Amazon.com Widgets

Should permanent member seats in the UN be added?

  • Yes they should.

    Permanent member seats should be added to the UN in my opinion. Adding permanent seats creates a sense of unity and permanence. By having them constantly change, the UN is not unified and it would overall create a better atmosphere if we had permanent member seats because it would allow people to become leaders.

  • Permanent seats (and the UN) should be abolished.

    The notion that some member nations should have permanent seats in the UN is inane. Power to carry out the UN's goals is too concentrated in a few nations, which in turn bear the lion's share of financial and military responsibility. Curiously, the US appears to carry more than its fair share of the burden. If the UN's stated goal is to foster peace and security through economic and military collaboration, then get other countries involved in the process, to share in the costs, or, better yet, just get rid of the UN. That'll resolve all debate about membership and status.

  • No. A UN member should not have a permanent seat.

    No. The UN was created to have checks and balances on a world scale. The idea that a member should be placed permanently is politically wrong. A member of the UN should always act as a representative of the world's people, and should always be subject to removal if they are not representing the values of humanity.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.