Germany back to the ruling elite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
OK, since I am a German, this post may seem weird to you lot. Perhaps, some of the German posters here might even be offended by it. But I just have to get this off my mind.

The Federal Republic of Germany is claiming a permanent seat in the UN security council. I don't think I need to explain what the UN security council is (in case of doubt, check [a href=\'http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/\' target=\'_blank\']here[/a]), but I would like to point out some of the historical facts of this institution.
The UN security council was formed in 1949, the original members were the USA, France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union (later, the People's Republic of China joined). These were all nations that were allied in the second world war and sat together in this council purely for the reason of having defeated Germany.
Now Germany demands an invitation to this club. Not only is this a totally absurd idea (considering the deeds Germany had done was what originally got this going), but it is also very chilling, at least to me.
Imagine this: A kid has owned a knife and killed two people with it. You took the knife away from the kid. Now, the kid has grown older and wants the knife back, claiming he's matured and everything. Would you give it back to him?

Of course, Germany has become a totally different nation within the last 60 years. Maybe it is one of the most trustworthy countries in the international community (at least that's what a lot of people claim). But still, I'm not comfortable with the thought of a country that has so much blood on its hands (not claiming that the other countries with a permanent seat are innocent) being allowed to join (which it isn't, yet) the ruling elite of the world. It's just... creepy.

Not to mention it's totally pointless. Instead of having yet another western (northern would fit too) country, countries like India or Brazil should join. But whatever...
 
The UN security council is a joke, like the UN themselves. So why not add Germany, Italy and Japan after all? [!--emo&:P--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
The five permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Russia, China, UK, France) were there because until the mid 1990s, they were the only countries that had nuclear weapons. Being able to blow up a few major cities at the push of a button gives you alot of status on the international scene.

The UN Security Council is the military part of the United Nations Organization. It's but one branch of a huge organization. Others are UNESCO, UNICEF, etc. THe UNSC is just the one we hear of the most.

Japan and Germany are the most powerful non-permanant members of the council, but they have "soft power" (diplomacy, economic power, etc) NOT military might. It's absurd to put a non-military nation on a military council.

The US needs to be there because, like it or not, they rule the world.
The UK and France need to be there because they have a huge-assed militaries and interests around the world.
China is China. 1/6 of the world's population, only non-Western power, etc.
Russia is there because the USSR was there. And Russia has nukes. They don't know where they all are, but they got 'em.


So, who could make a good new member?
India? Nope. They make have nukes and a huge populatioin (just over 1,000,000,000), but the country is too much of a loose cannon (pardon the phrase, LC) They've gone to war with Pakistan too many times in recent memory to be granted this kind of power.
Canada? We may take up damn near half the continent, but our population is less than that of Poland. Also, we don't rate in the top 15 as a military power.
Australia? Same as Canada, and we don't need a 3rd Anglo nation.
Brazil? Maybe in 20 or 30 years, when the country matures and the standard of living is raised.
South Africa? Definately potential in a few decades. S.A. will prove to be the lynchpin of Sub-Saharan Africa's development. It will be to Africa what the United States was to the Americas in the 1800s. So, as soon as they get HIV/AIDS under control and set their own house in order, I predict South Africa will take a much more active role in the affairs of the African continent. A good candidate.


That was long-winded. Sorry.
 
They were the only nations who had the nuclear weapon, but not until the early 90s.

Israel had it, thanks to the French. India had it. Pakistan came later, but supposedly had in the 80s. South Africa had it but dismantled in the early 90s.

But, as you say, the Security Council should be reformed, but do you see the 5 leaving their seats or sharing their power ?

And, if the Security Council was to be kept, on which grounds would a new county be accepted (demographics, GDP,...) ?

Cheers
 
[!--QuoteBegin-The Saint+Feb 24 2005, 02:12 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(The Saint @ Feb 24 2005, 02:12 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]They were the only nations who had the nuclear weapon, but not until the early 90s.

Israel had it, thanks to the French. India had it. Pakistan came later, but supposedly had in the 80s. South Africa had it but dismantled in the early 90s.

But, as you say, the Security Council should be reformed, but do you see the 5 leaving their seats or sharing their power ?

And, if the Security Council was to be kept, on which grounds would a new county be accepted (demographics, GDP,...) ?

Cheers
[snapback]98578[/snapback]​
[/quote]


Did you not bother to read my post? You just repeated why I said, except you ignored the subtlties and expressed it in a far less articulate way.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-IronDuke+Feb 24 2005, 10:09 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(IronDuke @ Feb 24 2005, 10:09 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Did you not bother to read my post? You just repeated why I said, except you ignored the subtlties and expressed it in a far less articulate way.
[snapback]98590[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Mmh... I added that your information about the countries having the nuclear weapons before the mid 90s was plain wrong.

I added that I couldn't see how the 5 powers would agree to share their Security Council premium powers.

So, yes, I did read your post and added some thoughts. [!--emo&:rolleyes:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/rolleyes.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'rolleyes.gif\' /][!--endemo--]

Cheers
 
The Security Council is an outdated institution that retards an organization that could be aligned for the general good. When the Security Council members were chosen, they were chosen for their powers:
1. USA - Only nuclear power in 1945.
2. USSR - 300+ divisions of vodka-smashed soldiers.
3. Nationalist China - same as above, substitute opium for vodka.
4. UK - Royal Navy plus Churchill wrote the damn charter.
5. France - Everyone felt bad for France. Besides, who else would you put on?

Nationalist China (now Taiwan) was booted out of the Security Council when Mao took over. Basically you have a Commie vs. Capitalist setting. That's what it was designed to do. Now there's only one superpower, ignoring the UN. Time to change...
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Feb 24 2005, 09:37 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Feb 24 2005, 09:37 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]The Security Council is an outdated institution that retards an organization that could be aligned for the general good.  When the Security Council members were chosen, they were chosen for their powers:
1. USA - Only nuclear power in 1945.
2. USSR - 300+ divisions of vodka-smashed soldiers.
3. Nationalist China - same as above, substitute opium for vodka.
4. UK - Royal Navy plus Churchill wrote the damn charter.
5. France - Everyone felt bad for France.  Besides, who else would you put on?

Nationalist China (now Taiwan) was booted out of the Security Council when Mao took over.  Basically you have a Commie vs. Capitalist setting.  That's what it was designed to do.  Now there's only one superpower, ignoring the UN.  Time to change...
[snapback]98604[/snapback]​
[/quote]


Haha! Well said. [!--emo&:lol:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]

I think it is stupid that Germany has become one ofe U.N. Security Council member countries. Their hunger for more power has began to rise again, and after 60 years, I am not suprised. I reckon an eye be kept on them until they prove they can handle such power.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Blade Runner+Feb 28 2005, 05:20 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Blade Runner @ Feb 28 2005, 05:20 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Haha! Well said.  [!--emo&:lol:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]

I think it is stupid that Germany has become one ofe U.N. Security Council member countries. Their hunger for more power has began to rise again, and after 60 years, I am not suprised. I reckon an eye be kept on them until they prove they can handle such power.
[snapback]98786[/snapback]​
[/quote]


Every country that is a member of the UN takes a turn on the security council. There are 5 permanant members (the big 5) and like 20 that rotate every 18 months or so. Germany is fulfilling its duty as a UN member. They are NOT a permanant member....yet.
 
Man, all this Germany talk just keeps reminding me how much I want to see Star Wars in German [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
"Luke, Ich bin dein vater!"
"Neiiiiiiin! Das ist nicht possible!"
"Komm mit mir und wir..." uh... rule the galaxy together as... "Vater und son" hehe Mien Deutch is nicht so gut [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
My oppinion is that you can't judge a people by stereotypes Saying that "All germans are power-hungry sausage eaters" is like saying that Still Life is a dumb-ass because he's american, or that i'm a gypsy thief because i'm romanian. Plus, you can't blame the children for the sins of their fathers. But i agree. Germnay doesen't belong in hte UNSC. Too many european powers in the rulling elite would could cause another ww.
 
But who has really enough legitimacy to decide who should be in the Security Council or not ?

That's the whole problem here. And that is why I don't think it will change very soon (only a huge crisis -war,...- could alter this).

Cheers
 
I'm personally in favour of taking away both permanent Security Council seats and removing vetos. Everywhere else in the UN, it's one nation, one vote, except the Security Council. The argument can be made that this is just going to undermine the power of the UN. Of course, that's being done enough already...
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Black Ace+Feb 28 2005, 08:49 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Ace @ Feb 28 2005, 08:49 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]My oppinion is that you can't judge a people by stereotypes Saying that "All germans are power-hungry sausage eaters" is like saying that Still Life is a dumb-ass because he's american, or that i'm a gypsy thief because i'm romanian. Plus, you can't blame the children for the sins of their fathers.
[snapback]98833[/snapback]​
[/quote]

Of course. I don't want to be blamed for the sins Germany has done in the past. The fact is just that I find it very chilling that Germany seems to return into such a position. While the ideals have radically changed in the past 60 years, it's still... you know- Germany. How can I explain...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top