Chinese expansionism

[Rostere]

 

 

If I could propose permanent members of the UNSC they would be China, the US, Japan, Germany and France

 

Good Lord, man. France over Britain? We shall revolt.

 

It's long overdue time for the UNSC to be overhauled, but I don't think it's fair to say the UK's international role has diminished to the extent that we're without any use on it. If nothing else NATO and the UN still use a good number of our overseas territories, of which there are still more than a handful, to base supplies and men. If nothing else, that should give us a say, not to mention we're still one of the largest contributors of aid, troops and supplies to international efforts.

 

I think it should be expanded to more than five seats, though. Perhaps on a regional basis with a rotating chair, rather than national. Perhaps a continental/sea zone system, with a chair for North America, Europe, Australasia, Central America and Caribbean etc. The regions could take turns in having a member chairing their region.

 

Answer: No. The UK currently has a marginal role in international peacekeeping efforts. The costs of peacekeeping are split according to a formula, which is proportional to the size of the economy.

 

The continental system already applies to the non-permanent members of the UNSC, and I would say that system works as intended. The permanent seats are supposed to be reserved for the five most powerful nations.

 

Look, no offense, but the current UNSC only has five seats. Can you say to yourself with a straight face that the UK is one of the world's five most powerful countries?

[Kroney]

 

 

Answer: No. The UK currently has a marginal role in international peacekeeping efforts. The costs of peacekeeping are split according to a formula, which is proportional to the size of the economy.

 

The continental system already applies to the non-permanent members of the UNSC, and I would say that system works as intended. The permanent seats are supposed to be reserved for the five most powerful nations.

 

Look, no offense, but the current UNSC only has five seats. Can you say to yourself with a straight face that the UK is one of the world's five most powerful countries?

 

 

The trouble with using that link to counter me is that it lists the largest contributors as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Ethiopia and Nigeria. Either that link isn't appropriate for this discussion, or those five have a better claim to sit on the UNSC than the US. Since the latter is obviously ridiculous, I can only conclude that it's not relevant.

 

I am not saying the UK is amongst the five most powerful countries, no. I am saying that it's a diplomatic position and is not as simple as the biggest bullies in the room.

[Rostere]

To play devil's advocate for Britain on the UNSC, you shoudl keep in mind that Britain is more than just a powerful economy, and a reasonably powerful military. It is a ntion that is accustomed to weighing in on World affairs.

 

Oh, come on. You can't possibly argue that the UK should have a seat because the politicians are used to weighing in on international matters. These are not seats that are allocated on the basis of sympathy.

 

Britain IS a powerful economy, but the permanent seats of the UNSC are only five, so if the UK is at place 6 or 7, that pretty much decides it. Especially if the country left out is Japan, which has more than double the size of the UK's economy. Imagine two British isles side by side, that is the size of the Japanese economy.

[HoonDing]

A country with zero military power (mecha jokes and whatnot aside) does not belong to the top 5 most powerful countries no matter how big their economy. I'd sooner put India on a permanent seat than Japan.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Drudanae

[Rostere]

 

 

 

Answer: No. The UK currently has a marginal role in international peacekeeping efforts. The costs of peacekeeping are split according to a formula, which is proportional to the size of the economy.

 

The continental system already applies to the non-permanent members of the UNSC, and I would say that system works as intended. The permanent seats are supposed to be reserved for the five most powerful nations.

 

Look, no offense, but the current UNSC only has five seats. Can you say to yourself with a straight face that the UK is one of the world's five most powerful countries?

 

 

The trouble with using that link to counter me is that it lists the largest contributors as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Ethiopia and Nigeria. Either that link isn't appropriate for this discussion, or those five have a better claim to sit on the UNSC than the US. Since the latter is obviously ridiculous, I can only conclude that it's not relevant.

 

I am not saying the UK is amongst the five most powerful countries, no. I am saying that it's a diplomatic position and is not as simple as the biggest bullies in the room.

 

 

No, I wouldn't claim that Bangladesh should have a permanent seat at the UNSC. I was merely dismissing your statement. Maybe I should have written as well that even if the UK happened to contribute the most men to peacekeeping efforts, it wouldn't be an argument. I don't think the exact number of soldiers sent is relevant, and neither should you. The link provided was to inform you on the facts regarding peacekeeping efforts, I'm happy you can conclude for yourself that the argument is invalid instead of calling for a permanent place for Bangladesh on the UNSC.

[Kroney]

 

No, I wouldn't claim that Bangladesh should have a permanent seat at the UNSC. I was merely dismissing your statement. Maybe I should have written as well that even if the UK happened to contribute the most men to peacekeeping efforts, it wouldn't be an argument. I don't think the exact number of soldiers sent is relevant, and neither should you. The link provided was to inform you on the facts regarding peacekeeping efforts, I'm happy you can conclude for yourself that the argument is invalid instead of calling for a permanent place for Bangladesh on the UNSC.

 

 

Maybe I'm just being slow, but I'm not at all sure what your point actually was. You appeared to be saying that the UK shouldn't be on the SC because it makes a negligable contribution to UN security measures. Now you seem to be saying that the fact that the UK doesn't make much of a contribution to UN security measures isn't a valid argument.

 

I said that the UK makes a significant contribution to the UN in the form of bases, supplies, troops and so on. I wasn't actually referencing UN peacekeepers, but army regulars. They may not be directly controlled by the UN, but the vast majority of the actions are UN-mandated. Perhaps, in my turn, I should have made that clearer.

[Rostere]

A country with zero military power (mecha jokes and whatnot aside) does not belong to the top 5 most powerful countries no matter how big their economy. I'd sooner put India on a permanent seat than Japan.

 

Wrong. That's a myth, get a reality check. Japan does not have zero military power. They have military expenditures comparable to France and the UK. However, if they spent as much as France or the UK in proportion to their economy, they would have the world's third highest military budget, buying about 2.5x the amount of stuff compared to the UK or France. Even then, Japan already has a larger air force than France, and only slightly smaller than that of the UK. (If Japan spent as much as the US on their military, they would have a larger military budget than the entirety of the EU combined...)

 

But even this is solely due to convention. Japan is one of the least militarized countries in the world, but also one of the most powerful. This is solely due to them relying on their ally the US for nuclear defence, and not being interested in territorial expansion.

[Rostere]

 

 

No, I wouldn't claim that Bangladesh should have a permanent seat at the UNSC. I was merely dismissing your statement. Maybe I should have written as well that even if the UK happened to contribute the most men to peacekeeping efforts, it wouldn't be an argument. I don't think the exact number of soldiers sent is relevant, and neither should you. The link provided was to inform you on the facts regarding peacekeeping efforts, I'm happy you can conclude for yourself that the argument is invalid instead of calling for a permanent place for Bangladesh on the UNSC.

 

 

Maybe I'm just being slow, but I'm not at all sure what your point actually was. You appeared to be saying that the UK shouldn't be on the SC because it makes a negligable contribution to UN security measures. Now you seem to be saying that the fact that the UK doesn't make much of a contribution to UN security measures isn't a valid argument.

 

I said that the UK makes a significant contribution to the UN in the form of bases, supplies, troops and so on. I wasn't actually referencing UN peacekeepers, but army regulars. They may not be directly controlled by the UN, but the vast majority of the actions are UN-mandated. Perhaps, in my turn, I should have made that clearer.

 

No.

 

I was making my argument on basis of the size of the economy. Then you told me that the UK was a significant military factor in peacekeeping efforts. Then I showed you that this is not the case. But let's address every point separately:

1. Peacekeepers - already addressed
2. Bases - none of the UK overseas territories has a UN base as far as I know (only UK or US bases). Nevertheless, this point is kind of moot, because in every part of the world there are UN countries with their own military bases. So while the UK bases might be important the the UK (and also NATO), they are largely irrelevant for UN peacekeeping efforts.
3. Supplies - Costs for UN peacekeeping efforts are spread throughout the UN, according to a formula which among other factors is proportional to size of the economy. It might be that the UK pays more because the are in the UNSC, but even then a country with a larger ecenomy would be able to handle that bill better.

[Kroney]

 

No.

 

I was making my argument on basis of the size of the economy. Then you told me that the UK was a significant military factor in peacekeeping efforts. Then I showed you that this is not the case. But let's address every point separately:

1. Peacekeepers - already addressed
2. Bases - none of the UK overseas territories has a UN base as far as I know (only UK or US bases). Nevertheless, this point is kind of moot, because in every part of the world there are UN countries with their own military bases. So while the UK bases might be important the the UK (and also NATO), they are largely irrelevant for UN peacekeeping efforts.
3. Supplies - Costs for UN peacekeeping efforts are spread throughout the UN, according to a formula which among other factors is proportional to size of the economy. It might be that the UK pays more because the are in the UNSC, but even then a country with a larger ecenomy would be able to handle that bill better.

 

 

OK, I'm with you, fair enough. I can't disagree with you, there. I'll leave the money situation aside, as you've got me beat. I was also suggesting that it's primarily a diplomatic position. The UN themselves say that the SC's primary purpose is to foster diplomatic relations. Do you think the UK is not worth anything in that regard, too? It seems to me that a diplomatic position would be best served by countries with both diplomatic reach and a level of international respect. Viewed under this lens, I don't believe the US or Russia would have seats, due to international perception of the US as an aggressor.

[Malcador]

Is the JSDF permitted to operate outside of Japan ?

[Gorgon]

North Korea has a thriving black market, in fact the regime have come to rely on the economic activity it generates. Western and South Korean soaps are burned on DVD and command a strong demand, the elites all have smart phones. I don't think it's as closed off as we usually think. The consequences for being caught perpetrating any kind of 'wrong' behavior are extreme though. The hold the regime has on the population is both psychological and physical, they also fear the people greatly I suspect and will never dare relax their grip. 

[Rostere]

 

 

No.

 

I was making my argument on basis of the size of the economy. Then you told me that the UK was a significant military factor in peacekeeping efforts. Then I showed you that this is not the case. But let's address every point separately:

1. Peacekeepers - already addressed
2. Bases - none of the UK overseas territories has a UN base as far as I know (only UK or US bases). Nevertheless, this point is kind of moot, because in every part of the world there are UN countries with their own military bases. So while the UK bases might be important the the UK (and also NATO), they are largely irrelevant for UN peacekeeping efforts.
3. Supplies - Costs for UN peacekeeping efforts are spread throughout the UN, according to a formula which among other factors is proportional to size of the economy. It might be that the UK pays more because the are in the UNSC, but even then a country with a larger ecenomy would be able to handle that bill better.

 

I was also suggesting that it's primarily a diplomatic position. The UN themselves say that the SC's primary purpose is to foster diplomatic relations. Do you think the UK is not worth anything in that regard, too?

 

I didn't tell you the UK wasn't worth anything I merely stated my opinion that the UK is probably on position 6 or 7 out of all the countries in the world, with regards to permanent UNSC membership.

[Walsingham]

Wow. You're posting like some kind of hero in a kung fu movie, toppling thugs, Ros. Left and right!

 

I'm biased because I've been working my way through some of the high level policy documents for the UK MOD that are available online. It's really extremely clear that the HM Government sees UK security as enmeshed in an active role Worldwide. The military themselves are being designed to fulfil an active role.

 

My point is - and this comes back to the topic - that mass alone does not a World Power make. China has a huge military force, but virtually no capability to project that power anywhere it can't drive to. Japan has the money to do so, but no military establishment to spend that money in a meaningful way.

[HoonDing]

So all in all, Switzerland is the most powerful country in the world.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Answer: No. The UK currently has a marginal role in international peacekeeping efforts. The costs of peacekeeping are split according to a formula, which is proportional to the size of the economy.

 

The continental system already applies to the non-permanent members of the UNSC, and I would say that system works as intended. The permanent seats are supposed to be reserved for the five most powerful nations.

 

Look, no offense, but the current UNSC only has five seats. Can you say to yourself with a straight face that the UK is one of the world's five most powerful countries?

 

 

The trouble with using that link to counter me is that it lists the largest contributors as Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Ethiopia and Nigeria. Either that link isn't appropriate for this discussion, or those five have a better claim to sit on the UNSC than the US. Since the latter is obviously ridiculous, I can only conclude that it's not relevant.

 

I am not saying the UK is amongst the five most powerful countries, no. I am saying that it's a diplomatic position and is not as simple as the biggest bullies in the room.

 

 

No, I wouldn't claim that Bangladesh should have a permanent seat at the UNSC. I was merely dismissing your statement. Maybe I should have written as well that even if the UK happened to contribute the most men to peacekeeping efforts, it wouldn't be an argument. I don't think the exact number of soldiers sent is relevant, and neither should you. The link provided was to inform you on the facts regarding peacekeeping efforts, I'm happy you can conclude for yourself that the argument is invalid instead of calling for a permanent place for Bangladesh on the UNSC.

 

 

Sorry I'm late to this discussion  Ros its not often I disagree with you but in this case I definitely do, I'm very surprised that our UK based members seemed happy to accept your view that the UK doesn't deserve a permanent place on the UNSC ( shame on you Walsie !! Where is that famous Jingoism that we like to see from you )

 

I assume we are ignoring the historical context and sacrifice of the UK in the previous world wars, that's fine. Lets focus on the last 15 years.

 

 

Firstly your initial link is flawed and doesn't represent the reality of peace keeping roles.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_UN_peacekeepers

 

Its based on 2013 data only. But even then look at the contribution that Russia and China have made to peace keeping forces. In fact lets keep it simple, find me the a couple of examples in the last 10 years that Russia or China have committed military resources to any real conflict? That should be a salient reason for a place on the UNSC,  your personal stake in the security of the world and your influence. So if your link is appropriate to this discussion why should Russia or China be a member of the UNSC?

 

 Also in almost cases where the UNSC send troops to places like Africa the funding of those troops is done through the members of the security council. So just because you don't see UK troops in Mali or Central African Republic countries like the UK still pay for those troops and the deployment of those troops? This is one of the biggest failures of the African Union. They can't afford to fund there own peace keeping. I have provided another link at the end that highlights how much money the UK does give to the UN for military operations throughout the world

 

Now lets look at some accurate deployments that the UK has been involved in last 10 years.

 

http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/operations-deployments.aspx

 

Then there NATO involvement

 

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52060.htm

 

Now you can research the individual examples above to see the UK commitment to conflicts like Bosnia, Libya and Sierra Leone. And lets not forget Syria, the UK was one of the few countries along with France and the USA that were prepared to get involved on a military level after Assad used Chemical weapons

 

Then we have the personal financial contributions to humanitarian disasters around the world that the UK have made.

 

 You can find endless links around the various UK charities and the commitment that the UK has made to humanitarian issues around the world.

 

And finally the contribution that the UK has made to the UN budget. Go back a few years to see how much money the UK commits to the UN. Compare this to Russia and China.

 

http://www.globalpolicy.org/un-finance/tables-and-charts-on-un-finance/member-states-assessed-share-of-the-un-budget.html

 

 

So in summary the UK absolutely deserves its place on the UNSC, it is prepared to send its own troops to conflict areas and is actively involved in UNSC endorsed military operations. Finally if you really don't feel the UK should be on the UNSC then neither should China and Russia because how have they assisted with stabilising conflict areas around the world?

 

Edited December 3, 2013 by BruceVC

[obyknven]

Its based on 2013 data only. But even then look at the contribution that Russia and China have made to peace keeping forces. In fact lets keep it simple, find me the a couple of examples in the last 10 years that Russia or China have committed military resources to any real conflict?

Constant presence of Russian Peacekeepers in Georgia (effectively stop Georgian-Ossetian-Abkhazian war in 5 days:cat: ), Moldova and Tajikistan, also Russia try send peacekeepers to Golan Heights, but other UN members vote against this.

[BruceVC]

 

Its based on 2013 data only. But even then look at the contribution that Russia and China have made to peace keeping forces. In fact lets keep it simple, find me the a couple of examples in the last 10 years that Russia or China have committed military resources to any real conflict?

Constant presence of Russian Peacekeepers in Georgia (effectively stop Georgian-Ossetian-Abkhazian war in 5 days:cat: ), Moldova and Tajikistan, also Russia try send peacekeepers to Golan Heights, but other UN members vote against this.

 

 

Oby I said "real" conflict that Russia has contributed troops towards

 

But okay I'll research these areas and comment later. I don't know how accurate what you are saying is and also I don't know the context. But thanks for the information

[obyknven]

Oby I said "real" conflict that Russia has contributed troops towards 

 

But okay I'll research these areas and comment later. I don't know how accurate what you are saying is and also I don't know the context. But thanks for the information

 

Wut? Bloody civil wars with ethnic cleansing and other war crimes  is not "real" for you? Actually for preventing such **** UN peace keepers are created it's their major job. Or for you real  UN "peace-keeper" operations it when NATO invade into some unlucky country for steal some resources? Dude, Western imperialistic wars and UN missions to keeping peace it's totally different thing, don't pollute such bright humanistic UN ideal's by western egoistic expansionism.

[Zoraptor]

Finally if you really don't feel the UK should be on the UNSC then neither should China and Russia because how have they assisted with stabilising conflict areas around the world?

 

 

They contribute mainly by stopping the US + minions from running off and starting conflicts, of course.

[BruceVC]

 

Finally if you really don't feel the UK should be on the UNSC then neither should China and Russia because how have they assisted with stabilising conflict areas around the world?

 

 

They contribute mainly by stopping the US + minions from running off and starting conflicts, of course.

 

Really? Well Syria is an excellent example of what happens when the West isn't allowed to intervene. Now compare that to Libya at the moment. Yes Libya has it issues around there new political identity but I would take the current state of Libya after Gaddafi was overthrown to Syria any day of the week

 

Its important to accept that regime change  is necessary and important in certain examples in order to achieve long term stability in a region. The question is really just how to achieve that regime change, Iraq bad example. Libya good example.

[obyknven]

Libya good example.

 

 

Yeah! NATO only kill few thousands Libyan civilians by air strikes, "rebel's" after taking of power begin terror against opposition and ethnic cleansing ( add to this quantity of people killed during civil war by them also), weapons taken by rebels causing civil war in Mali, after extermination of opposition victors begin internal fight for power and Libya become more and more similar to unhappy Somalia. NATO during this intervention violate UN rules (do not participate in civil wars on one side of conflict), violate UN resolution ( ground air strikes and Spec ops instead no-fly zone).

 

Yeah West, you do everything right!

 

I think it's hard to find more shameful example of Western failure (or success, if they goal is just steal resources instead this childish blah-blah about democracy).

[HoonDing]

Most regrettable Western failure.

 

[BruceVC]

 

Libya good example.

 

 

Yeah! NATO only kill few thousands Libyan civilians by air strikes, "rebel's" after taking of power begin terror against opposition and ethnic cleansing ( add to this quantity of people killed during civil war by them also), weapons taken by rebels causing civil war in Mali, after extermination of opposition victors begin internal fight for power and Libya become more and more similar to unhappy Somalia. NATO during this intervention violate UN rules (do not participate in civil wars on one side of conflict), violate UN resolution ( ground air strikes and Spec ops instead no-fly zone).

 

Yeah West, you do everything right!

 

I think it's hard to find more shameful example of Western failure (or success, if they goal is just steal resources instead this childish blah-blah about democracy).

 

 

Once again you have your facts wrong.  Gaddafi hired mercenaries from Niger, Chad and other African countries to fight the NATO supported rebels. After the war they looted the armouries of Libya and took the weapons to other parts of Africa like Mali. Please provide links around the Ethnic cleansing that is ongoing in Libya. Yes Gaddafi's tribe suffered after the war and people that were aligned to Gaddafi but what do you expect after the atrocities committed by them against the rebels?

 

The mission in Libya wasn't illegal it was a NATO mission. The question is did the Western countries that helped the Libyan rebels over extend there mandate, if they did that was good as it was needed to defeat Gaddafi. All the West did was provide air support and some trainers on the ground. The Libyan rebels did the rest

 

But anyway are you suggesting that the situation in Syria is better than Libya today? That's what you need to ask yourself

[Malcador]

Libya was a foolish errand, devil you know is better than the terrorist infested one you don't.  Well, unless you kill both, but that'd  look bad on CNN.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Here's an interesting article on the subject : http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/12/02/2013-the-end-of-history-ends/