with major powers from each continent sharing permanent seats.

India and Japan can join China in Asia.

Nigeria certainly and South Africa perhaps for Africa

Brazil in South America etc.

All of these nations are a considerable power in their respective neighborhoods and good sources of troops for larger cooperative issue around the world.

To avoid gridlock we should move to a double veto system where two members would be needed to veto a measure.