Should the EU have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this. I have a debate soon and am arguing that we should have a permanent seat. My arguments are pretty weak so would appreciate any input or just your general opinion. :smile:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Morgsie

Yes, Lord Mallach Brown suggested that the EU will be represented even more and will eventually get a Seat at the UNSC.
http://euobserver.com/24/22553

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 2

Mouth

Cheers just read through that!

Reply 3

OMGWTFBBQ

No, it weakens the sovereignty of the constituent states even further.

Reply 4

Morgsie

Article 34 of the Treaty on the European Union, the High Representative may attend to present the Union's position.

Reply 5

Psyk

As long as EU members have their own armed forces that can operate independently (which most of them do, even if they often cooperate with each other), then I don't see why the entire EU should be represented by one seat. Maybe the EU could have a special observer seat or something, but I don't see the point in the EU having a normal, permanent seat when the EU doesn't command a military.

Reply 6

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by Psyk

The EU is home to two of the most technologically advanced military forces in the world, supported by several more high ranking smaller/less powerful states. The bloc has also deployed military forces under it's own command before, rather than from individual member states.

I think it makes sense for the EU to be the European representative on the council, with Brazil (South America), Mexico (Central America), South Africa (Africa), Turkey (Middle East), India (southeast Asia) and Australia or Japan (Pacific) also given representation as the most powerful regional militaries around the world. The UK and France no longer have powerful militaries in their own right, but can contribute very powerful parts of multinational task groups.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 7

bkeevin

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

Surely if we were trying to be logical then we would simply merge Britain's and France's seat to the one EU seat in the security council. Why should Mexico have a seat when the US, their North American neighbours already represent that area? Central America and the Pacific are too small to be really represented. However Japan is significant enough.

Reply 8

Aphotic Cosmos

Original post by bkeevin

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I advocate replacing the UK and France with an EU seat.

Reply 9

bkeevin

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I advocate replacing the UK and France with an EU seat.

OK I see that we agree on the EU seat. But why give Mexico or even Australia a seat though, is it to give the US more influence?

Reply 10

eff01

No the EU is not a country. Nor is the EU some sort of federation. Looking at Foreign policy even though the EU has this idea of a CSFP, member states decide on their individual foreign policy and not the EU, thus unless the EU has a universal foreign policy on every single matter applying to every member state (which is VERY unlikely to happen) I see no reason why it should have a seat on the security council.

Reply 11

Aj12

No, EU foreign policy is a joke, its individual nations have more influence on their own than as part of an EU block.

Reply 12

Morgsie

The main argument against this is that France and UK are reluctant to give up their seat and the precious Veto.

Reply 13

Idle

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

The UK and France no longer have powerful militaries in their own right, but can contribute very powerful parts of multinational task groups.

What, 2 nations within the top 5 military spenders do not have powerful militarises in their own right?

Either one would beat all the countries you have listed 1 vs 1

Reply 14

Brandmon

Currently no. EU foreign policy is hardly taken seriously or even pursued forward by the EU itself. That said, considering the inevitable emergence of other nations with Brazil, India and Russia having the potential to overtake any of the current European nations and nations such as China and Japan having already did, individual European nations will gradually lose their voice and fade to the same level as Canada, Australia and South Korea.

Reform of the Security Council is inevitable and I see one of two possibilities. Either the seats of the security council are doubled, thus ensuring that France and the UK remain with Germany joining in. Or the security council is kept with the same layout of 5 Permanent members, but the UK and France are booted out and replaced by India and Brazil.

In the more long term, the security council will likely take on a more supranational composition rather than national (with the EU, NAFTA, USAN, etc) But by then in terms of foreign policy the EU would have very likely gotten it's act together (out of circumstantial necessity I suspect)

Reply 15

james22

Original post by Aphotic Cosmos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_spending

No.

I'm in favour but you need to get unanimity amongst the 27 Member States

Reply 18

toronto353

Not at all. By that reasoning you may as well let the African Union, ASEAN and other groups have a seat and if that happens, you'll simply get another version of the General Assembly in the Security Council thus negating the point of having a separate Security Council.