Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    This. :yep:

    No. Britain and France are already members, it would be pointless.

    <3 x
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The world has moved on but the UNSC has Cold War mentally and does not reflect the changing world.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A position we are only maintaining because we spend twice the percentage of GDP of the global average. (4.7% UK GDP vs 2.2% Global Average) And despite this, we still cannot ensure that the Falklands can be recaptured in the event of Argentinian aggression, up to the point of a certain defeat if Argentina ever gets the Military backing of any South American nation (of which almost all already gave their political backing)

    And if current trends are anything to go by the military budget will gradually decrease, not increase.
    • 5 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brandmon)
    A position we are only maintaining because we spend twice the percentage of GDP of the global average. (4.7% UK GDP vs 2.2% Global Average) And despite this, we still cannot ensure that the Falklands can be recaptured in the event of Argentinian aggression, up to the point of a certain defeat if Argentina ever gets the Military backing of any South American nation (of which almost all already gave their political backing)

    And if current trends are anything to go by the military budget will gradually decrease, not increase.
    1. We spend 2.6% of our GDP on defence, this is exactly the world average.

    2. Argentina won't capture the falklands because our 4 typhoons could taken on their entire airforce before they even got within range.

    3. If Argentina somehow did capture the falklands we could easily force them to give it back by just firing tommahawk missiles at military bases in Argentina from our nuclear sub and they could do nothing to stop it.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    personally i say no, it has absolutly no need to be there..
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    1. We spend 2.6% of our GDP on defence, this is exactly the world average.

    2. Argentina won't capture the falklands because our 4 typhoons could taken on their entire airforce before they even got within range.

    3. If Argentina somehow did capture the falklands we could easily force them to give it back by just firing tommahawk missiles at military bases in Argentina from our nuclear sub and they could do nothing to stop it.
    1. My bad, a mistake on my part. That said we were spending a little over 4% back during the actual Falklands conflict and we still only reclaimed the Falklands by the skin of our teeth. We hardly have room to resume the military budget to Cold War levels. The Argentinians on the other hand can.

    2. You cannot count on just 4 Typhoon fighters to repel any attack indefinitely. It is certainly enough to counter the current Argentinian Air Force. But if they actually consider action against the Falklands, then you can expect their budget to increase (being only 0.9% currently). And you cannot discount the possibility that if the Argentinians consider military action, it will be very likely with allies this time around.

    3. Force them? How? If they are willing enough to strike against the Falklands, they will hardly back down to mere Tomahawk strikes. Furthermore don't forget that a strike on the Argentinian mainland could trigger direct support from other South American nations (they have already established a NATO-like alliance after all and would cement it in the case of action against European possession in South America) This could leave out vital staging point at the Ascension Islands vulnerable to attack.

    We should consider the threat, not as Argentina is now, but as Argentina might be if it actually considered a military option and upped military spending. There is no reason for us to assume that all would go as planned as things did in 1982 - there is much to go wrong in an expedition 12,000 km away from the UK. Unless that is we either resume military spending to Cold War levels, possibly ruining our economy, or we secure the help of other European nations, of which France is very willing to help since it has similar vested interests in the region.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mouth)
    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.
    The point of the security council is to avoid a serious confrontation between the strongest powers in the world.

    It is not about being fair or reflecting "our economy will be 5th in the world in 50 years time". It is a very serious organisation that tries to help avoid war by allowing great powers to protect their interests diplomatically.

    If you don't have the means to wage your own war, then you have no place on the security council. It's a valve for nuclear armed and very dangerous states. It's not the local equality board.

    The EU has no place on the security council unless its military and foreign policy insitutions and powers dramatically change.
    • 32 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There is talk of military but no mention of financial power. The EU is the largest donor.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    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.
    Representing different regions of the world is not the purpose of the security council. The purpose of being a veto wielding member of the council is to prevent UN actions on certain security matters that are of a strong national interest, this helps prevents wars.

    I have no idea where you got this barmy vision of the security council as some kind of democratic organisation to represent different parts of the world.

    It's designed to stop superpowers and great powers from going to war, a job it does with admirable success.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    It's designed to stop superpowers and great powers from going to war, a job it does with admirable success.
    Then why don't we boot out the actual superpowers, and elect an independent council instead? If superpowers want to go to war, they will actually go to war. If the Soviet Union woke up on the wrong side of the bed, a US, French and British veto would hardly stop the Red Army bulldozing the Fulda Gap. And if there was a resolution condemning Soviet aggression, the Soviets would just have Veto'd it and lol'd.

    The Security Council was established with the only remaining great powers after World War II. It was not even conceived of stopping conflict between Council Members because the Cold War hardly started yet. So the whole notion that it is to stop great powers from going to war is absurd.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brandmon)
    1. My bad, a mistake on my part. That said we were spending a little over 4% back during the actual Falklands conflict and we still only reclaimed the Falklands by the skin of our teeth. We hardly have room to resume the military budget to Cold War levels. The Argentinians on the other hand can.

    2. You cannot count on just 4 Typhoon fighters to repel any attack indefinitely. It is certainly enough to counter the current Argentinian Air Force. But if they actually consider action against the Falklands, then you can expect their budget to increase (being only 0.9% currently). And you cannot discount the possibility that if the Argentinians consider military action, it will be very likely with allies this time around.

    3. Force them? How? If they are willing enough to strike against the Falklands, they will hardly back down to mere Tomahawk strikes. Furthermore don't forget that a strike on the Argentinian mainland could trigger direct support from other South American nations (they have already established a NATO-like alliance after all and would cement it in the case of action against European possession in South America) This could leave out vital staging point at the Ascension Islands vulnerable to attack.

    We should consider the threat, not as Argentina is now, but as Argentina might be if it actually considered a military option and upped military spending. There is no reason for us to assume that all would go as planned as things did in 1982 - there is much to go wrong in an expedition 12,000 km away from the UK. Unless that is we either resume military spending to Cold War levels, possibly ruining our economy, or we secure the help of other European nations, of which France is very willing to help since it has similar vested interests in the region.
    1- The Argentinians are more mired by debt and recession than we are. Why else are they banging the drum about the Falklands? To distract the electorate from problems at home. They have no ability to increase military spending. And even if they did, it would take a year for them to build up forces capable of invasion - more than enough time for us to counter effectively.
    2- If we see them ramping it up, we simply increase the numbers of the garrison on the island. Bring in another Army regiment, deploy an entire squadron of aircraft, base an RN ship there. That kind of defence - coupled with our knowledge of the area - is enough to repel any combination that Argentina could throw.
    3- The point with the Tomahawks is that not only could we put a missile through the President's bedroom window but with them we can completely knock out Argentina's ability to respond. We can destroy all runways at all their airfields as well as their MoD. What can they do then?

    I find your reckoning that France would be on our side of this dispute amusing. They were the least helpful of all European countries last time round, denying us the right to fly over the country and some African countries and refusing us details of the missiles they had sold the Argentines...

    Would it be easy? No. But it would be a lot easier for us than it would the Argentinians.


    As for the topic; no. EU countires won't give up their seats and the EU isn't in 'charge' of anyone's security in the first place. There's more reason to give a seat to NATO than there is the UN.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    As a few others have already said, that's a load of bull****.
    Britain and France have highly capable armed forces that in an all out war would be able to beat any nation that doesn't have a nuclear deterrent.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    An EU seat would negate the point of having a United Nations in the first place, as it is a collaboration of nation-states, not super-nationalist states.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: May 2, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.