Kick Russia off the UN Security Council as a permanent member

[Ahlevah]

Having a country as a permanent member of the UN Security Council invading a peaceful neighbor and blatantly committing war crimes makes a mockery of the UN's founding principles supporting international peace and security. If this organization is to have any relevance going forward, Russia has to go. I'll bet if a country like India were offered up to take Russia's place it would accept it and have a good chance of success among the General Assembly membership. Since Russia would apparently have to agree to this as a permanent member, maybe it's time to rewrite the UN Charter just as Putin rewrote the Russian Constitution to brand himself president until 2036.

But, yeah, India would be my choice. It has a population of 1.4 billion people; an economy significantly larger than Russia's and growing at a fast clip, while Russia's economy has been stagnant and will likely shrink; it's a nuclear power; and it's a democracy. It's also been a growing rival to China, which could be politically useful to the interests of freedom-loving nations in the West. And before anyone mentions Pakistan, well, **** Pakistan. So, yeah, India for the win.

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

Is that even possible?

 

[Mr Person]

As noted....

We'd have to boot Russia from the UN entirely to remove it from the security council. There's no mechanism just to remove them from the security council. And if we did that, China would probably resist everything until either we brought them back in fully or we booted China. And if we booted China too, there's no damn point to having a UN . China/Russia are the most likely instigators of any major conflict between countries in the reasonably near future, whether direct or proxy.

It's baked into the entire point of having a U.N. in the first place: avoiding entangled alliances that could easily pull everyone into a world war over some dispute between two countries, say, even just an assassination. Better to tie up disputes in politics. Without having Russia and China on the Security Council you might as well scrap the UN and just have a super beef-ed up NATO type organization, which would undoubtedly be opposed by Russia-China-BadActorStates's own alliance. Which would tend to make it more likely that we see another world war.

There really is no point to having an organization devoted to tying down conflicts in words and political machinations so that they don't just blow straight up into a major hot war if you don't have the biggest potential belligerents in it, active and with power. The price of an increased promise of peace is indeed the seeming absurdity of having a belligerent like Russia on the security council, able to foil stuff like this (then again, exactly what would a "condemnation" accomplish re: Russia?).

 

[Ahlevah]

Is that even possible?

Sure, why not? If it requires a rewriting of the charter, then rewrite the charter. The world's changed a lot since the end of WWII.

 

[Cordelier]

Having a country as a permanent member of the UN Security Council invading a peaceful neighbor and blatantly committing war crimes makes a mockery of the UN's founding principles supporting international peace and security. If this organization is to have any relevance going forward, Russia has to go. I'll bet if a country like India were offered up to take Russia's place it would accept it and have a good chance of success among the General Assembly membership. Since Russia would apparently have to agree to this as a permanent member, maybe it's time to rewrite the UN Charter just as Putin rewrote the Russian Constitution to brand himself president until 2036.

But, yeah, India would be my choice. It has a population of 1.4 billion people; an economy significantly larger than Russia's and growing at a fast clip, while Russia's economy has been stagnant and will likely shrink; it's a nuclear power; and it's a democracy. It's also been a growing rival to China, which could be politically useful to the interests of freedom-loving nations in the West. And before anyone mentions Pakistan, well, **** Pakistan. So, yeah, India for the win.

Suggest you read up on the history and increasing ineffectiveness of the League of Nations in the interwar period.

 

[Ahlevah]

As noted....

We'd have to boot Russia from the UN entirely to remove it from the security council. There's no mechanism just to remove them from the security council.

Well, we'd leave it up to them. They could join the "new" UN or not under the new charter. But I don't see staying committed to the status quo as an option. The Russians have been nothing but a pain in the ass. They were the reason NATO intervened to stop the slaughter in Kosovo, because Yugoslavia was basically a vassal of Russia at the time and the Russians, as permanent members of the Security Council, would have vetoed any proposal to intervene in the conflict.

 

[MaryP]

Sure, why not? If it requires a rewriting of the charter, then rewrite the charter. The world's changed a lot since the end of WWII.

I suggest you read Mr Person's post and think about it.

I could see refusing to acknowledge a Security Council member's vote during the time it is flagrantly disregarding about a hundred international laws, though.

 

[MaryP]

The Russians have been nothing but a pain in the ass.

I'm sure they say the same about us.

 

[phoenix2020]

This is why the UN was broken from its very creation. It was, ultimately, little more than a mechanism to give five specific nations binding power over the fate of all humanity, for perpetuity, no matter what those five nations did, nor whether other nations might rise to a similar or greater level of influence. When those five powers disagree with each other, nothing happens. When the combined will of the rest of the world disagrees with those five nations, their will matters little.

There should never have been permanent members of the Security Council.

 

[Ahlevah]

Suggest you read up on the history and increasing ineffectiveness of the League of Nations in the interwar period.

The United States had had the world's largest economy since the 19th Century. Russia is a pipsqueak by comparison, with an economy somewhere between LA County's and New York's. Just because it has a big set of military balls (for the moment) doesn't mean we should reward it for violating the world order and stability it's supposed to be upholding. It makes a mockery of the UN Charter. Sometime pragmatism needs to take a backseat to basic principle. This is one of those moments.

 

[Ahlevah]

I'm sure they say the same about us.

No doubt, but the Russians are living in Wonderland at the moment.

 

[oneworld2]

Having a country as a permanent member of the UN Security Council invading a peaceful neighbor and blatantly committing war crimes makes a mockery of the UN's founding principles supporting international peace and security. If this organization is to have any relevance going forward, Russia has to go. I'll bet if a country like India were offered up to take Russia's place it would accept it and have a good chance of success among the General Assembly membership. Since Russia would apparently have to agree to this as a permanent member, maybe it's time to rewrite the UN Charter just as Putin rewrote the Russian Constitution to brand himself president until 2036.

But, yeah, India would be my choice. It has a population of 1.4 billion people; an economy significantly larger than Russia's and growing at a fast clip, while Russia's economy has been stagnant and will likely shrink; it's a nuclear power; and it's a democracy. It's also been a growing rival to China, which could be politically useful to the interests of freedom-loving nations in the West. And before anyone mentions Pakistan, well, **** Pakistan. So, yeah, India for the win.

India wouldn't accept it even if it were offered it. They said as much in their reasoning for not ratifying the Rome Statute and their points were spot on imo

Why not " boot" the USA off it too, if your criteria is whether nations start illegal wars?

Infact its fingerprints are all over the horror show in Ukraine right now but you don't want to know that. Best looking both ways when crossing roads imo

 

[MaryP]

This is why the UN was broken from its very creation. It was, ultimately, little more than a mechanism to give five specific nations binding power over the fate of all humanity, for perpetuity, no matter what those five nations did, nor whether other nations might rise to a similar or greater level of influence. When those five powers disagree with each other, nothing happens. When the combined will of the rest of the world disagrees with those five nations, their will matters little.

There should never have been permanent members of the Security Council.

Agree, there needs to be another way to go about it. It was probably a big selling point at the time, but maybe it's time for a little tweak.

 

[Cordelier]

The United States had had the world's largest economy since the 19th Century. Russia is a pipsqueak by comparison, with an economy somewhere between LA County's and New York's. Just because it has a big set of military balls (for the moment) doesn't mean we should reward it for violating the world order and stability it's supposed to be upholding. It makes a mockery of the UN Charter. Sometime pragmatism needs to take a backseat to basic principle. This is one of those moments.

That which does not bend must inevitably break. That was the problem with the League of Nations.

Yes, I agree Russia's actions are making a mockery of the UN Charter.... but kicking them off the Security Council or even out of the UN itself isn't going to change that fact. Russia can conquer the whole of the Ukraine, but that's not going to stop the fighting. The Ukrainian people are going to keep on fighting. There's not going to be a military solution to this conflict.... eventually, in the end, it's going to have to be a negotiated settlement. We all know that.

The question is... how does that come about if nobody is talking to the Russians anymore? We need the UN to be that bridge to a settlement.... so for now, let it bend with the Russian actions.... down the road it will still be flexible enough to bounce back and help facilitate a solution.

 

[Ahlevah]

India wouldn't accept it even if it were offered it. They said as much in their reasoning for not ratifying the Rome Statute and their points were spot on imo

Well, we really won't know until it's actually offered to them. If they aspire to be a world power that would be a big plum to pass up. But if not them then get another country, like Germany or Japan--or both. They've paid their dues. Anyone but Russia.

Why not " boot" the USA off it too, if your criteria is whether nations start illegal wars?

We don't make it part of our war doctrine to commit genocide. While the U.S. isn't a saint, there is no comparison between anything the U.S. has done to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

Infact its fingerprints are all over the horror show in Ukraine right now but you don't want to know that. Best looking both ways when crossing roads imo

Yeah, of course. It's always America's fault. Me made Putin invade a peaceful country.

 

[Ahlevah]

The question is... how does that come about if nobody is talking to the Russians anymore? We need the UN to be that bridge to a settlement.... so for now, let it bend with the Russian actions.... down the road it will still be flexible enough to bounce back and help facilitate a solution.

I'm not saying don't give the Russians membership or a voice. I'm saying get them off the Security Council as permanent members with a veto. If they go home crying, taking their marbles with them, then good riddance.

 

[Ahlevah]

The question is... how does that come about if nobody is talking to the Russians anymore? We need the UN to be that bridge to a settlement.... so for now, let it bend with the Russian actions.... down the road it will still be flexible enough to bounce back and help facilitate a solution.

One more thing. I think this is one of those seminal moments where we have to make a decision on which side of the fence we're going to be on. Are we going to be on the side of freedom, or tyranny? What Russia is doing is making war on an order that has largely held the peace in Europe since the end of the Second World War. The world needs to send a message in the loudest voice possible that their behavior is unacceptable in the 21st Century.

 

[Cordelier]

One more thing. I think this is one of those seminal moments where we have to make a decision on which side of the fence we're going to be on. Are we going to be on the side of freedom, or tyranny? What Russia is doing is making war on an order that has largely held the peace in Europe since the end of the Second World War. The world needs to send a message in the loudest voice possible that their behavior is unacceptable in the 21st Century.

We can be on whatever side we want to be on.

I don't think it's the job of the UN to decide on freedom or tyranny, though. It's Member States can be whatever they want to be.

The job of the UN is to try and facilitate a means to peace.... Anybody can negotiate with people who agree with them. The hard thing is negotiating with people you completely disagree and who take actions which you find absolutely abhorrent.

 

[Ahlevah]

We can be on whatever side we want to be on.

Sure, we could have been on the side of the Axis powers during WWII. But part of making the world a better place is having credibility by being on the right side of history. Putin’s cred just shrank by an order of magnitude.

I don't think it's the job of the UN to decide on freedom or tyranny, though. It's Member States can be whatever they want to be.

If that’s true then why have a Universal Declaration of Human Rights or an International Criminal Court? I realize having a Human Rights Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval isn’t required for membership in the General Assembly, but imagine a Security Council with Hitler calling the shots. If that day hasn’t arrived yet it’s close.

The job of the UN is to try and facilitate a means to peace.... Anybody can negotiate with people who agree with them. The hard thing is negotiating with people you completely disagree and who take actions which you find absolutely abhorrent.

Like I said, we can talk to them. I just think it’s time to rewrite which nations should comprise a council that gives the body it’s best chance achieving a just outcome, and I don’t think Russia is it.

 

[oneworld2]

Well, we really won't know until it's actually offered to them. If they aspire to be a world power that would be a big plum to pass up. But if not them then get another country, like Germany or Japan--or both. They've paid their dues. Anyone but Russia.

They can be a world power and STILL stick to their guns on how the UNSC is a BIG problem when it comes to international relations and/or conflicts. Read what they said

We don't make it part of our war doctrine to commit genocide. While the U.S. isn't a saint, there is no comparison between anything the U.S. has done to what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

It took the USA 40 years to properly sign up to the Genocide Convention and that was only when they made sure the provisions were there that they could never be charged with it

And, absolutely there is. You systematically destroyed Japanese cities, entire cities

In Iraq you enforced sanctions for over a decade that some people claimed took a million lives, where the two heads of the programme resigned stating that the sanctions amounted to genocide And that doesn't even include the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Saints are not even in the same ball park

Yeah, of course. It's always America's fault. Me made Putin invade a peaceful country.

They bear a huge responsibility for the circumstances that led to this war. I would argue with any who would accept the challenge here, serious oponents only, that the USA has used the Ukrainians to poke a very dangerous opponent into a fight knowing full well that when that fight breaks out they will be on their own. The country will be wrecked and they have been encouraged and them abandoned in the cruelest way possible and here you are oblivious to it.

 

[Cordelier]

Human Rights Declarations and International Criminal Courts are great things.... but they're not worth the paper they're printed on unless nations willingly abide by them.

I'll remind you that the US is in exactly the same boat as Russia where it comes to the ICC.... we both signed on and subsequently withdrew.

 

[TheParser]

No, Russia cannot be booted off the Security Council.

Russia cannot be kicked out because -- to be fair -- it suffered greatly during World War II and helped defeat Hitler.

So being on the Council was its well-deserved reward.

To be brutally frank, only the United States and Russia and China deserve to be on the Council nowadays,

England and France are no longer of much military consequence.

*****

A lot of people no doubt would like to dissolve the United Nations as a useless organization. As ineffective as the old League of Nations.

 

[Cordelier]

No, Russia cannot be booted off the Security Council.

Russia cannot be kicked out because -- to be fair -- it suffered greatly during World War II and helped defeat Hitler.

So being on the Council was its well-deserved reward.

To be brutally frank, only the United States and Russia and China deserve to be on the Council nowadays,

England and France are no longer of much military consequence.

*****

A lot of people no doubt would like to dissolve the United Nations as a useless organization. As ineffective as the old League of Nations.

At the Tehran Conference in 1943, Churchill suggested to Stalin that the Pope be associated with some the decisions that were being made.... Stalin thought for a moment and replied, "The Pope? How many divisions has he?"

That one came to bite the Soviets in the ass four decades later, didn't it?

The UN - like the Pope - isn't about military or economic power. It's about moral persuasion. As long as it remains steadfast in the pursuit of peace - bending but never breaking before the winds of history - then it will be there when peace inevitably needs to be made. All wars end. They don't all end well.

 

[Ahlevah]

They can be a world power and STILL stick to their guns on how the UNSC is a BIG problem when it comes to international relations and/or conflicts. Read what they said.

Still, if offered a big, fat carrot like that I'd bet they'd take it. Countries say a lot of things, until something comes along to change their calculus. Until a week ago, Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden were ostensibly neutral. Then Putin bitchslapped them out of their idealistic fantasy world into ours. Should we tell them to go to hell because they might upset the Russians?

It took the USA 40 years to properly sign up to the Genocide Convention and that was only when they made sure the provisions were there that they could never be charged with it

Americans value their freedom and sovereignty, as well as democracy and having elected representatives who are charged with ensuring that freedom and sovereignty. So if it takes forty years to access whether giving up that sovereignty to an international body comprised of unelected bureaucrats, regardless of the cause, is a good idea, then that's what it should take. Personally, I don't care what the cause is. We should never surrender or compromise even the smallest token of our national sovereignty.

And, absolutely there is. You systematically destroyed Japanese cities, entire cities

Well, you're the librarian, so I would have hoped you would have placed the history in proper context when doing your comparison. I mean, try reading a book why dontcha, and I don't mean Grimms' Fairy Tales. Start with the fact that the Japanese were not peaceful innocents attacked by a monster set on empire building. Rather, they had, beginning in the 1920s, engaged in a brutal conquest of much of the Far East. The Empire of Japan was an existential threat to these nations. Then there's the minor detail of Japan attacking us. The Japanese mindset was one of fanaticism, where every citizen owed a duty to the Emperor to defend the homeland. American daylight, high-altitude bombing proved to be largely ineffective against the Japanese war machine because the Japanese had spread the manufacturing of war material among the civilian populace. By doing so they made those populations a strategic target. The American aim was not genocide, i.e. to exterminate the Japanese race, but a policy of total war as a means to destroy Japan's ability to wage war and bring the contest to a conclusion as expeditiously as possible because our leadership believed, I think rightly, that that was the only way to bring the nation to heel.

 

[Ahlevah]

In Iraq you enforced sanctions for over a decade that some people claimed took a million lives, where the two heads of the programme resigned stating that the sanctions amounted to genocide And that doesn't even include the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Saints are not even in the same ball park.

Now, here you've just completely gone off the rails. The "you" was the United Nations. And it was the United States and Britain that prevented Saddam's genocidal program against the Kurds in the North and the Shias in the South with an enforced no-fly zone. The UN established a program, the so-called "Oil for Food" program, in an attempt to get food and medicine to people who needed it. I'll admit the execution was not what it should have been, thanks to some degree to UN corruption, but to claim that we were engaging in program of genocide is horseshit. Honestly, I think people who supposedly know better don't really understand the meaning of the word.

They bear a huge responsibility for the circumstances that led to this war. I would argue with any who would accept the challenge here, serious oponents only, that the USA has used the Ukrainians to poke a very dangerous opponent into a fight knowing full well that when that fight breaks out they will be on their own. The country will be wrecked and they have been encouraged and them abandoned in the cruelest way possible and here you are oblivious to it.

Okay, I imagine part of the problem was the fact the Soviets did not adhere to the promises they made under various WWII-era accords such as the Potsdam Agreement and march back home to Moscow like they should have. Instead, they decided to stick around in most of Eastern Europe and engage in the nasty things the they did for almost fifty years to the point that they had to build walls to keep people in. So it's natural that countries like Poland and the Baltic Republics weren't too keen on falling into the Russian orbit following the breakup of the Soviet Union. I mean, unlike the Soviet Union, which decades before had forced entry of its various puppet states into the Warsaw Pact, NATO wasn't holding a gun to anyone's head to join the alliance. These countries applied to join. NATO's aim is to ensure stability, and if that includes keeping Russia from trying to invade former client states then that's what needs to be done. And if anything has hammered that point home it's the events of the past week. The Russians need to understand that people these days like things like freedom and democracy rather than 19th and 20th Century concepts like buffer zones and spheres of influence. They don't like being subjugated. And Lebensraum was supposed to have died with Hitler.