Jump to content

Germany pushes for security council

Anathema
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

Just read in the newspaper, the German chancellor Schroeder says that Germany should get a permanent seat in the security council to better reflect the situation of the world this age.

Personally I think that if France and England posses permanent seats Germany belongs there too, and let's not forget China and Russia, who's military arsenals are hopelessly obsolete compared to Germany. Besides, regardless of wether you like them or not, Germany is a big player in world affairs. What do you guys think?

Dunenewt

Dunenewt

Posted
Posted

Oh my god.

China's and Russia's military arsenals are hopelessly obsolete compared to Germany's!  What planet are you living on.  The Sukhio 37 Berkut and Mig 35 which are being developed by Russia and no doubt closely followed by China who would be able to produve them on licence is far superior to anything Germany has.  The Kamov Ka50 Black shark and Ka52 Alligator are also far superior to any attack helicoptors Russia has. not forgetting the Havoc.  Also in sheer numbers both Russia and China have far more.  New Russian Tanks such as the T-90 are also as good as anything Germany has to offer.

Besides Germany and France have just about one spine between them so to have them both on the council would mean to spineless countries ruining the UN's credibility.  They can share a seat with France.

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Technolocal wise, Russia may have some impressive designs but most of their armory is falling apart and that wich isn't is to busy killing Chechnyans.

About China, they practicly have no navy worth mentioning and their ground troops are probably amongst the most incompetent in the world. Recently they said they'd increase military budget to modernise their armed forces, and they sure as hell need it.

And that last comment of yours was just rude and unnecessary.

Inoculator9

Inoculator9

Posted
Posted

Anathema, I think Newt's got you beat ;)

And the Russian Gunship helicopters are amongst the best in the world. Heavy armor, weapons, and they can hold more ordinance than any other attack chopper in the world simply be virtue of being massive.

I admit that the Russian nuclear arsenal is going to pieces because nobody knows what the fuck to do with it, but that's why it's rotting in some port up in Siberia.

Germany does, however, deserve a seat on the Military Council. Their military could not stand up against that of Russia or Chinas, but that is beside the point. They are a major political and military power in Europe, and as such a seat on the SC would only be good for everyone.

Dunenewt

Dunenewt

Posted
Posted

Well its not a major military power.  Turkey, Australia and Israel all have a stronger case for being on it.  Personally I think Turkey being on it would be much better as it is an Islamic state and would reflect the power Islam has on this world.

Leto le Juste

Leto le Juste

Posted
Posted

If you admit Germany in the security council you have to admit Japan too. Because Germany and Japan had the same development compared to France or UK. Indeed, they couldn't have army after the WWII, so they can increase their economic development. According to me, you can admit Japan. But Germany, it is not necessary. Because in few years, European Union will seat in the Council (and France and UK will have to go).

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Well, the permenant members of the Security Council are the victors of World War II, the Allied forces. In fact, if you read Dwight D. Eisenhower's statment made just before the D-Day invasion, he refers to the allied powers as the "United Nations". Thus coining the term and setting the stage for the organization's inception.

However, I do not think Germany should have a permenant seat on the Security Council because I believe no select group of nations should have a permenant seat on the Security Council. Having the United States and the Soviet Union veto everything in plain sight was bad enough, but to have a sixth power whose whims, interests, and ambitions must be satiated?

Some people disagree, because they fear that the SC would pass resolutions that would put individual nations at a horrible disadvantage. My answer, then, is to make the SC a body in which a unanimous vote, or near-unanimous vote (14/13/12 of 15) is needed to pass anything. This will end in fostering better cooperation -- since nations must work together to accomplish good things -- and, in fact, will probably change little about how the body is run, since most resolutions already passed by the Security Council are unanimous anyway. I have done Model UN for quite some time, and I have been on various simulated Security Councils for about three years, now. What I have learned is that, often, a resolution either passes unanimously or near-unanimously, or not at all.

Dunenewt

Dunenewt

Posted
Posted

But Germany, it is not necessary. Because in few years, European Union will seat in the Council (and France and UK will have to go).

Doubt it.  France might go in favour of a Franco-German seat but UK and the rest of Europe wont get a look in.  From what I've read Germany and France are already planning this

Leto le Juste

Leto le Juste

Posted
Posted

Doubt it. UK and the rest of Europe wont get a look in. 

Uk or the rest of Europe. The Constitution Project includes the creation of a common foreign Minister. So his role, I think, must be to represent Europe in the SC, ac far as I am concerned.

Wolf

Wolf

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't a European Constitution elicit the same sort of frenzy in Europe as the suggestion of a pan-American constitution that united Canada, the United States, and Mexico into one big country would elicit? I mean, how close is the Constitution to ratification? Has it even been written yet? I thought that the EU was facing some difficulty with some nations like Greece wanting to back out of the Euro, the UK never accepting the Euro (The Brits, by the way, have the coolest coins in the world. I've got this one-pound coin with a dragon on the back, which is just plain awesome. And its heavy, too, makes you feel like you have some real money after handling sissified US coins all day.), and with Germany and France avoiding the punishments that the EU promised them for not arranging their budgets in proper order! I would say that Europe is under pressure to set some distance from each other, not the other way around.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

The European Constitution is actually an excellent idea. I'm all in favour of a unified European federation.

And I'd like to point out that most people in Eastern Europe think the same way. In Romania, the idea of a single European state is enthusiastically embraced by just about everyone I've spoken with.

This is a strange paradox: Western Europe is anti-American but wants a divided Europe, while Eastern Europe is pro-American but wants a united Europe.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

The European Constitution is actually an excellent idea. I'm all in favour of a unified European federation.

And I'd like to point out that most people in Eastern Europe think the same way. In Romania, the idea of a single European state is enthusiastically embraced by just about everyone I've spoken with.

This is a strange paradox: Western Europe is anti-American but wants a divided Europe, while Eastern Europe is pro-American but wants a united Europe.

too much racism and patriotism in Europe.

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The US was started as a federated union to allow the individual states preserve their own identity and autonomy, and I don't see why the same can't be done with the EU- of course it will take quite some time before we're ready for that.

About the security council, I'm not against permanent seats as much as I am against the veto right those seats bring with them. Ideally I think that a certain number of seats should be assigned periodicly according to specific criteria like economy and military (meaning that the US and the UK would permanently hold a seat anyway) and that the rest shuffles like the non permanent seats do now. Voting would take place with a qualified majority of 2/3.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

too much racism and patriotism in Europe.

Oh my God! I actually agree with you! :O

Then again, by my standards, even the slightest amount of racism is too much racism. And if you think Europe is racist, go visit some of your own Southern States.

As for patriotism, you are perfectly correct. We have way too much of that irrational attitude over here.

But I never thought I'd see the day when a rabid conservative learned the meaning of "too much patriotism"...

Funny how all those european youth talk about "world peace" but the thought of a french government merging with a German government makes those patriotic, racist french youth convulse in disgust.

This is where you're wrong. Most of the youth is actually very progressive. When they talk about world peace, they mean it.

It's filthy hypocrites like Chirac who are the problem.

Too much bickering in Europe with the different races to go along with a united Europe.  Dutch merging with Germans?  Irish with the English?  That will be the day!

By the way, I hope you do realize that the strongest voices for a united Europe come from the socialist parties and organizations...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.