Conquer Club

So it's time we had a new Security Council, one which actually embodies the principles of global security, stability and peace, rather than one stuffed with warmongers and neo-colonialists.

Our proposition for a new group of Permanent Members who fit the bill, and have the clout to back it up, is:

China
Germany
India
Japan
????

Wadayooreckun?

USA, Russia, China should be permanent members with veto; France and the UK should be dropped but not replaced.

The whole point of having permanent members with veto power is to provide a political cudgel that states who otherwise have the capacity to launch a world war can turn to instead of said world war. The UK and France no longer have the capability to launch a global war so can be safely removed.

saxitoxin wrote:USA, Russia, China should be permanent members with veto; France and the UK should be dropped but not replaced.

The whole point of having permanent members with veto power is to provide a political cudgel that states who otherwise have the capacity to launch a world war can turn to instead of said world war. The UK and France no longer have the capability to launch a global war so can be safely removed.

The SC is supposed to be a body which works to prevent and stop conflict, not an arena for the US and Russia to spar in.

mrswdk wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:USA, Russia, China should be permanent members with veto; France and the UK should be dropped but not replaced.

The whole point of having permanent members with veto power is to provide a political cudgel that states who otherwise have the capacity to launch a world war can turn to instead of said world war. The UK and France no longer have the capability to launch a global war so can be safely removed.

The SC is supposed to be a body which works to prevent and stop conflict, not an arena for the US and Russia to spar in.

Then it should be a list of countries actually capable of stopping those conflicts with military means, meaning the most powerful militaries on the planet:
1. USA
2. Russia
3. China
4. India
5. UK
6. France
7. Germany
8. Turkey
9. South-Korea
10. Japan

source: http://www.businessinsider.com/11-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2014-4?IR=T

Of course you could limit it to a more balanced list of nations according to their alliances and cooperations:
USA+UK/France/Germany(Nato representation) vs Russia+China(SCO representation) vs India(neutral)

mrswdk wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:USA, Russia, China should be permanent members with veto; France and the UK should be dropped but not replaced.

The whole point of having permanent members with veto power is to provide a political cudgel that states who otherwise have the capacity to launch a world war can turn to instead of said world war. The UK and France no longer have the capability to launch a global war so can be safely removed.

The SC is supposed to be a body which works to prevent and stop conflict, not an arena for the US and Russia to spar in.

What is your evidence that countries that do not regularly engage in armed conflict are more capable of using their SC position to stop armed conflict?

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:USA, Russia, China should be permanent members with veto; France and the UK should be dropped but not replaced.

The whole point of having permanent members with veto power is to provide a political cudgel that states who otherwise have the capacity to launch a world war can turn to instead of said world war. The UK and France no longer have the capability to launch a global war so can be safely removed.

The SC is supposed to be a body which works to prevent and stop conflict, not an arena for the US and Russia to spar in.

Then it should be a list of countries actually capable of stopping those conflicts with military means, meaning the most powerful militaries on the planet

Obviously the UN has proven itself totally toothless time and time again, but the Security Council is a diplomatic body, not an army. Resolutions passed by the SC are enforced via the UN, not via military means (see: SC sanctioning of North Korea).

waauw wrote:Of course you could limit it to a more balanced list of nations according to their alliances and cooperations:
USA+UK/France/Germany(Nato representation) vs Russia+China(SCO representation) vs India(neutral)

India was admitted to the SCO this year.

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:USA, Russia, China should be permanent members with veto; France and the UK should be dropped but not replaced.

The whole point of having permanent members with veto power is to provide a political cudgel that states who otherwise have the capacity to launch a world war can turn to instead of said world war. The UK and France no longer have the capability to launch a global war so can be safely removed.

The SC is supposed to be a body which works to prevent and stop conflict, not an arena for the US and Russia to spar in.

What is your evidence that countries that do not regularly engage in armed conflict are more capable of using their SC position to stop armed conflict?

A good start towards establishing the SC as a credible organisation is having it chaired by countries who actually embody the principles of the Council. The current Council has all the authority of a battered women's charity run by Bobbie Brown.

mrswdk wrote:Obviously the UN has proven itself totally toothless time and time again, but the Security Council is a diplomatic body, not an army. Resolutions passed by the SC are enforced via the UN, not via military means (see: SC sanctioning of North Korea).

Diplomacy and military are inseperable. Without any strength behind your diplomacy, your words will mean nothing. Can you imagine tiny Bangladesh threatening countries like the US purely based on security council position? I don't think so. Too many countries would want to keep the US as their friend, even if they weren't on the security council. Too few would side with Bangladesh in this hypothetical situation for whatever the topic may be.

mrswdk wrote:India was admitted to the SCO this year.

Well apparently I need to catch up on my asian politics articles
But I trust you got my point as to what I meant with equal distribution of political blocks.

mrswdk wrote:A good start towards establishing the SC as a credible organisation is having it chaired by countries who actually embody the principles of the Council. The current Council has all the authority of a battered women's charity run by Bobbie Brown.

But it's useless to have countries who are alligned with the principles, but without the strength to force anything on anybody.
Political reality is unfortunately unfavourable.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Obviously the UN has proven itself totally toothless time and time again, but the Security Council is a diplomatic body, not an army. Resolutions passed by the SC are enforced via the UN, not via military means (see: SC sanctioning of North Korea).

Diplomacy and military are inseperable. Without any strength behind your diplomacy, your words will mean nothing. Can you imagine tiny Bangladesh threatening countries like the US purely based on security council position? I don't think so. Too many countries would want to keep the US as their friend, even if they weren't on the security council. Too few would side with Bangladesh in this hypothetical situation for whatever the topic may be.

The whole point of the UN is that it removes the need for military threat, much as having rule of law removes the need for citizens to be influential in order to get justice. If your argument is that big countries like the US get their way because they are big and other people are small, then the UN might as well not exist.

India was admitted to the SCO this year.

Well apparently I need to catch up on my asian politics articles
But I trust you got my point as to what I meant with equal distribution of political blocks.

Yup. IMO the inclusion of Japan, Germany, China, India and Brazil represents a balanced range of geopolitical interests and blocs.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:A good start towards establishing the SC as a credible organisation is having it chaired by countries who actually embody the principles of the Council. The current Council has all the authority of a battered women's charity run by Bobbie Brown.

But it's useless to have countries who are alligned with the principles, but without the strength to force anything on anybody.
Political reality is unfortunately unfavourable.

Well as Iraq proved, the SC in its current form is useless anyway.

mrswdk wrote:The whole point of the UN is that it removes the need for military threat, much as having rule of law removes the need for citizens to be influential in order to get justice. If your argument is that big countries like the US get their way because they are big and other people are small, then the UN might as well not exist.

I agree with the ideology you're expressing, but I just think it isn't feasible.

mrswdk wrote:Well as Iraq proved, the SC in its current form is useless anyway.

Agreed. The world as a lamentable disposition of only acting after calamity has struck.

The point of the SC isn't to be a magic force field that stops bullets, it's just an extra impediment to make warring incrementally more difficult.

It's generally accepted now that offensive war can only be waged with the approval of the Security Council, as per the UN Charter. Therefore, states will seek approval before waging offensive war to legitimize themselves to their domestic publics. If the warring government acts anyway, it does it, first, with a weakened domestic political position and, second, the potential its leadership might be held criminally liable at some point in the future.

Second, the Security Council prevents misunderstandings when enforcement actions are necessary. By having the protocols and objectives for a war made part of the public record, and by relieving states of legal obligations to each other by having everyone agree the Security Council has penultimate authority, you lessen the possibility of the triggering of secret alliances.

Finally, giving the states that have the power to start the most destructive wars a veto works because it keeps them engaged in the international system. The U.S., Russia, or China have the military capacity to flaunt international law. By giving them a veto over lawmaking you ensure they never have cause to either disengage or start a competing body.

saxitoxin wrote:It's generally accepted now that offensive war can only be waged with the approval of the Security Council, as per the UN Charter. Therefore, states will seek approval before waging offensive war to legitimize themselves to their domestic publics. If the warring government acts anyway, it does it, first, with a weakened domestic political position and, second, the potential its leadership might be held criminally liable at some point in the future.

At present, UN law clearly only carries weight with people in the event they can get it to agree with them. The illegality of the Gulf Wars, the Iraq War, the Soviet-Afghan War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands War etc. has not stopped any of the aggressors in those wars from starting them.

Second, the Security Council prevents misunderstandings when enforcement actions are necessary. By having the protocols and objectives for a war made part of the public record, and by relieving states of legal obligations to each other by having everyone agree the Security Council has penultimate authority, you lessen the possibility of the triggering of secret alliances.

That law would still exist even if all current members of the SC were replaced with new ones, and my argument is that the law could be far more credibly applied by countries who have not consistently flouted it.

Finally, giving the states that have the power to start the most destructive wars a veto works because it keeps them engaged in the international system. The U.S., Russia, or China have the military capacity to flaunt international law. By giving them a veto over lawmaking you ensure they never have cause to either disengage or start a competing body.

All the veto does is give them a tool for blocking anything that goes against their own geopolitical interests. You might as well not have the organisation if it is, by design, in total capitulation to the people whose behavior it is most intended to reign in.

mrswdk wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:It's generally accepted now that offensive war can only be waged with the approval of the Security Council, as per the UN Charter. Therefore, states will seek approval before waging offensive war to legitimize themselves to their domestic publics. If the warring government acts anyway, it does it, first, with a weakened domestic political position and, second, the potential its leadership might be held criminally liable at some point in the future.

At present, UN law clearly only carries weight with people in the event they can get it to agree with them. The illegality of the Gulf Wars, the Iraq War, the Soviet-Afghan War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands War etc. has not stopped any of the aggressors in those wars from starting them.

Second, the Security Council prevents misunderstandings when enforcement actions are necessary. By having the protocols and objectives for a war made part of the public record, and by relieving states of legal obligations to each other by having everyone agree the Security Council has penultimate authority, you lessen the possibility of the triggering of secret alliances.

That law would still exist even if all current members of the SC were replaced with new ones, and my argument is that the law could be far more credibly applied by countries who have not consistently flouted it.

Finally, giving the states that have the power to start the most destructive wars a veto works because it keeps them engaged in the international system. The U.S., Russia, or China have the military capacity to flaunt international law. By giving them a veto over lawmaking you ensure they never have cause to either disengage or start a competing body.

All the veto does is give them a tool for blocking anything that goes against their own geopolitical interests. You might as well not have the organisation if it is, by design, in total capitulation to the people whose behavior it is most intended to reign in.

What do you know, you don't even have good taste in men.

mrswdk...

wins!

DoomYoshi wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:It's generally accepted now that offensive war can only be waged with the approval of the Security Council, as per the UN Charter. Therefore, states will seek approval before waging offensive war to legitimize themselves to their domestic publics. If the warring government acts anyway, it does it, first, with a weakened domestic political position and, second, the potential its leadership might be held criminally liable at some point in the future.

At present, UN law clearly only carries weight with people in the event they can get it to agree with them. The illegality of the Gulf Wars, the Iraq War, the Soviet-Afghan War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands War etc. has not stopped any of the aggressors in those wars from starting them.

Second, the Security Council prevents misunderstandings when enforcement actions are necessary. By having the protocols and objectives for a war made part of the public record, and by relieving states of legal obligations to each other by having everyone agree the Security Council has penultimate authority, you lessen the possibility of the triggering of secret alliances.

That law would still exist even if all current members of the SC were replaced with new ones, and my argument is that the law could be far more credibly applied by countries who have not consistently flouted it.

Finally, giving the states that have the power to start the most destructive wars a veto works because it keeps them engaged in the international system. The U.S., Russia, or China have the military capacity to flaunt international law. By giving them a veto over lawmaking you ensure they never have cause to either disengage or start a competing body.

All the veto does is give them a tool for blocking anything that goes against their own geopolitical interests. You might as well not have the organisation if it is, by design, in total capitulation to the people whose behavior it is most intended to reign in.

Without looking, can you tell me which country assumed the chair today?

No idea. I know China will take the chair of the G20 in November though.

So it's settled: we all recognize the need for change.

According to my poll there is unanimous support for China, Germany, India and Japan. So who should our fifth member be?

Lulzy thread is lulzy.

Switzerland. they can hit politicians where it hurts them the most, their bank accounts.

waauw wrote:Switzerland. they can hit politicians where it hurts them the most, their bank accounts.

Y'know, I would actually support this. For real, not just as a joke.