What's new

New UNSC ?

i think we can add 1 more nation to this list as 15 will be more appropriate , this list is a mix of 1 super powers with world powers with regional superpowers

who can that other nation be , Pakistan ( nucleur state , good co-op with china in defence )

Then add North Korea as well:azn:
They are also nucleur state & good co-op with china in defence

So its

USA
CHINA
FRANCE
UK
GERMANY
TURKEY
INDONESIA
INDIA
JAPAN
SAUDI ARABIA
BRAZIL

EVERYONE AGREE WITH THIS SO FAR , THIS REPRESENTS NEARLY ENTIRE RACE IN THE WORLD WITH ASIAN COUNTRIES , MIDDLE EAST , WEST , AND WE CAN MAYBE ADD 1 FROM AFRICA , WE CAN ADD ONTO THIS ASWELL , MAXIMUM WILL BE 15 I THINK NO MORE BUT SHOULD BE ATLEAST 10 NATIONS

3 asia , 2 middle east , one south america , one north america , 3 europe in this list above

It should be like this

USA
CHINA
FRANCE
UK
GERMANY
INDIA
JAPAN

India cant be in UNSC unless it stops it Human Rights Violations in Kashmir, stops telling its poor citizens to eat rats, and turn in to a developed country

Sorry nobody listening you here

india should never get permanent UNSC seat.

you need an independent foreign policy to be taken seriously, india dont have that, it follows everything the west tells them to.

it wont be a serious contributor, just a thing to brag about.

no need to involve india in any global issues either, its not a major power, its not even a regional power.

indians first need to feed its poverty stricken population before buying weapons, seeking veto power at UN, etc.
they have the most cruelest caste system ever, its a vulgar system and THE worst human rights violations you can possibly imagine. its sick.

first sort out your hungry population and very high child mortality rates, its non existent infrastructure, its collapsing curreny and its woeful debt problems.

india is nothing but a complete disaster and they have the audacity to act like some global big shot, B**CH PLEASE!!!!!

I think China should be thrown out of UNSC...they got fake data and cheap product
 
If we go with your way then even Turkey and China also don't have any to claim UNSC seat.....
Reason
China has dispute with India,Japan,Vietnam,Taiwan,Philipines and Tibet...
Turkey has dispute with Greece....

Well China is already a UNSC member and I forgot about the Cyprus dispute point taken. I am of the opinion countries who should be added to the UNSC must have no disputes with any neighbor along with stable and growing economy, strong military and leadership role in their region. Give me Brazil and Indonesia than or even an African country like South Africa or Nigeria would be Ideal.
 
I think a unsc is a council of members in which its member countries are powerful countries( MILITARILY PREFERRED and which have space tech,missile tech,nuclear tech,powerful navy,and economy) which are able to affect the situation of some other country, and only india ,germany, japan ,and brazil are ahead among all the countries such as turkey pakistan iran soudi arabia etc


i am not a expert But i can assure u that a new member in UNSC will be among G 4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
List should read US, France, Brazil, Nigeria, Vietnam, Saudi and Israel :devil:

Rest should be thrown out asap !!
 
Yes, I think they are completely screwed up in their foreign policy. It has become a vassal of the US and never recovered from that position. They are nothing compared to what they used to be in the days of Imperial Japan. And what exactly should I know about Japan? Please enlighten me.

Kalu Miah, apart from my ME degree, I also did my master of engineering management from university of technology sydney and there we had 2 subjects of 'Quality'. and there Japan was part of our study, as Japan is the country which 'defined' Quality in world. right now we find many Chinese products also have same quality as many Japanese products but there was a time in 80s, that even the US's made Japanese products didn't have market there as people were looking for 'Made in Japan' products only, and were not buying even the same Japanese products made in US :lol:

Bangladesh is a country of 160mil people, very limited resources then Japan itself has around 130mil people with very less resources. and please check this GDP comparison as below and find, even if Bangladesh may maintain 5% growth for next 100 years, where they will be in 22nd century. while even if Japan may hardly maintain its current economic state, 0% growth for next 100 years, where they will stand by then. and its also true that a strong military means for those who have big GDP size. remember how Russia had to destroy/decomission its many defence arms after fall of SU as they didnt had enough money that time? Japanese have money and people who may develop high techs then always remember that they are as powerful as their ranking in GDP..........

Countries by GDP (nominal) 2011

3 Japan $5,867bil

58 Bangladesh $110bil

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Kalu Mian, it is believed that even if Germany and Japan were the losers of WW2, they will always maintain their status in world, whether US and EU fall or may take 1-2 decades more to fall. but Japanese and German will always have many superior technologies which will keep them on top for next 3-4 decades, at least, people widely accept. the + point with Turkey/Indonesia is, these two emerging economies will only grow, never fall while Germany/Japan may hardly maintain their status by 2020, even if many of US/EU will have fallen till then.

start with Greece will then proceed to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Britain and then next we find France and others following this list. one by one all these economies are heavily indebted while debt of US is already around 103% to its GDP to date, with budget deficit around 10% of GDP itself, with not enough hope to grow like a developing country in future also. but with all these troubling US/EU economies, have a look on Germany who is the only hope of EU for survival right now while Japan..... check and you will find Japanese currency has much appreciated during last 4 years than US$. they have second largest foreign reserve after China and they have many key techs which will maintain inflow of money, similar to Germany. US also has many key techs but so much expanses on wars, already heavily indebted and on the top of that, they always look for high qualified migrants who develop techs for US and then back home :lol:. while Japanese labs are filled with Japanese citizens only and they will always have something new techs to offer to this world :agree:

And how is this related to Japan's geopolitical clout during the days of Imperial Japan compared to what they have now? :lol:

Kalu Miah, apart from my ME degree, I also did my master of engineering management from university of technology sydney and there we had 2 subjects of 'Quality'. and there Japan was part of our study, as Japan is the country which 'defined' Quality in world. right now we find many Chinese products also have same quality as many Japanese products but there was a time in 80s, that even the US's made Japanese products didn't have market there as people were looking for 'Made in Japan' products only, and were not buying even the same Japanese products made in US :lol:

Bangladesh is a country of 160mil people, very limited resources then Japan itself has around 130mil people with very less resources. and please check this GDP comparison as below and find, even if Bangladesh may maintain 5% growth for next 100 years, where they will be in 22nd century. while even if Japan may hardly maintain its current economic state, 0% growth for next 100 years, where they will stand by then. and its also true that a strong military means for those who have big GDP size. remember how Russia had to destroy/decomission its many defence arms after fall of SU as they didnt had enough money that time? Japanese have money and people who may develop high techs then always remember that they are as powerful as their ranking in GDP..........

And you are comparing Bangladesh with Japan? :lol:

Why not compare Imperial Japan with today's Japan which was the point I brought up to discuss. I maintain Japan's balls have been cut off by the US, they have been castrated and neutered (read pacifist constitution) so they are now not only compromising their own security but Asian security as well, by not playing proper strategic role that matches the size of their and economy and technological prowess. They need to have nukes, 10 carrier strike groups, nuclear submarines etc. plying the region and Asian version of NATO that includes all nations South and East of China and India, just like they had in this region before WW II:

Imperial Japanese Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Japan put particular emphasis on aircraft carriers. The Imperial Japanese Navy started the Pacific War with 10 aircraft carriers,[99] the largest and most modern carrier fleet in the world at that time. There were seven American aircraft carriers at the beginning of hostilities, only three operating in the Pacific; and eight British aircraft carriers, of which a single one operated in the Indian Ocean. The IJN's two Shōkaku-class carriers were superior to any carrier in the world, until the wartime appearance of the American Essex-class.[100]
 
Removal of veto with majority being close group of alies (US and co)? No thanks. In that case you might as well put US in charge to do whatever it pleases.

How about removal of UNSC altogether, and instead vote on important topics in UN with all countries being represented. 2/3 needed for regular decisions, and 75% for critical ones. That would be additional safeguard against warmongering countries like US, since its harder to convince 75% World needs another war than 66%.
 
Removal of veto with majority being close group of alies (US and co)? No thanks. In that case you might as well put US in charge to do whatever it pleases.

How about removal of UNSC altogether, and instead vote on important topics in UN with all countries being represented. 2/3 needed for regular decisions, and 75% for critical ones. That would be additional safeguard against warmongering countries like US, since its harder to convince 75% World needs another war than 66%.

This sounds like a reasonable idea, but why not have weighted voting for each country by population? This system that has countries with 10,000 population holding same vote as country's with hundreds of million or a billion, is a joke. One man, one vote, not one country, one vote. This way you will have true democracy in UN representing world population.

The 66% and 75% breakdown and other issues about UN constitution/charter, should be proposed and then ratified by all member nations of the UN.
 
This sounds like a reasonable idea, but why not have weighted voting for each country by population? This system that has countries with 10,000 population holding same vote as country's with hundreds of million or a billion, is a joke. One man, one vote, not one country, one vote. This way you will have true democracy in UN representing world population.

The 66% and 75% breakdown and other issues about UN constitution, should be proposed and then ratified by all member nations of the UN.

Agreed about more population = more votes, but not linear, i.e. China with India having almost half of UN votes would be unreasonable as well :azn: Maybe 1 vote per country + 1 vote for each 100 mln. citizens, up to 5 votes total.
 
Agreed about more population = more votes, but not linear, i.e. China with India having almost half of UN votes would be unreasonable as well :azn: Maybe 1 vote per country + 1 vote for each 100 mln. citizens, up to 5 votes total.

What ever the people and countries of the world can agree on, it will be a welcome change to what we have now. I still think one vote for each country with some times as low a population as just a few hundred is giving too much right to these small countries.

But 100 million is a rather large unit, I think most people of the world would prefer 10 million, as there are many countries between 10 and 100 million, with a total population of about 2.4 billion who would not have a vote. If you consider EU as a country, then there are only 12 countries that have more than 100 million:

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 China: 1,347,350,000
2 India: 1,210,193,422
3 EU: 502,486,499
4 United States: 313,924,000
5 Indonesia: 237,641,326
6 Brazil : 192,376,496
7 Pakistan: 180,118,000
8 Nigeria: 166,629,000
9 Bangladesh: 152,518,015
10 Russia: 143,100,000
11 Japan: 127,530,000
12 Mexico: 112,336,538


Total of above 12 countries: 4.7 billion (including EU), without EU 4.2 billion
Total world population: 7 billion

Total for countries between 10 and 100 million: 2.4 billion (including EU), without EU 1.9 billion
Total for countries less than 10 million: 375 million

But if you follow my recommendation for regional unions (kalu_miah's new world order), then none of these small countries get marginalized as they are all a small part of a big regional union such as, EU+, LAU, Eurasia+, AU, GCC+, ASEAN+, India and China. Once the small countries have coalesced into regional unions, then 100 million as a unit for one vote will make more sense:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...rld-order-road-map-future-11.html#post2836627
 
the UNSC member should be:
1. china
2. EU
3.USA
4.India+ pakistan + bangladesh as one
5.arabic union
7.Russia
8. ASEAN
9. Brazil
 
Back
Top Bottom