Should the UN have the "big five"?

DeletedUser36436

Guest
The topic: Should the UN have the "big five"?

The motion: This house believes that the 5 main member states UN should not have "veto power" to override a majority vote.

Details: The 5 main member states of the United Nations; China, Russia, France, the USA and Great Britain have so called "veto power" so that they can override a majority vote by the UN and it would not be passed, even though all other members of the UN voted for it. This is seen in examples such as the US does not let Palestine become a UN member state and China has not let Taiwan become an "officially" recognised country.

Stipulations:

Should be primarily about the veto powers and how they are democratic/undemocratic- other features may be discussed but have to fit into the argument.

Stay civil please and let the debate begin! :D

Hopefully this fits into allowed politics :D
 

DeletedUser49358

Guest
Probably not but the veto power is given to the 'strongest' countries so they are kept happy and continue to provide the majority of the support for the UN. Taiwan has basically been an independent country from China since its civil war from late 1920's to 1950 between the Kuomintang and CPC resulting in the Kuomintang and ROC Republic of China fleeing to Taiwan and taking it over. After Chiang Kai-shek (leader of the Kuomintang) Taiwan was pretty much separated from China which still shows today even.

China has always held Taiwan as a vassal state since the Ming dynasty and that continued relationship is seen as a power of China, when Japan took Korea out of Chinese control it was viewed as a very weakened state for China and shameful that they could not retrain Korea as a vassal state. So basically China is preventing Taiwan from becoming an independent country so its people can feel good about themselves and the country can look good for having power over Taiwan for so many hundreds of years.
 

DeletedUser46838

Guest
I don't think they should. Some of the reasons are:

-I know those 5 countries got the nukes and the bombs, however it should be equal not "If you don't listen to me, Im gonna make your country suffer" type of way. Taiwan is has its own president, own CURRENCY, own government, own culture, and own passport. How is Taiwan not "independent"?

Sure UN didn't recognize Taiwan as a country but a lot of countries aren't "recognized" by it and they are country. China holds no ownership to Taiwan or its surrounding ocean territory.
 

DeletedUser50183

Guest
They should get the veto power for the simple reason that if any of the big 5 country's left the UN.
The UN would fail to be relevant
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser33530

Guest
They should get the veto power for the simple reason that if any of the country's left the UN.
The UN would fail to be relevant

Kind of got to agree with this. I mean the UN is barely relevant with those 5 powers.
 

DeletedUser27128

Guest
I do agree that an organisation as big and important as the UN should have a few "leaders". However, these "big five" should be rotated every few years to give everyone equal power, in my opinion.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yes. The UN is not supposed to be an entirely democratic organization. It was entirely established in order for the "old guard" of established powers of the 1950s to retain power, provide assistance to developing regions, and to prevent another world war or other large scale conflict.

I would suggest that there could be some slight shifts in who the 5 selected members are as of now.

If I got to pick, and we were sticking to 5, I would probably have to nominate

USA
China
Germany
Brazil
Japan

Because they are all fairly established powers, they have some of the largest economies in the world, and they represent a wide range of opinions on almost every issue that could be debated by the UN.

I do agree that an organisation as big and important as the UN should have a few "leaders". However, these "big five" should be rotated every few years to give everyone equal power, in my opinion.

Then it's no longer a leadership position, if everyone has access to it. Every few years is much to quick for anything to actually be carried out and done. Every 25 years even seems like it might be too swift.
 

DeletedUser36436

Guest
They should get the veto power for the simple reason that if any of the big 5 country's left the UN.
The UN would fail to be relevant

I agree the UN would crumble if any of them left- as seen as the US abstained from being in the League of Nations but the UN now has dominant power over the world. I agree there must be some leadership, but it should have it's limits, so giving them 2 or 3 votes rather than just one would be better than letting them just outright stop a fair resolution.

Veto power was one reason why the League of Nations failed and causes any resolutions to be biased. The big five won't leave the UN as they know it would throw the rest of the world into chaos, and they need some control over the other states.

They would have no reason to leave as these changes that they veto usually have little effect on them as a country and are only for their own selfish needs. They can also be abused by countries with good relations with the big five- as Israel did not let Palestine become a country and used the US's veto power to stop it from happening. Very recently, Russia vetoed the annexation of Crimea as being a crime and China vetoed the attacks on Syria- leading to it coming to the state it is now, with thousands dead. Are these truly democratic reasons for having them? In these circumstances it seems almost immoral to have them. These are not the right reasons to be using them.

Bond 007 said:
I do agree that an organisation as big and important as the UN should have a few "leaders". However, these "big five" should be rotated every few years to give everyone equal power, in my opinion.

This is what currently happens with the UNSC, but the five permanent members all have veto power. The big five have the power because of tradition and because they were once (and still are for the most part) the biggest superpowers in the world.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I do agree that an organisation as big and important as the UN should have a few "leaders". However, these "big five" should be rotated every few years to give everyone equal power, in my opinion.

I don't think that's feasible. Who would you rotate them for? I don't think the US would suddenly agree passing over the veto right to Belgium.
 

DeletedUser39031

Guest
I'm just really confused as to how France was put on their considering the "big 5" was meant to be the superpowers. They got their asses handed to them right before the U.N was formed and partially swapped sides.

I agree with the principle of it, but think rather than have 3 European (including Russia) members it should have a representative country from each region, Africa, Middle East, South America, North America, Europe, Asia and South East Asia, as well as Russia because they're crazy
 

DeletedUser49358

Guest
I'm just really confused as to how France was put on their considering the "big 5" was meant to be the superpowers. They got their asses handed to them right before the U.N was formed and partially swapped sides.

I agree with the principle of it, but think rather than have 3 European (including Russia) members it should have a representative country from each region, Africa, Middle East, South America, North America, Europe, Asia and South East Asia, as well as Russia because they're crazy

I know the norm is to make fun of France for being on the losing end of every war, but if you don't think they're a powerful country then you're kidding yourself as they have always been high among countries as a world power. They have a strong economy and high GDP along with a well funded military force.

There military history shows them being active in multiple major wars and France committed and lost more solders in World War I than any other country.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Play EU4 and you'll understand why France is considered one of the big five.

Ze big blue blob.. (most people will not get this joke, but that's okay!)
 

DeletedUser39031

Guest
Soon more Asian countries than Japan/China will have overtaken France and from a military P.O.V shouldn't Israel be on that list?
 

DeletedUser49358

Guest
Soon more Asian countries than Japan/China will have overtaken France and from a military P.O.V shouldn't Israel be on that list?

China sure but how could Japan since it hasn't had a standing army since it passed Article 9 in 1947 after the second world war, and what other military countries are there in Asia other than maybe North Korea. Japan and South Korea are both known for their cultural influences and technological developments than their military power.
 

DeletedUser39031

Guest
China sure but how could Japan since it hasn't had a standing army since it passed Article 9 in 1947 after the second world war, and what other military countries are there in Asia other than maybe North Korea. Japan and South Korea are both known for their cultural influences and technological developments than their military power.
I was referring to Japans economy rather than military, but if they had a standing army it would likely be larger than/equal to the French army.
That wasn't my main point though, having a big 5 member in each region rather than 4 western countries (3 European with Russia included)
 

DeletedUser23986

Guest
They should get the veto power for the simple reason that if any of the big 5 country's left the UN.
The UN would fail to be relevant

And if the remaining countries get tired of the dictatorship, a lot more would cease to exist, not just the UN.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Germany isn't in the SC because they can't be trusted, and if I remember correctly the German Institute of Surrender made sure that they could not hold a main role because the Allies should decide what happens. Don't know if that is still enforced.

The UK is there because they helped win WW2, and have Nuclear Warheads. India should really be on there too, but sanctions.

France is there because of their strong economy, major population and, well Nuclear Warheads.

The SC should stay, but the temporary council (rotating members) should have more power than they currently do.
 

DeletedUser27128

Guest
You have China and Russia in the big five, and they say Germany cannot be trusted?
 
Top