The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by PierceBrosnan
Oh I do love my Armed Banking, Sexy Chocolate and Direct Democracy :cool:


As we all do. Just as I love my country's disregard for human rights, economic responsibility and sitting in the pocket of the Russians :wink:
Original post by Morgsie
If you had the power to reform the Membership of the SC, would you choose?


I personally would not opt to change the membership of the SC. The veto powers in particular hold particular historical significance and I personally advocate the 10 non-permanent positions in RL.

I find it an anomaly that India has become a 'permanent' SC position in the MUN though.
Reply 22
Original post by Cheese_Monster
I personally would not opt to change the membership of the SC. The veto powers in particular hold particular historical significance and I personally advocate the 10 non-permanent positions in RL.

I find it an anomaly that India has become a 'permanent' SC position in the MUN though.


UNSC is outdated and the big 5 will never get rid of their precious veto. I favour a EU Seat but France and the UK would not like it one bit.

I did an essay on this topic, really interesting
Original post by Morgsie
UNSC is outdated and the big 5 will never get rid of their precious veto. I favour a EU Seat but France and the UK would not like it one bit.

I did an essay on this topic, really interesting


Its very interesting, I look forward to studying it with my IR course at uni. I can see your argument for it being 'outdated', but I believe the veto is necessary a lot of the time.


An EU seat in the permanent SC? I don't think I can agree with that, the EU and its members should be in harmony (on international security issues at least), I think the SC, if any, needs more geographical breadth and so an African or South American nation such as Brazil should be amongst the SC with veto powers.
Reply 24
Original post by Cheese_Monster
Its very interesting, I look forward to studying it with my IR course at uni. I can see your argument for it being 'outdated', but I believe the veto is necessary a lot of the time.


An EU seat in the permanent SC? I don't think I can agree with that, the EU and its members should be in harmony (on international security issues at least), I think the SC, if any, needs more geographical breadth and so an African and South American nation such as Brazil should be amongst the SC with veto powers.


The veto is a major issue.

Democratic and representational but what? is the real question on reform I did a module on the UN this term and I am doing a module on the EU next semester/term
Original post by Morgsie
The veto is a major issue.

Democratic and representational but what? is the real question on reform I did a module on the UN this term and I am doing a module on the EU next semester/term


In many contexts it is, but sometimes its essential. Like in the EU, sometimes the veto is absolutely necessary for a nation to protect its own interests and to harmonise the institutions interests with the citizens'.

Geographical proportionality should be at the forefront of democratic Security council arrangements. It cannot be considered 'democratic' nor 'proportional' if the major decisions are not considered by representatives of all populated continents with permament powers. What is your course? It sounds fantastic!

But what? Is often the question for most political reforms. As I said originally, I don't think despite the veto system being one that has been used for a long time, means that it necessarily needs changing, my preference would be to maintain the current system but i'm open to recommendations if obtained this seat.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Morgsie
Thanks, phew. Your like me with your passion and commitment.

Both of you are determined, passionate, dedicated etc. If you had the power to reform the Membership of the SC, would you choose?

Did an essay on UNSC Reform


An excellent question once again Morgsie and I'm sure an execellent essay. Personally, I would like to see a similar plan to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's "In Larger Freedom" Plan B. Currently, we have the same old faces on the security council and I would argue that there needs to be greater representation on the UNSC. Therefore, I call for three new permanent member seats (subject to election and a review every six months) and one non permanent member seat (subject to election and a review every three months).

So across the board there is greater representation on a continental scale and a greater input from a variety of nations. I mean we already have the founding powers on the UNSC. However, the world is becoming increasingly globalised and new countries are emerging as economic and cultural powerhouses and they really should have representation. Particular an African nation such as South Africa.

I hope this has answered your question.
Original post by PierceBrosnan
An excellent question once again Morgsie and I'm sure an execellent essay. Personally, I would like to see a similar plan to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's "In Larger Freedom" Plan B. Currently, we have the same old faces on the security council and I would argue that there needs to be greater representation on the UNSC. Therefore, I call for three new permanent member seats (subject to election and a review every six months) and one non permanent member seat (subject to election and a review every three months).

So across the board there is greater representation on a continental scale and a greater input from a variety of nations. I mean we already have the founding powers on the UNSC. However, the world is becoming increasingly globalised and new countries are emerging as economic and cultural powerhouses and they really should have representation. Particular an African nation such as South Africa.

I hope this has answered your question.


Why three? Why not four, five, six?

What is the purpose of a new non-permament member?

We are agreed on the need for more representation on a geographical scale.

Do you believe that a state's economy should be conducive to its position in the UNSC? I personally do not. Otherwise I would advocate a permament position for Brazil, India and Germany in RL.
Original post by Cheese_Monster
I personally would not opt to change the membership of the SC. The veto powers in particular hold particular historical significance and I personally advocate the 10 non-permanent positions in RL.

I find it an anomaly that India has become a 'permanent' SC position in the MUN though.


Let us not forget that India has been in the UN since 1945. It's bid to join the UNSC has also been backed by France, Russia as well as the USA and UK. The African Union also supports India's UNSC bid. India has also been integral in UN peace keeping missions. The only country that has really not supported India in its bid is Pakistan and given their History together it's obvious why they would not.
Original post by PierceBrosnan
Let us not forget that India has been in the UN since 1945. It's bid to join the UNSC has also been backed by France, Russia as well as the USA and UK. The African Union also supports India's UNSC bid. India has also been integral in UN peace keeping missions. The only country that has really not supported India in its bid is Pakistan and given their History together it's obvious why they would not.


I don't diagree, I just thought that the MUN SC like the RL UNSC is meant to be a microcosm of the victors of WW2. I don't diagree with India's legitimacy or right to be in the UNSC, otherwise I wouldn't be campaigning for the position :wink:
Reply 30
WOW, really good answers.
Original post by Cheese_Monster
Why three? Why not four, five, six?

What is the purpose of a new non-permament member?

We are agreed on the need for more representation on a geographical scale.

Do you believe that a state's economy should be conducive to its position in the UNSC? I personally do not. Otherwise I would advocate a permament position for Brazil, India and Germany in RL.


1) Three, so there is not too much fragmentation of power. There are also not too many members on the SC at one time. The review also address the checks and balances of power and allows for scrutiny and accountability. from both SC members and the GA.

Personally, I believe that a nations economy is an important factor in whether a nation has the potential to become a UNSC member. However, it is not as important as a nations Human Rights. I would like to stress that a nations cultural contribution, how they've acted in the UN and most importantly their Human Rights record are much more important.
Original post by Cheese_Monster
I don't diagree, I just thought that the MUN SC like the RL UNSC is meant to be a microcosm of the victors of WW2. I don't diagree with India's legitimacy or right to be in the UNSC, otherwise I wouldn't be campaigning for the position :wink:


I agree with you to a certain extent. However, we must remember that MUN is more pragmatic and fluid than the RL UNSC and quite rightly so.
Original post by PierceBrosnan
1) Three, so there is not too much fragmentation of power. There are also not too many members on the SC at one time. The review also address the checks and balances of power and allows for scrutiny and accountability. from both SC members and the GA.


Aye. That explanation makes more sense. Although there would be a greater potential for stalemate through the use of the veto with a greater number of countries. Just as in the EU, the fabric of the institution has changed from its origination due to the process of 'enlargement', i'd worry 'three' new members may actually contribute to such stagnation in the UNSC. My first priority would be geographical representation, I would add two new permanent positions if necessary, one for Africa and one for South America. To be decided by a democratic vote in the GA, not the SC.

Personally, I believe that a nations economy is an important factor in whether a nation has the potential to become a UNSC member. However, it is not as important as a nations Human Rights. I would like to stress that a nations cultural contribution, how they've acted in the UN and most importantly their Human Rights record are much more important.


In the real world, a nation's economy is important to its influence but it should not be the deciding factor in the UN (or MUN). Social policy is far more important, as you correctly point to. However, you mention human rights, yet Russia and China are in the UNSC, don't you think there are double standards here? Or even considering the UK and USA's foreign policy in the Middle East may be considered a breach of certain human rights (not to mention Guantanamo Bay remaining open).
I love how the questions are coming from the two candidates to each other. :tongue:
Original post by Cheese_Monster
Aye. That explanation makes more sense. Although there would be a greater potential for stalemate through the use of the veto with a greater number of countries. Just as in the EU, the fabric of the institution has changed from its origination due to the process of 'enlargement', i'd worry 'three' new members may actually contribute to such stagnation in the UNSC. My first priority would be geographical representation, I would add two new permanent positions if necessary, one for Africa and one for South America. To be decided by a democratic vote in the GA, not the SC.



In the real world, a nation's economy is important to its influence but it should not be the deciding factor in the UN (or MUN). Social policy is far more important, as you correctly point to. However, you mention human rights, yet Russia and China are in the UNSC, don't you think there are double standards here? Or even considering the UK and USA's foreign policy in the Middle East may be considered a breach of certain human rights (not to mention Guantanamo Bay remaining open).


1) Whilst I see the premise of your first point. I don't think two members is enough largely because of the greater number of nations who stand a chance as SC members. I do also agree that there should be a vote in the GA, but then there is the problem of Tyranny of the Majority. Do you think the SC should be able to veto the results of a new SC member vote? Say Egypt wins an SC position should the current SC be able to call for a RON even if the GA wants Egypt to be an SC member?

2) Russia and China whether we like it or not are both founding members of the UNSC which was primarily set up to ensure that there is not another WWII. I do agree with you there is a double standard but both Russia and China are integral because of language and population representation. UK and US foreign policy in the Middle East is an area that I'm not too much of an expert in. However, both the UK and the US should have learned after Suez. Though I agree with you there is a double standard with Guantanamo Bay still being opened is hypocritical, both the US and the UK are integral members being both democracies, founding members and also both having global influence. Would you call the same double standard for France seeing their own past?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Cheese_Monster
I love how the questions are coming from the two candidates to each other. :tongue:


It's good stuff seeing as we only have Morgsie asking us questions :P. It also keeps us on our feet waiting for unexpected questions.
Original post by PierceBrosnan
1) Whilst I see the premise of your first point. I don't think two members is enough largely because of the greater number of nations who stand a chance as SC members. I do also agree that there should be a vote in the GA, but then there is the problem of Tyranny of the Majority. Do you think the SC should be able to veto the results of a new SC member vote? Say Egypt wins an SC position should the current SC be able to call for a RON even if the GA wants Egypt to be an SC member?


In terms of continental representation, I think two would suffice, for now. De Tocqueville was a clever bugger when he coined that phrase wasn't he? Maddison's tyranny of the legislature would be more likely :tongue: I think on the issue of new SC membership, the SC should not have any right to use its veto powers. This should become constitutionally enshrined in the UN charter.

2) Russia and China whether we like it or not are both founding members of the UNSC which was primarily set up to ensure that there is not another WWII. I do agree with you there is a double standard but both Russia and China are integral because of language and population representation. UK and US foreign policy in the Middle East is an area that I'm not too much of an expert in. However, both the UK and the US should have learned after Suez. Though I agree with you there is a double standard with Guantanamo Bay still being opened is hypocritical, both the US and the UK are integral members being both democracies, founding members and also both having global influence. Would you call the same double standard for France seeing their own past?


But then by saying 'human rights' should be a big criteria for new members of the SC becomes so largely undermined by the current composition of the SC that it seems redundant. I wouldn't advocate removing Russia or China, population density, military contribution and global influence are all massive where they are concerned, but in terms of social policy, the UN should act as a collective force to strive for greater human rights diplomacy in these nations.

Its not a matter of the foreign policy of the past, I would consider Obama's drone war in Afghanistan one that violates fundamental human rights on the right to 'life'. I believe if we are going to create new permanent positions in the SC, we must clean up the social standings of the current SC as they act as the guardians and role models to other nations. If they cannot put into practice their own preachings, new seats based on this foundation is irrelevant.
(edited 11 years ago)
I've changed my mind slightly on my earlier argument. If we change the membership of the MUN SC (not the RL UNSC as I was earlier referring to) I support the accession of the G4 nations to permament membership alongside a member of the Arab League and an African nation, although I worry about stagnation caused by the veto power, proportionality is key. I think I will take Morgsie's considerations about the 'veto' into account a lot more here; although it is a tool to retain one's influence in the UN, it is often an obstruction to democratic decision-making.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Cheese_Monster
In terms of continental representation, I think two would suffice, for now. De Tocqueville was a clever bugger when he coined that phrase wasn't he? Maddison's tyranny of the legislature would be more likely :tongue: I think on the issue of new SC membership, the SC should not have any right to use its veto powers. This should become constitutionally enshrined in the UN charter.



But then by saying 'human rights' should be a big criteria for new members of the SC becomes so largely undermined by the current composition of the SC that it seems redundant. I wouldn't advocate removing Russia or China, population density, military contribution and global influence are all massive where they are concerned, but in terms of social policy, the UN should act as a collective force to strive for greater human rights diplomacy in these nations.

Its not a matter of the foreign policy of the past, I would consider Obama's drone war in Afghanistan one that violates fundamental human rights on the right to 'life'. I believe if we are going to create new permanent positions in the SC, we must clean up the social standings of the current SC as they act as the guardians and role models to other nations. If they cannot put into practice their own preachings, new seats based on this foundation is irrelevant.


Of course I can see where you're coming from. However, the right to 'life' is continuously violated throughout the world obviously I need to do research into Obama's drone war in Afghanistan so I can't comment on that. As much as I agree with you on the whole social standings issue, I feel that it is slightly ineffective largely because of the commitments these nations currently have as well as their status's as economic powerhouses. Furthermore, what about nuclear arms surely they're a violation to the right to "life" as well. In fact the only nation who may have somewhat of a moral upstanding if this is the case is Japan. Also, I would argue that it's not wholly irrelevant seeing as we already have the old gang in the SC.

Latest