A larger Security Council?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Sep 30, 2004.

  1. skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan

    As bizarre as it may be hearing such sentiments from Libya, that beacon of democracy, the idea itself has merit. Basing global decision-making on the interests shared by such monstrous rogue states as Russia, China, Britain, France and (lately) the USA has led to a tragically neutered organization, incapable of exerting the moral authority to deal effectively even with obvious problems. When the five permanent members are collectively guilty of genocide, invasion, use of atomic weapons and fire-bombing against civilian populations, mass slavery, mass colonization, waging pre-emptive wars, economic strangulation and massive political manipulation of sovereign states, is it surprising that the UN is regarded with some scepticism?
  2. takao macrumors 68040


    Dec 25, 2003
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    hmm germany,brazil,india,japan sound just a little bit more reasonable than libya...
    are there any other possible candidates for an african seat ? any suggestions ?
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Dec 21, 2002
    Yahooville S.C.
  4. Thanatoast macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
    I'd be satisfied if they'd just ditch the veto power. Or at least create an override, that if one nation vetos, the other four could override that veto. Four yeas beats one nay, but three yeas and one abstention does not. This would theoretically keep abusers from deadlocking progress.

    Of course, this will never ever ever happen, because it would have to be voted on by the Security Council, which will never give up its power. Certainly not without strong US leadership. (a word forgotten in today's administration) And then there would be our own domestic ninnies freaking out about world government. As if we don't all live on the same damn planet and our actions don't affect eachother.

Share This Page