The five permanent members enjoy an exclusive right to veto any resolution proposed for the UNSC. The veto issue is believed to be the reason for the massive failure of UNSC to prevent the humanitarian disasters in Rwanda in 1994 and Darfur in 2004. We believe the way to make the UNSC more focused on its actual mission and duties is to abolish or increase permanent positions in UNSC altogether. We believe all 15 seats should be distributed in world regions and subjected to an election of the member states of that region. We do not think that this debate should be about exact regional representation, instead it should be decided on the potential to make UN Security Council more accountable and effective in solving global security problems. With regard to veto rights, we believe it is an issue worth a debate of its own and therefore we would like to separate this debate from it. We do not however sympathize with the current practices of 5Ps for exercising veto rights.
The security council must be expanded. The five permanent members are all timeworn superpowers of the cold war era, still disagreeing as if they were still in a frantic global power struggle. Just look at why they cant do anything about Syria. Also, if you look at the 2012 statistics 35 resolutions were passed concerning the Middle East/N. Africa, after all who inst concerned about large oil deposits? But this region is the only place experiencing human rights abuses and war, there is also Oceania, and South/Central America. However only one resolution dealing with South/Central America was passed regarding Haiti, and only two regarding Oceania. As a result of the small size of the security council, regions are being ignored because no one from that region is present to put forth their problems, and the permanent five quite frankly don't care if there's no oil
Out of five permanent members four members are European.They are also rich and industrialized.On the other hand North-South countries not as developed as them.All permanent members work for their own block,talk about their interest.If security council expand all members will be added and all region will able to take about their problems,agenda etc.In this way global problems will be easy and North-south problems vs highly developed countries differences will be less.
The five permanent members enjoy an exclusive right to veto any resolution proposed for the UNSC. The veto issue is believed to be the reason for the massive failure of UNSC to prevent the humanitarian disasters in Rwanda in 1994 and Darfur in 2004. We believe the way to make the UNSC more focused on its actual mission and duties is to abolish or increase permanent positions in UNSC altogether. We believe all 15 seats should be distributed in world regions and subjected to an election of the member states of that region. We do not think that this debate should be about exact regional representation, instead it should be decided on the potential to make UN Security Council more accountable and effective in solving global security problems.
SC could take more active role in resolving issues, however they use veto more often than take any effective decision and use it only for their personal interests. War over so many years ago, it is time to include Germany , Japan, India, Brazil, Poland and at least one muslim state, maybe UAE. Not Saudi Arabia!
It is important that the U.N. Security Council be expanded because the permanent states have more power and that isn't fair to some of the other countries even though they might be less developed. It is essential to hear what other countries have to say because whatever the U.N. does, affects them.
Allow the missing major countries, like Germany, Japan, India, Israel, Australia, Italy, etc. to become permanent members, but not with veto power This is a council that is supposed to deal with major world affairs, but many big stage players aren't there. There should also be a way of choosing the nonpermanent members that allows for adequate representation based on geographic location.
Developing countries which have shown tremendous growth potential, should be included in the Security council. India specifically has contributed to the world a lot , and continues to do so. Representing 1/6th on the humanity and showing growth and tremendous potential. But it has been targeted by its neighboring countries. As an emerging super-power in the Asia - Pacific , India should be included in Permanent members
The current members of the Security Council do not represent the epicentre of world power in the 21st century. Countries like Brazil, India, Japan, Germany and the Persian Gulf Bloc have a lot more relevance and influence in the global scene. UK, France are colonial powers of the past with no real economic or military influence as they once had. At the same time, while pushing for greater representation of all geographic regions of the world in the Security Council, there needs to be a debate on the issue of veto. In the past, the veto has been a major hurdle in many UN peace keeping missions and interventions and thus it makes it very difficult for the Council to push through resolutions.
4/5ths of the world's population lives in the developing world, but their voices have not been represented in the UNSC. 4 out of 5 members of UNSC permanent seats are industrialized countries, 3 out of 5 are European. By enlarging UNSC, adding emerging economies from Africa, Asia and Latin America in UNSC, there will be a considerable step towards north-south imbalance.
The United Nations Security Council should not be expanded. There are no important countries that should be on the council except the ones that are already on it. It would not make sense to add more countries, because then a lot of other small countries that are not important would want to join.
We have enough security counsels, survaillences, whatever you wanna call them, to last a long time. I don't see why we need to add to that any further. It would just be more needless expansion to me. So no I don't think the U.N. Security Council should be expanded at all.
They do not need to expand the UN council. Government is big enough. We do not need to add people to a situation that could delay decisions that need to be made. The people that are already on the council can do the job of deciding where we need those forces or not without adding another bearucrat.
The United Nations Security Council works just fine as it is. Although the UN has more countries in it now than when it first started, the body does an adequate job of addressing the security needs of the world just fine. The only problem lies in countries with veto power such as China, Russia and the United States. Expansion isn't the answer--coming up with a different veto system should be addressed.
Currently, the U.N. contains the countries that have the best position to figure things out. All the super powers are present, and they work together in such a way as not to prevent other countries from being awesome, but preventing them from becoming meglomaniacs. If it is my decision, keep the UN as simple as possible.
The current five members of the council use their veto for their own interests and can lead to stifled development and inaction when action is needed. Adding a sixth country to the elite permanent members would mean an extra country with another veto to be used for it's own benefit