Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Security Council's "Big 5:" Outdated?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2003 @ 10:54 AM
link   
This has been occurring to me more and more during these days of threats of war: Is the "Big 5" outdated? Is it possible that newer, more intelligent, less hot-headed countries are needed to head the SC? Certainly.

Since the glory days of FDR, Russia(USSR), France, Britian, the US, and Nationalist China have been permanent members of the Security council, and every other nation have been voted in. Now, do you think that the "Big 5" still are the necessary members or do you think that they have become weakened so much that new management is needed? Either way, the Security Council will be in it's normal format.

Post thoughts here.




posted on Feb, 9 2003 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Yes, the "big 5" are outdated. The security council should have representatives for Africa and the Middle East ( the arab world ), perhaps South Africa and the UAE?



posted on Feb, 9 2003 @ 02:35 PM
link   
We do not need a representivtive from the Mid. East. China is close enough. We'd probaly get some al-Qaida spy in there. Besides the super-powers are all we need in the council.



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Yes, This "system" was set up at the end of WW II and while the so called 'Big 5' were all somewhat of a "super power" in their own right. The Soviets, USA, China, UK, France. were the original members. China was replaced by the Communist Regime several years
ago.

It would take a concerted effort of the US, UK and at least a majority of the UN Member States to alter and remove any of the "permenent" members of the Security Council. France is not a super-power;
it only has 54 million people, they act like they are better then anyone else. In the last century, there were two World Wars, France was easily overrun by the Germans in the early days of each War. The UK (Great Britain) fought very hard and alone for a period, THATS a super-power.

France should be replaced by a "European Member" chosen from the Countries of Europe. The other states of the Security Council should stay as formulated.

Of course this is My Opinion, and each one has an opinion of their own.

USAFSS-SP
02/10/03



posted on Feb, 10 2003 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
We do not need a representivtive from the Mid. East. China is close enough. We'd probaly get some al-Qaida spy in there. Besides the super-powers are all we need in the council.


I don't think anyone really cares who goes in as long as they are representatives of the major areas. US is good, Germany, Japan, UAE, and Australia are needed.One from each major areas of the world(UAE doubles to represent Africa as well).



posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 02:11 PM
link   
How can we solve the Middle East's problems if it's nations and people are not represented?! There should be an arabic reprasentative, as the only middle eastern nation the superepower(s) listen to is Israel, who represent only a tiny minority in the region. Also, as the area is so unstable, representation in the security council will surely have it's benefits



posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 02:38 PM
link   
by installing governments that aren't out to "kill all the infadels", we might improve the crop to pick from, eh?





new topics




 
0

log in

join