Which of these countries should have permanent UNSC seats?

[TDAS04]

The permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are US, UK, France, Russia, China.  Which other countries should have permanent representation?

[ElectionsGuy]

NOTA

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keep the permanent members at five, but move France's permanent seat to the EU and Britain's to the largest portion of the old empire: India.  (Note, just as in the old days. the Soviet Union had the permanent seat ant two of its constituent republics were also separate UN members, the EU having member status would be no reason for its constituent countries to not also have member status.)

[Supersonic]

NOTA, though I wouldn't mind Germany.

Keep the permanent members at five, but move France's permanent seat to the EU and Britain's to the largest portion of the old empire: India.  (Note, just as in the old days. the Soviet Union had the permanent seat ant two of its constituent republics were also separate UN members, the EU having member status would be no reason for its constituent countries to not also have member status.)

God no!

[TNF]

The Security Council should be abolished

[Hatman 🍁]

The UN needs to be reformed first. Preferably the assembly would consist of a bicameral legislature, with a lower house of 1000 members (from 1000 districts elected using AV) and an upper house with 700 members (from 7 districts of 100 members, elected proportionally)

The Secretary General would be directly elected in a world-wide election.

FTR, the upper house districts would be:

1) Americas
2) Europe
3) Sub-Saharan Africa
4) West/Central Asia /Maghreb
5) China
6) India
7) East Asia / Oceania

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

NOTA, though I wouldn't mind Germany.

Keep the permanent members at five, but move France's permanent seat to the EU and Britain's to the largest portion of the old empire: India.  (Note, just as in the old days. the Soviet Union had the permanent seat ant two of its constituent republics were also separate UN members, the EU having member status would be no reason for its constituent countries to not also have member status.)

God no!

I realize that giving India a permanent seat while not giving Pakistan one is likely to cause rumbles, but if we're going to have permanent seats, they are deserving of one while I fail to see how Europe can justify continuing to have two of the five permanent seats (three if you count the Russians).  Going beyond five veto seats is not a good idea.

[Peter the Lefty]

The Security Council should be abolished

[Del Tachi]

NOTA.

Establish a seat for a semi-permanent veto power.  One nation serves a five year term as a veto power, but cannot serve terms consecutively.  Must be nominated by 3/5 existing veto powers and then confirmed by 2/3 of the GA.

Basically, the USA, UK, and France team up to appoint pro-NATO countries to the seat while the BRICs and other third worlds are satisfied because the seat is "elected".

[bedstuy]

I don't think China or Russia should have UNSC seats.  We could replace them with India and Japan.

[politicus]

India is the obvious candidate. Brazil as the largest country in South America should be included too.

Japan might qualify as the worlds third largest economy, but size of the economy is an factor that can change quite a bit in the long run, so that's a bad criteria. Share of world population for developed/semi-developed economies is a more stable criteria.

While I think reducing Europes number of seats would be fair I don't see it happening, especially as EU will likely never get a coordinated foreign policy.

Africa doesn't have any valid UNSC candidates since Nigeria is such a mess and SA is too small.

We have had similar threads before.

So 6 permant members (China, India, US, Russia, Brazil, UK and France)

An alternative would be to make all UNSC members permanent and reduce it to 12. Then it could be:

- USA, Brazil, Germany, France, UK, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Indonesia and the African Union making it 12 members.

[Franknburger]

I would say:
- 3 seats to the top performers in the Soccer WC (which, in normal years, should come equal to options 1 & 2, but also gives France a fair chance to keep their seat, puts Italy and Spain on the list. and provides some incentive to China)
- 1 seat to the World Cricket champion (to solve the UK vs. India vs. Pakistan vs. South Africa issue)
- 1 seat to the Ice Hockey World Champion (to get the US / Russia question settled)

Sorry Indonesia, no Badminton!

[windjammer]

NOTA, though I wouldn't mind Germany.

Keep the permanent members at five, but move France's permanent seat to the EU and Britain's to the largest portion of the old empire: India.  (Note, just as in the old days. the Soviet Union had the permanent seat ant two of its constituent republics were also separate UN members, the EU having member status would be no reason for its constituent countries to not also have member status.)

God no!

And once again we agree on foreign policy
------------------------------------------

NOTA, though I wouldn't mind Germany.

Keep the permanent members at five, but move France's permanent seat to the EU and Britain's to the largest portion of the old empire: India.  (Note, just as in the old days. the Soviet Union had the permanent seat ant two of its constituent republics were also separate UN members, the EU having member status would be no reason for its constituent countries to not also have member status.)

God no!

I realize that giving India a permanent seat while not giving Pakistan one is likely to cause rumbles, but if we're going to have permanent seats, they are deserving of one while I fail to see how Europe can justify continuing to have two of the five permanent seats (three if you count the Russians).  Going beyond five veto seats is not a good idea.

Maybe because France and Great Britain are two power: economically: world's fifth and sixth largest economy by nominal GDP. Military: they're strong too and they have an influence in the world: GB: The Commonweath and France: Africa (see Mali,...).
And the UNO represents states, not "union of states", that's why the sowjet union wanted to have 56 seats (they just got 3 seats: Russia, Weissrussland, Ukraine). So giving France's permanent seat to European  Union? No way.
And giving GB's permanent seat to  India? I don't understand the reason.

-------------------------
I'm not against reforming the Security Council (like France and probably GB)

[7,052,770]

Germany and Japan pay the 2nd and 3rd highest share of the UN budget, and were only excluded from having a permanent seat because the UN was founded in 1945.

Granted, it would make more sense to have a single EU seat, or to abolish veto power altogether, but working within the system, I'd give permanent seats to India, Japan, and Germany.  Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria would be next on the docket.

[politicus]

Germany and Japan pay the 2nd and 3rd highest share of the UN budget, and were only excluded from having a permanent seat because the UN was founded in 1945.

Granted, it would make more sense to have a single EU seat, or to abolish veto power altogether, but working within the system, I'd give permanent seats to India, Japan, and Germany.  Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria would be next on the docket.

Nigeria is far too weak both economically and as a state. Giving a seat to the African Union would make more sense.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Japan being added would send the Chinese into a tizzy, which might be fun.

[Peter the Lefty]

Japan being added would send the Chinese into a tizzy, which might be fun.

Given the issue over which they'd be sent into a tizzy, I'm not sure it'd really be that fun. 

[Lumine]

All of them, but I wouldn't mind if the Council was abolished.

[Cassius]

NOTA. Any action with regards to the UN (or international affairs in general) which dilutes the power of western countries to the advantage of non-western ones is a dangerous move. Really and truly, China should never have been given a seat on the UNSC.

[H. Ross Peron]

Add all of the above except Indonesia and remove the Permanent Council Member's veto power and replace it with a super majority rule.

[Sol]

Abolish veto powers and permanent SC seats.

If that doesn't work out though, replace UK and France with India and Indonesia.

[TDAS04]

I think that Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil should certainly be included, but the number of vetoes should not be expanded; they should have permanent representation without veto power.  South Africa would be the best choice if there must be an African country, and Indonesia if there must be an Islamic nation.

[NewYorkExpress]

The New Security Council would consist of;

The U.S
India
China
Germany
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Brazil
Britain
Australia
Japan

There is no veto power, and Ties are broken by the Secretary-General

[TDAS04]

The New Security Council would consist of;

The U.S
India
China
Germany
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Brazil
Britain
Australia
Japan

There is no veto power, and Ties are broken by the Secretary-General

Saudi Arabia?  Hell no.

Why Australia?

[NewYorkExpress]

The New Security Council would consist of;

The U.S
India
China
Germany
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Brazil
Britain
Australia
Japan

There is no veto power, and Ties are broken by the Secretary-General

Saudi Arabia?  Hell no.

Why Australia?

For the Saudi's I'd rather have no one from that part of the world... But I figured I had to have somebody, and it was either Saudi's or the Iranians and I see the Saudis as (currently) the lesser of two evils). As for Australia, I was tempted to give that spot to Argentina, Mexico or South Korea... and I guess replacing the Saudis with someone from that trio still makes sense.