[MrFox]

Reasons – As structured the Council doesn’t reflect actual economic power, military power, population, geography or moral legitimacy. Its procedures make it ineffective at taking decisions on controversial/contested matters.

Solution – US resigns seat in favor of India, and Council (or entire UN) relocates to Pakistan. (The Pakis might get shirty if India gets a seat and they get zip.) US remains a member of General Assembly, but with reduced financial contributions to the organization.

Consequences – The Council quickly loses influence. Russia and France are effectively “shown to the door” of influence in world affairs. China’s influence is moderately diminished; Britain’s remains on balance unchanged. US influence rises substantially, as does India’s.

In time, and occupying the existing UN structures in NYC, there emerges an organization of generally like-minded genuine democracies. The new entity assumes much of the responsibility and authority of the old Council.

Thoughts?

[Daoist]

	Originally Posted by MrFox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Thoughts?

Taking ourselves out of the political process at the UN is hardly a way to increase our power (unless this means we're planning on going against UNSC measures, which I don't think was your meaning.) The Council of Democracies is a good idea for increasing US power - but I don't see how quitting the UNSC fits into that.

[Polymath20]

The UN, as a whole, is an idea to promote communication between nations so as to prevent world war. I don't see how the OP has any relevance...

[thod]

Britain's and France's seat could be merged into an EU seat.

The problem with countries like India is that although they have large armies, they do not have the capacity to deploy them outside of India.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Daoist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Taking ourselves out of the political process at the UN is hardly a way to increase our power (unless this means we're planning on going against UNSC measures, which I don't think was your meaning.) The Council of Democracies is a good idea for increasing US power - but I don't see how quitting the UNSC fits into that.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The UN, as a whole, is an idea to promote communication between nations so as to prevent world war. I don't see how the OP has any relevance...

It's all about power, gentlemen - on two levels.

First, being in the UNSC now diminishes America's power, compared to what it would be if the US were on the outside. Inside, it is just one of five equals. That hardly reflects the balance of actual military, economic and moral authority. On the outside, those strengths would tend to naturally yield far more than 1-of-5 influence. The combined strengths of the proposed new Council members would together be less than that of the US alone. Thus, 1-of-2 - that's not a bad trade, is it?

Is it not apparent that the Council needs the US more than the US needs the Council? By withdrawing, the Council is delivered a death wound - it won't survive long as an influential force. And that diminished influence will make emergence of the successor institution much easier.

Second, were the Council merely a talk-shop, none of this would matter. But it is much more than that - it has actual authority to conduct operations. Allowing hostile powers like China, Russia and France to hold any influence over such matters is both morally and practically objectionable.

[thod]

How then will the US justify it's foreign wars. It likes the UN because it can say that everyone (the UN) agrees something must be done. This gives it a certain moral position. Without this it would be a case of America attacking other states. That would make them acts of unilateral aggression. Other countries would be morally compelled to support those under attack. The US forces in Afghanistan would not last long if other governments were sending the Taliban military supplies, advisers and intelligence. Just like the US did when the Russians were there.

[MrFox]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How then will the US justify it's foreign wars. It likes the UN because it can say that everyone (the UN) agrees something must be done. This gives it a certain moral position. Without this it would be a case of America attacking other states. That would make them acts of unilateral aggression. Other countries would be morally compelled to support those under attack. The US forces in Afghanistan would not last long if other governments were sending the Taliban military supplies, advisers and intelligence. Just like the US did when the Russians were there.

Thanks for this post, Thod - raises several important matters.

The US presence on the UNSC sort of carries the implication that the US can't/shouldn't act in the absence of UNSC approval for its actions, doesn't it? And if approval is sought and refused, then it becomes doubly-difficult to justify action. We saw it play-out just that way in Gulf War II. But act then the US did - so approval is not actually necessary in any sense, is it?

I like this part of the post particularly -

	Without this it would be a case of America attacking other states. That would make them acts of unilateral aggression. Other countries would be morally compelled to support those under attack.

Didn't happen that way in GWII, did it? But you know, I do believe if Germany had an army that was capable of taking the field, the anti-American malice of the centuries on the part of the people of Germany would have inspired the Germans to defend the Saddam Hussein regime. Not particularly for a love of Saddam, though there was that, but primarily out of animus toward the US.

Nations that aided the US in that effort, and despite UN refusal to sanction the operation, did so for calculations other than UN approval, just as they do now and will do in the future - under any scenario.

[Polymath20]

	First, being in the UNSC now diminishes America's power, compared to what it would be if the US were on the outside. Inside, it is just one of five equals. That hardly reflects the balance of actual military, economic and moral authority. On the outside, those strengths would tend to naturally yield far more than 1-of-5 influence.

Do you read what you write before posting?

You have nullified your own argument. America has more military power therefore the council seats are irrelevant.

Why do you believe that UNSC seats are so important?

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you read what you write before posting? You have nullified your own argument. America has more military power therefore the council seats are irrelevant. Why do you believe that UNSC seats are so important?

Why? - because of the authority to approve or veto action by the Council. The Council does have some authority, though not enough to prohibit the US from acting when it decides to. More importantly, as structured now China, Russia and France have influence over multi-lateral action that is both unwise and immoral. Putting a stop to that, so as to allow the new Council to function effectively and with moral stature is a primary purpose of the proposal.

[Polymath20]

	More importantly, as structured now China, Russia and France have influence over multi-lateral action that is both unwise and immoral

And since when has any of that interfered with Americas decisions and operations?

	Putting a stop to that, so as to allow the new Council to function effectively and with moral stature is a primary purpose of the proposal.

Getting way too philosophical here. It sounds like you're assuming "America is the Good Guys" and that is laughable at best.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And since when has any of that interfered with Americas decisions and operations? Getting way too philosophical here. It sounds like you're assuming "America is the Good Guys" and that is laughable at best.

Sorry - I'm not making myself as clear as I should. Come at it from this angle - the ability of the international community to act in a multi-lateral manner is being impeded and compromised right now by the out-sized influence of China, Russia and France. The proposal aims to correct that problem, and thus enable the Council to act in a coordinated and decisive manner. As things stand now, members are always at cross-purposes. That's not good for anyone but the Bashar Assads and Robert Mugabes of the world, is it?

[Polymath20]

Originally Posted by MrFox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sorry - I'm not making myself as clear as I should. Come at it from this angle - the ability of the international community to act in a multi-lateral manner is being impeded and compromised right now by the out-sized influence of China, Russia and France. The proposal aims to correct that problem, and thus enable the Council to act in a coordinated and decisive manner. As things stand now, members are always at cross-purposes. That's not good for anyone but the Bashar Assads and Robert Mugabes of the world, is it?

This is the point of politics. There are different people with different needs. When they all come to the bargaining table, things get decided. If everyone is in agreement (or enough) then action is taken. If no one can agree on action, then perhaps inaction is the appropriate choice.

Anyways, the UNSC doesn't hinder sovereign nations from taking actions on their own.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is the point of politics. There are different people with different needs. When they all come to the bargaining table, things get decided. If everyone is in agreement (or enough) then action is taken. If no one can agree on action, then perhaps inaction is the appropriate choice.

Yes, that's just the problem - regimes like those in China, Russia and France have no proper place in the making of collective decisions. They are morally and/or functionally ineligible for such authority. Their possession of that authority obstructs the effective functioning of the Council. They have to go. The proposal has that as its ultimate objective.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyways, the UNSC doesn't hinder sovereign nations from taking actions on their own.

Yes, but taking joint action feels better, doesn't it? Guess what? - it is better.

[Polymath20]

	Yes, that's just the problem - regimes like those in China, Russia and France have no proper place in the making of collective decisions. They are morally and/or functionally ineligible for such authority. Their possession of that authority obstructs the effective functioning of the Council. They have to go. The proposal has that as its ultimate objective.

Not sure why you think France is evil. Russia, okay, yeah there's still a lot of corruption, but there's also a lot of citizens there. Same with China. If anything, for the sake of human life, China does deserve representation.

You're kind of putting the cart before the horse here. "Kick them off the council!" should come only if the governments become war-like and kill their citizens... okay I guess Russia and China do that, but much lesser than say, Syria. Instead, by allowing them to be members, it keeps them close in a way that allows the rest of us good guys to influence them to take baby steps towards being a responsible democracy.

	Yes, but taking joint action feels better, doesn't it? Guess what? - it is better.

Right, but you're proposing to just change things so that only those who already do agree can take action together. It makes no sense. Excluding a country from the UNSC and then taking action with the remainder is the same as just taking the action in the first place.

i really don't think you understand the point of the UN...

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not sure why you think France is evil.

France is obstructionist, and probably evil too, but we'll stay with just the one indictment for now. One is enough.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Russia, okay, yeah there's still a lot of corruption, but there's also a lot of citizens there. Same with China. If anything, for the sake of human life, China does deserve representation.

The Chinese people deserve representation by a legitimate Chinese government. You're not going to tell us, are you, that you think the present regime has "legitimacy"? That regime has no moral standing to represent or commit the Chinese people to anything.

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're kind of putting the cart before the horse here. "Kick them off the council!" should come only if the governments become war-like and kill their citizens... okay I guess Russia and China do that, but much lesser than say, Syria. Instead, by allowing them to be members, it keeps them close in a way that allows the rest of us good guys to influence them to take baby steps towards being a responsible democracy.

Yes, just so - "baby steps" are all that is taken, and babies and others by the million have paid with their lives for that. No big deal - right?

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Right, but you're proposing to just change things so that only those who already do agree can take action together. It makes no sense. Excluding a country from the UNSC and then taking action with the remainder is the same as just taking the action in the first place.

Sorry lad - I see nothing coherent in this passage.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	i really don't think you understand the point of the UN...

The point certainly isn't to be ineffectual, is it?

[Polymath20]

	The Chinese people deserve representation by a legitimate Chinese government. You're not going to tell us, are you, that you think the present regime has "legitimacy"? That regime has no moral standing to represent or commit the Chinese people to anything.

Not at all - but isolating China from the Big Boys table won't help. It is what it is. The PRC is the authority, so it's best to work with what you got rather than not at all.

	Yes, just so - "baby steps" are all that is taken, and babies and others by the million have paid with their lives for that. No big deal - right?

The alternative would be worse methinks.

	Sorry lad - I see nothing coherent in this passage.

Durrrr....

Group composed of A, B, C and D. You don't like what D is doing so you just make the group A, B and C and then the group is okay. But that doesn't change reality. It just isolates D so that they can do whatever they want, and also A, B, and C can take action that would be detrimental to D, but now D gets no voice.

	The point certainly isn't to be ineffectual, is it?

Action is a tool at the disposal of the UN. Overt action is not the purpose of the congregation. As I stated before, which you summarily ignored, the purpose is communication.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not at all - but isolating China from the Big Boys table won't help. It is what it is. The PRC is the authority, so it's best to work with what you got rather than not at all.

Come on - you don't mean that. The illegitimacy of the regime cannot be overlooked. If it is, it crosses into becoming a matter of "complicity" with the regime. That's not a good place to go - and please don't you make me go Godwin.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The alternative would be worse methinks.

Never know until you try. Fear becomes noone.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Durrrr....

Yes, this could get real ugly real quick. Not going down that road.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Action is a tool at the disposal of the UN. Overt action is not the purpose of the congregation. As I stated before, which you summarily ignored, the purpose is communication.

They can stay and chatter all they want - they just get removed from decision making. Happy?

[Thinker]

The US is losing its place in the world....learn to live with it

[Polymath20]

	Come on - you don't mean that. The illegitimacy of the regime cannot be overlooked. If it is, it crosses into becoming a matter of "complicity" with the regime. That's not a good place to go - and please don't you make me go Godwin.

It's not a question of legitimacy or not. It is a sovereign nation. Even if the rest of the world decides "The government of China isn't that great" we're not going to do anything to precipitate war. Which leads to...

	Never know until you try. Fear becomes noone.

It's not fear so much as logic. Invading a nation because you don't like their government is expensive, amoral, and destructive to human life. Since we're not about to invade China, might as well invite them to the Big Boys table to talk.

	They can stay and chatter all they want - they just get removed from decision making. Happy?

Cutting off communications is generally a prelude to attack. Kicking a powerful nation off a council would be a slap in the face which could easily escalate.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Thinker To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The US is losing its place in the world....learn to live with it

Perhaps its dominance is fading slowly in relative terms - perhaps - but if it is, that's all the more reason to maximize the influence that remains. And OBTW: the ascending power is hobbled by diminished influence under this proposal - immodesty is ugly, but damn it - double-plays are my specialty.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by MrFox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Perhaps its dominance is fading slowly in relative terms - perhaps - but if it is, that's all the more reason to maximize the influence that remains. And OBTW: the ascending power is hobbled by diminished influence under this proposal - immodesty is ugly, but damn it - double-plays are my specialty.

If China is a rising economic power, wouldn't it be best to be friends with them? Their economic power has little to do with the legitimacy of the government. Commerce and government are generally at odds.

Capitalism is everywhere, just with slightly different shapes. I wish I could remember, but some historical person had a great quote about how anyone who believed capitalism wasn't anywhere didn't understand business and money.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not a question of legitimacy or not. It is a sovereign nation. Even if the rest of the world decides "The government of China isn't that great" we're not going to do anything to precipitate war. Which leads to...

Its a matter of moral standing, 20 - the regime in China has no moral right to represent the Chinese people. Legitimacy comes from consent - and the regime lacks the consent of the Chinese people. It has no moral authority whatsoever, and the US is complicit in that illegitimacy if it ignores it.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's not fear so much as logic. Invading a nation because you don't like their government is expensive, amoral, and destructive to human life. Since we're not about to invade China, might as well invite them to the Big Boys table to talk.

How many time do I have to say it - talk is fine - decision making authority is not. Got that?

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Cutting off communications is generally a prelude to attack. Kicking a powerful nation off a council would be a slap in the face which could easily escalate.

You're the only talking about cutting off communication. The Chinese regime understands force, and little else. Please don't feign naïveté.

[Polymath20]

	Its a matter of moral standing, 20 - the regime in China has no moral right to represent the Chinese people. Legitimacy comes from consent - and the regime lacks the consent of the Chinese people. It has no moral authority whatsoever, and the US is complicit in that illegitimacy if it ignores it.

What right does Obama have to represent Republicans then?

	How many time do I have to say it - talk is fine - decision making authority is not. Got that? You're the only talking about cutting off communication. The Chinese regime understands force, and little else. Please don't feign naïveté.

I don't understand where this outburst came from.

China is an economical power house and an important world player. Better to be on the same team rather than labeling them ultimate evil enemy.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If China is a rising economic power, wouldn't it be best to be friends with them? Their economic power has little to do with the legitimacy of the government. Commerce and government are generally at odds.

Be friends with the good people of China - there must be quite a lot of them - not with thugs who subjugate them. In this, China's exile from authority is perhaps temporary.

---------- Post added 01-13-2012 at 04:21 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What right does Obama have to represent Republicans then?

Obama was elected by a democratic process recognized as "free, fair and open" by substantially all observers. When Chinese people select a government by a comparable method, that government will be legitimate and can then be dealt with as such.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't understand where this outburst came from.

You're making me repeat myself. I don't respond well to that - or perhaps I respond too well to it. Let's not go there. We've been on the same side of too many issues to take off in that direction.

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	China is an economical power house and an important world player. Better to be on the same team rather than labeling them ultimate evil enemy.

It's morally illegitimate to take that attitude toward an illegitimate regime. This is not a game that nations play. It's also foolish - the regime obstructs effective functioning of the Council.

[Autumnleaf]

The people who pay off the politicians in the US also pay off politicians in Russia and China. The whole UN is bought and paid for as are most of its members. Iran and North Korea might not be. How does the media portray them? Saddam Hussein wasn't bought off because he was so paranoid that anyone in his regime who got bribed by the CIA or corporations got a dirt nap along with their whole family.

The UN is how the powers that be have global legitimacy when they decide to do things like depose Saddam and take Iraq's oil via contracts.