Should the UN Security Council Expand Its Permanent Membership?

[siddharth]

There has been talk of increasing the number of permanent members in the Security Council. The countries who have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Japan, Germany and India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council"
So, what are your opinions on the expansion of the security council? Should the number of permanent members be increased and if so, which countries should be alloted seats as permanent members? Should these new members also have the veto power, or should the veto power be abolished all together?

 

[PerennialII]

the veto power be abolished all together?

This sounds like a place to start, perhaps the UN might actually get something done.

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps more members are necessary in order to get a broader representation of opinions and perspectives.

Perhaps the veto of anyone nation should be subject to a vote by the security council and subject to over-riding by a majority of members 2/3's 3/4's.

from the wiki article -

Decisions in the 15-member Security Council on all substantive matters—for example, a decision calling for direct measures related to the settlement of a dispute—require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote—a veto—by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used 5 vetoes; France, 18; Russia/USSR, 122; the United Kingdom, 32; and the United States, 79. The majority of the USSR vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence, and the numbers since 1984 have been: China, 2; France, 3; Russia, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 42.

and there is also the issue for the western nations:

Therefore, the prospect of introducing a permanent Islamic member to the security council is highly sensitive, especially if such a member were to be granted the power of veto.

Outside the Muslim world, commentators from mainly the United States, have raised concerns that an empowered Islamic member could wield its veto to restrict the UN's ability to act forcefully in the Middle East or on the boundaries of the Islamic world (e.g. Kashmir and Chechnya), rendering the UN impotent in those regions. The lack of democracy in Middle Eastern states that are predominantly Muslim is another reason cited by some Western commentators who argue against the idea of including these countries in the club of permanent, veto-wielding states.

The difficulty of conflicting political interests, e.g. US, Russia and China during the 'Cold War' period seems to indicate the need for a 'better' system.

 

[chound]

I hate the security council!
Isnt UN supposed to represent all the countries? But why does it give preference to a select few?

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps the veto of anyone nation should be subject to a vote by the security council and subject to over-riding by a majority of members 2/3's 3/4's.

I'd go for that.

 

[Cosmo16]

I'd go for that.

me to, I think that is a pretty fair way to do it. (ya know, the whole checks and balances thing)

 

[Entropy]

Isnt UN supposed to represent all the countries? But why does it give preference to a select few?

No, just the imporant ones (i.e. ones with political power). What would give you that silly idea.

 

[Mercator]

I voted for others. Liechtenstein in particular. It doesn't always have to be the big boys.

 

[Skyhunter]

It definitely needs reform. I would support more members in the security council if the veto were changed to allow for overrides. As it stands the UN is nearly dis-functional due to the whims of the 5 permanent members.