India seeks permanent UN Security Council seat

[Kirkhill]

Actually I can see support for Japan as well.  India probably would be more of a quid pro quo assessment right enough.  Germany - it would likely be a case of accepting reluctantly. Brazil? Who knows?

Interesting to speculate on the dynamics of an enlarged Security Council.  Might it be better to have 9 permanent members with vetoes and continue with the notion that these Great Powers are going to come to conclusions on the issues of the Day?  Or would an 8 seat Council be better offering the prospect of a "Hung Jury"?  If you have Hung Juries does that enhance or degrade the veto power?

For instance, if the Supreme Court/Security Council, can't come to a clear decision on the actions of the one or the many does the legal option of the veto matter in the court of public opinion?  If only one opts to use their veto have they won or lost the battle for hearts and minds and moral authority?  Even if the council is split 4-4 has the intervenor won or lost the battle?

I can see advantages to having a larger council with permanent seats and even vetos.  Because the veto is a legal tool, it carries no moral authority and battles in the Security Council are fought in the court of Public Opinion.  I don't think the Veto matters much, just as I don't think that in the Real World the legal status of the UN and its legal pronouncements matter nearly as much as the moral authority accorded it by some.

 

[bossi]

... access to oil? ...

Oh, for crying out loud ... and, remember - I'm saying this in a nice way, and we'd both be laughing about this over a beer if we were in the same room, okay ... but ... oh, so ironically ... YOU are proving my point in spades ... !!

... Before entering World War II, Japan had many other problems to deal with. It had begun to rely more and more for raw materials (especially oil) from outside sources because their land was so lacking in these.... etc.

My point, in respect to India or anybody else having a permanent seat on the Security Council, is that it might actually be helpful to have a non US/UK/France/Russia/Chinese viewpoint ...
(i.e. going all the way back to your post which got me started on this oil thing ... that judge in India at least understood the Japanese perspective - I'm NOT/NOT/NOT saying "right or wrong" - I'm simply saying he was able to see their side of the story, that's all).

Sometimes, all it takes to solve a problem (or nip one in the bud) is to see the problem from the "other" side ... (yes, you're right - it's my CIMIC side showing through again ... but let's not confuse understanding another culture with sympathising with them - "cultural awareness" is NOT/NOT/NOT "going native" ...)

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Jeez there is a lot of bickering here. ;D

Have to agree a revamp of the council is necessary.  Maybe unite France and UK into the EU vote would encompase Germany and rest.  Have India have a vote. Japan has a vote, Russia, China, USA.  And there is no absolute veto but two votes against would be a veto.  Would be a better balance of power.  Even if you spilt the EU vote into east including Poland Germany Ukraine and West with France England and Spain.makes it ore difficult but balances the power in the world a little better.


And yes you are right bossi the Americans did blockade the Japanese they used there subs to accomplish this. It wasn't just oil though it was coal and ore used for steel production.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe unite France and UK into the EU vote would encompase Germany and rest

Cad!!! Bounder!!!! Scurrilous knave!!! Next thing you know people will be promoting Republicanism dammitall.  The very idea!!!

Aside from that do you really want Britain outvoted by France and Germany.  I most certainly don't.  For a whole variety of reasons (details later if necessary).

Cheers, ;D

 

[Wizard of OZ]

Sure come with the details.  ;D

I don't see how they could be outvoted if France the UK and Spain only have one vote EU west while Germany Poland and Ukraine would have one vote with EU east.