Biden calls on UN to expand permanent members of Security…

702 shares, 852 points

Biden calls on UN to expand permanent members of Security Council

Like it? Share with your friends!

702 shares, 852 points


Your email address will not be published.

  1. Few people saying Germany but I don’t see it happening as there’s already 2 of 5 security council members from Europe. I can see a scenario where the EU as a whole may get a Security Council seat but, again, it’s unlikely. (France probably wouldn’t be happy about that as it would likely replace them.)

    India or Japan is likeliest, I think, and/or possibly Brazil.

  2. Considering the current members were born out of the victors of WW2, and two of those members inherited those seats from different previous governments as well. Yeah it’s probably time to expand.

    The more complicated question is, what countries would get the new seats?

  3. What good does the security council right now, when one of its members is threatening the use of nuclear weapons each other week?

  4. So who? Wonder if this is a bargaining chip to get some wafflers into the anti Russia camp

    Fairness would be India, Brazil, Japan, Indonesia, South Africa or Nigeria, maybe Saudis or Egypt

    Country needs to have a credible military, force projecting would be ideal without assistance.

  5. The current membership is comprised of the victors of WW2. Out of them, both Russia and China did not hold those seats when they were created. Russia inherited the Soviet seat when literally any former member of the USSR technically has just as valid a claim, and Communist China took the Republic’s seat.

    Anyway, it’s been a damn long time since WW2. It’s time to readjust for the modern world.

  6. Redditors and westerners in general: “more western or western-aligned powers should have a bigger say!” Having never heard of balance of power.

  7. What’s the point of adding more members to the Security Council if all it takes is one veto to nullify any decision? Seems like that would just make it even more useless as the current UN Security Council gets nothing done precisely for that reason

  8. Expanding it will just make it more difficult to get anything done. Countries veto for personal political reasons all the time. Case in point: Russia: Iran, US: Israel. What special interests would come with the new SC member?

  9. No point really, would just make it even more ineffective. Even the US abuses its veto power what makes him think giving more people veto powers would somehow make it more effective. Its just going to be a veto on every resolution and a bigger waste of resources.

  10. *”Members of the UN security council, including the United States, should… refrain from the use of the veto except in rare extraordinary situations to ensure that the council remains credible and effective.”* – Biden

    “The United States has vetoed dozens of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions critical of Israel, including at least 53 since 1972, according to UN data.

    With the latest escalation of violence between Israel and the Palestinians now in its tenth day, the US has stuck to that playbook. On Monday, Washington blocked a joint statement calling for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas – the US’s third such veto reportedly within a week.”

  11. That’s literally the opposite of what should be done. We should have less vetoes (preferably none at all). Not more.

  12. Adding vetoes doesn’t make much sense. It accomplishes nothing. But I’m not inherently against the idea of having more permanent members.

    The UNSC is effectively toothless as a regulatory body, but it serves a purpose as a diplomatic one. The world is more complicated than it was when the UN was founded.

  13. Honestly, what’s even the point? Nothing goes through that’s even remotely inconvenient for anybody who holds a veto, so they just want to get even less stuff done?

  14. fox is a foreign-owned pro-fascist propaganda network owned by a tabloid mogul whose entire purpose for existing is to get the dumbest americans to vote against themselves.

    fuck fox news.
    fuck rupert murdoch and the murdoch family.

  15. This is fine but what really needs to happen is to limit veto use – x number of vetoes allowed per security council member per x time period, and introduce a veto override mechanism where once a veto is used, a supermajority of the entire UN can still override a veto. If that happened, and the UN had a reasonable military force to enforce resolutions, it might actually become useful instead of the joke it is now.

  16. Bold move, probably the smart move. But with the veto power in more nations’ hands, I wonder if the security council will become toothless and symbolic.


    I meant MORE toothless and symbolic.

  17. Why would we want to expand permanent members on the council? That would give even more countries veto powers when nothing can be done now when you have 2 nations that are authoritarian and would never allow anything to happen.