Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I was thinking about this in class today, as we were talking about the formative process behind the five permanent members of the security council and veto power in 1945.

Assuming you could change it, which five countries would you choose to essentially lead the UN? (at present it's Russia, Great Britain, France, the USA, and China)

I'll go first, and then explain my reasoning.

Mexico
Belgium
Ethiopia
India
China

Mexico's the perfect representative for the Americas. It's the ideal "in-between" country, bridging the gap between the United States (and Canada, more on that later) and Latin/South America. It has been self-determining for centuries, has a large population of natives who actually have a voice in politics and aren't just marginalized on reservations in garbage states, has a large landmass, and has plenty of room for economic growth. It has the capacity to be the truest "voice" of America, because it's not just a glorified and bloated offshoot of Europe the way the USA is.

I use Belgium as the stand-in for the European Union, mostly because the headquarters are there but also because it's not a country that engenders a lot of strong opinions towards it the way France of Germany might. Free from the burden of public opinion, Belgium would adequately represent the EU's needs on the council, and acts as the mouthpiece for two of the world's nuclear powers. With English membership in the EU, the commonwealth can consider itself represented, which would make Canada happy and make Australia feel relevant despite its poor geographic placement. I would also consider the Netherlands for this seat.

Ethiopia is a compromise choice. It's one of the more stable and largest/most populous countries in Africa, and was pretty much the only independent nation on the entire continent during the colonial era. Additionally, it's one of the few countries in the area to not have excessive religious tensions, and with a Christian majority and a large Muslim minority coexisting, as well as its proximity to the Persian Gulf, it's the ideal representative not just for African concerns but also for Middle Eastern ones. Plus, renewed importance on the global scale might make the country modernize, and if wikipedia has told me anything, it's just begging to turn into free money.

India and China are there mostly for questions of population. It's hard to cut either of them out of the deal when practically a third of the world's people are divided between them, and they're both nuclear powers to boot. India's there additionally for questions of regional stability, because it's the big hammer looming over Iran and the -stans (including Pakistan and Afghanistan), plus they're capable of really getting somewhere economically if they make their planned economics actually work. I don't really like leaving China as the sole survivor from the original batch, but there's just no good way to get rid of it. Mongolia isn't a real country, the Indochina countries emulated Russian practices over Chinese ones when going Red, South Korea's probably still not happy about the North Korea thing, and Japan is too distant and too elitist.

The one thing I'm not happy about with this whole arrangement is cutting Russia out of everything, because none of the five representative countries have Russian interests in mind and Russia tends to go around invading people when it thinks nobody's looking. If they could get their shit together and meet the requirements to join the EU, that'd solve that problem.

100% mental wankfest.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Dylan
Dylan
Dylan
Dylan
Dylan
.

Isn't Mexico basically run by drug cartels now? Do we really want them representing all of North America? I think if anyone you gotta go with Canada. They are so non-threatening.

The government in Mexico is retardedly corrupt. I'm not parroting pundits, I'm going by what natives I know have said, my own personal experiences as well as friends that have traveled there.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Right, so I'm writing this part last. I took a break or two when writing the stuff below so sorry if it repeats/rambles. Here is my list though:

Belgium/Netherlands
Ethiopia
Brazil
South Korea
Indonesia

Brazil > Mexico. Pretty much leader of Latin America, good standing with other nations. Going to be a world power in it's own right soon, one of the most progressive nations in pretty much all of the Americas. I like that it doesn't have as close of ties with the United States as Mexico. The US will remain a world power for quite a bit longer, it will have pull with the security council regardless; it might have too much power over Mexico for them to have a seat. They also are championing legal transparency and multilateralism ftw.

India/China worry me being on the council, as any country with nuclear capabilities being on it would(all of them, lol!). China has the same problem as America, too powerful and doesn't need to be on the security council to hold a ridiculous amount of sway.

So... South Korea over China. I don't think North Korea is that big of an issue, everyone is wary of them and I'll elaborate on this point later.

Indonesia over India, more representative of the muslim nations than Ethiopia in a country that has a tradition of strong religious freedom for the most part. No caste system and generally feel that if India was on the council there would be a war between them and the muslim nations eventually(specifically Pakistan).

Still leaves two of the seats in southeast Asia, so while the largest countries specifically aren't represented the region still is.

Belgium/Netherlands I'm down with.

Ethiopia, I have no idea what to do with Africa. I guess I agree since I cannot think of anything that would be better.

SO, what purpose would this pretend council serve? HOPEFULLY full nuclear disarmament. Pipe dream, I know. If the UN voted in overwhelming support for this and the security council wasn't full of countries that would instantly oppose it, it might happen. The countries have strong civil rights and with the exception of Ethiopia are all strong economic powers, without many entitlements since Brazil is the only one in the top ten. Ideally this council would heavily support global civil rights and achieve this via non-violent means as much as possible. Combo of nuclear ban/civil rights super show would hopefully strip North Korea of being a threat to anyone. If these things occurred, I think South Korea could be not so biased against them and be a less scary member than China.

My general opinion is fuck all countries currently on the security council. If this other pretend council actually achieved disarmament and the use of nuclear weapons was seen as the most heinous crime on the planet, the military might of US, China and Russia would be lessened and a hopefully a global stalemate could occur.

I sorta doubt the western world will want to get bogged down in another war and will be content will defense. With nuclear disarmament, the middle east and asia are probably the only ones who would actively consider invading something. I could see the muslim nations invading each other happening but I doubt they would ever get past India. China doesn't inspire confidence as a sit there and do nothing kind of guy, but what are it's options? South-east asia? India/Japan/Indonesia would likely be able to present enough of a threat so they wouldn't go for it. Additionally I doubt China/Russia trust each other enough to engage in a full-scale war while the other country is at their back. Non-aggression pact won't work, I doubt Russia is interested in another one of those. I suppose they might go after each other but that seems risky. Russia can't occupy a country with ten times the population and they can't protect supply lines going all the way to Beijing. China going for Russia seems more plausible, but invading Russia has never worked out.

I got no ideas for what would actually happen in the middle east and africa though. Israel might be uncomfortable but an attack on it would probably be the only thing the middle east is likely to do that would prompt the west to get involved in something.

Drominar, Petrous, Chronowrench

Total nuclear disarmament will never, never happen. Never. Mark my words.

Is it in the best interest of the entire world? Absolutely.

However, this assumes that rogue nations would not acquire black market nukes. This assumes they would not develop them. This assumes the USA would fully comply. I don't see that happening. If it were found out that a country that signed any disarmament treaty still owned nuclear weapons, all hell would break loose.

I don't think nuclear weaponry should ever be used in an offensive manner again, with very few exceptions for extremely dire circumstances.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

We're playing pretend here though.

Drominar, Petrous, Chronowrench

The UN Security Council is an obsolete institution previously created to institutionalize racism.

The UN, and the Council, ceased to be relevant when two things happened: overt racism became uncool, and people realized that a UN that lived up to its name would be nothing but a hassle whenever the West tried to do something evil.

China is evil and doesn't care about anyone, and putting them on the Security Council would just mean vetoing anything done because it's the right thing to do.

If we are to interpret your question as viewing the Security Council as an evil that we must marginalize because we cannot disband it, I would choose:

1. United States
2. European Union
3. Brazil
4. Iran
5. India

Decently representative of democratic states with a reasonable degree of integrity.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

What makes you feel Iran has integrity?

What makes you feel they don't?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Did I say I think they don't? I am asking you to justify why you think they do.

I don't like a seat for European Union, should leave it on a specific country otherwise it just turns into UK/France/Germany actually holding the power in that office. Rather have it be Netherlands and let the EU countries work with them to form their voice, and if it came down to it a calm country would have the final say in that region's seat. Giving a seat to the EU means shit would take even longer to get done, since they have to sort out what their opinion is before even starting to talk about something with the rest of the council. If it's one country then they have their stances pretty figured out already and they can temper those stances by what the surrounding nations have to say. In the end you need a decision maker and a EU seat would just fuck that up.

Drominar, Petrous, Chronowrench

Because they're a reasonably democratic state that isn't in the business of doing anything particularly evil.

Iran isn't exploiting everything in sight and abusing and terrorizing their own people (China).
Iran isn't a criminal state (Russia/Mexico).
Iran isn't living under the shadow of military dictatorship (Turkey/Pakistan).
Iran isn't hopelessly isolationist and introverted (Japan/Canada).
Iran isn't consumed by hatred and loathing for everyone else on the face of the planet (South Korea).

The Iranians have one of the most ancient cultures in the world. This gives them a sense of cultural definition and identity that makes their national aspirations relevant to the world at large. By way of example, I would expect the French or Chinese to have a better capacity to understand the big problems of the world than, say, the Nigerians or Afghans, setting aside the morality of how they would action that understanding.

The Security Council should be comprised of morally responsible nations that are reasonably representative of the world at large. So far as the Middle East goes, Iran fits the bill.

Do you disagree, Azelma?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I'd rather have the Brady Bunch doing their thing in the back room than in the Security Council chamber.

Make sense?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

PS: The rest of what you said about Iran (other than their history) is pretty out there... what are your sources?