UN Security Council

So we all know the only countries that hold any real power are those with permanent membership status on the UN Security Council. Namely USA, China, Russia, UK & France - all victors of the second world war. However, there has been an increasing amount of support in recent years for the idea of expanding the security council to include countries such as Brazil, Germany, India & Japan.

How would Sup Forums feel about any of these nations joining the security council as permanent members and thus having veto power? What do you think the geopolitical ramifications would be? Are there any other countries that you think would be suitable for the position? Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Consensus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm for Germany right now. Maybe India if it reaches superpower status like in 2040.

Yeah, I think India and Japan should be there to push back China a bit.

Many countries in the world oppose that in fact. The security council needs reform but not along those lines.

Argentina, Colombia and Mexico are united in opposing Brazil representing the region for instance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Consensus

>adding even more gridlock to the security council
for what purpose

The permanent members should be the US, Israel, Russia, and China.

There's no reason for France or the UK to be there, let alone Brazilian monkeys or the Indian super-pooper

Unironically there should be no permanent UNSC members

>those quads
wtf i love israel now

Checked

They shouldn't be a security council in the first place.

>Argentina, Colombia and Mexico are united in opposing Brazil representing the region for instance.

Why is that? Brazil is the largest country in Latin America by both population size and geographical area, has the 7th largest economy in the world and the strongest military in the region. They seem like a pretty good representative to me.

Until the Germany government takes security more seriously, no, they should not be invited into the council.

it should actually be US / UK / France / Germany / Russia. can't trust subhumans to manage global security

>israel
>those quads

Something's not right here...

Not like it is right now but leaving this to the General Assembly would be catastrophic, still, endowing the countries responsible for 90% of the shit that goes down in the world with permanent full veto power is idiotic, it's precissely the reason the UN is useless in resolving conflicts.

>countries that hold any real power
That's economics and we've already got the G20 for that

Because Brazil's interests don't necessarily align with the region's, if anything they're the ones that need to be counterbalanced.

And they don't even speak Spanish ffs

>mexico will never be a permanent member of the un security council

meh, neither will Canada

That mural is awesome

The point of the veto power is just to legalise those countries de facto ability to resolve/impose conflicts so that they happen in the courtroom rather than in the battlefield.
Without this right there's no point for them to be in the Council and without them there's no point in the Council itself.

>Because Brazil's interests don't necessarily align with the region's

How do general Latin American interests differ significantly from Brazil?

>And they don't even speak Spanish ffs

Portuguese is basically just a dialect of Spanish anyway.

>push back China
Doesn't work like that
There's no pushing back on the UNSC, it is not a democracy, more a jury
(1 veto = no go)

I vote for the Vatican to be on the security council

Bring back the Papal States.

Latin America isn't one homogeneous region full of Mexicans my man, particularly in hispanoamerica, with most countries taking care of their own interests, not necessarily interested in cooperation. We might look the same to you and think that's a good enough reason for us to cheer for it, but we're not particularly happy if the guy next door suddenly finds he has more power.

In other wortds might makes right. Yerah, that's not a courtroom, it's a mafia, call a spade what it is if you're going to appeal to realpolitiks.

I know that, which is why I'm confused as to why "latin american interests" would be in particular conflict with Brazilian interests considering latin america is made up of countries that each have their own individual interests anyway. It would seem like whatever country you appointed to the security council to represent "latin america" would still not represent the interests of the other countries in the region anymore than Brazil would. At least Brazil has a stronger global presence than say Mexico, which is the most logical reason to include a country on the security council. Basically I don't understand the argument the Mexican guy I replied to is trying to make.

t. Changberg

Butthurt, this shouldn't be about "representing" the region, it's about Brazil's relative power. We already fund about 4% of UN's budget, 2-3 times more than Mexico, Brazil has diplomatic ties with about every nation in this world, including Best Korea, a very professional diplomatic corps, with well known history of success in negotiations. A big economy, and if necessary, will have a modern armed forces. We deserve a seat, so do Japan, Germany and India.

Diplomatic ties AND permanent missions.

>Germany and Japan
USA bitches
>Brazil and India
Kinda "neutral" and flip flop on sides depending on who in power.

Depends if they also want to redefine veto power of SC countries.
Our government will be for including Brazil and India but against Japan and Germany for sure.

...

That recent idea is only and exclusively to combat "Eurocentrism" with no grounding in reality.

>Brazil
Its economy is in shambles, constantly collapsing over this or that. It's riddled with corruption to bursting point, has zero diplomatic weight to throw around and if I'm not mistaken it was estimated that the Brazillian army could fight for half an hour before running out of bullets. What about this all screams "UN security council" to you?

>Germany
They have a large economy and.... that's it. Their foreign influence outside of the EU is negligible and at the moment they don't even have a single operational submarine. Its influence in the EU is substantial and its economy flourishing by exploiting Southern and Eastern Europe, but that's why it's a Middle Power.

>Japan
Much like Germany, though with a slightly less pathetic military. Has the potential to reach Great Power status in the near future if they uncuck themselves (which is what Shinzo Abe is doing under the excuse of a North Korean threat).

It won't factually ever happen. All current members know that if the UN treaties can be changed in such a way that new members can be added, eventually old members can be booted. Imagine the world going full passive-agressive and booting Russia.

>Imagine the world going full passive-agressive and booting Russia.
It should happen though, Russia is main destabilizer of world peace

Jealous faggots

That’s retarded, it’s already hard enough to get 5 of them to agree on anything. Throw in two more and it’s impossible. The unsc isn’t a democracy, one member can negate any resolution put forward.

Portugal should be there

That's the reason the current proposal is to have a rotating chair of non permanent members, meaning whoever is sitting doesn't own it and must make concessions if it in turn expects to wield influence while others get their turn.

>We already fund about 4% of UN's budget
Irrelevant, you also pay in more than permanent SC member Russia but far less than non permanent SC members Japan and Germany, Italy pays about the same as you, why not them?
>Brazil has diplomatic ties with about every nation in this world
So do we, if what you mean is we don't spend on the white elephant of having diplomatic missions in obscure African and Central Asian nations we barely have any exchanges with then yes, Brazil does spend money on its ambitions, which hardly translates into success, we are still the country with the most FTAs signed in the world, that's real ties and real success if you want to bring up professional diplomatic corps and success in negotiations, one of our diplomats won a nobel peace prize ffs
>big economy
About your sole argument, even if that doesn't necesarily translate into world relevance, we export as much as you being a country half your size in territory and population and yet look at the relative size of our stock exchanges (pictured) if this is simply about size why aren't you proposing chairs for Nigeria or Indonesia?
>if necessary, will have a modern armed forces
Yes, that's such a good argument for diplomatic prowess, are Brazilian taxpayers going to pick up the tab for effectively pacifying countries wrecked by Russia or the US? Or are you talking UN peacekeepers? You're number 50 on a list headed by Ethiopia and Bangladesh, Uruguay sends more troops than you do.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers
>it's about Brazil's relative power
And here's your mistake, why would the rest of us add yet another self deluded tyrant to the current mafia? If it isn't about you CONT

CONT representing Latin America then why would you expect support from any of us? My country is commited to pacifism and took in refugees from Spain and Latin America while you all went through your dictatorship phases, it has taken costly principled stands in the past eg standing with Cuba when no other Latin American nation would. I certainly wouldn't nominate Mexico for a permanent seat, that's not what I'm getting at here, but at least we'd have a better background for that than you wanting into relevance because muh giant country.

Brazil is the natural successor state to Portugal. Your old shell of a country is pretty much irrelevant now.

New UNSC:
USA
China
EU
Russia
Brazil
India
Japan

>EU

Not gonna happen

bump

both japan and germany are great powers though

Don't badmouth Papa :(

So you at least admit that India is a worthy candidate for inclusion then?

I think we sre the most neutral country in Latin America. We are big enough to not be USA or Russia bitch, unlike Colombia, Venezuela and Mexico.

But we are an USA bitch.

UN only real function is to give US a legal basis for their military interventions, and only so when Russia cucks out and agrees. An expansion of the permanent members of the security council is not going to happen.

The great powers and superpowers concepts are outdated, after the fall of the URSS there is only one dominant power.

>what is the main purpose of the UN?
to stop ww3, probably nuclear
if you're thinking human rights and shiet, you can fuck right off with your international super-police that will start ww3 tomorrow
>so who should be the members?
whoever with working nuclear icbms sufficient for at least second strike MAD anywhere on earth
hence, permanent members - US, Russia, China, UK, France and India
rotating members should be nuclear icbm ready with the gdp to boot - Japan, Canada, Australia and SK
observers include anyone with nukes states - NK and pakistan

UNSC is much more important tho

permanent seats in the security council are fucking cancer that made the UN as impotent as it is at the moment.