UNSC bid of Japan, Germany, India and Brazil rejected. Is Japan to blame ?

[Dr. J. M.]

I am of the ones that would have liked to see some reform in the UN to make it more democratic... This bid could have been an step in that direction, although I would have preffered other options.

Democratic reforms, like one person one vote? I'd only support that as long as the amount of contributions is distributed according to population (Of course this is pretty much unobtainable, as neither China nor India will or are able to bear the lion's share atm.)

Regarding this:
I think that each one of them, should have come out with something to put in the table... Brazil should have found more Latin American backing, Germany a more European one, Japan an East Asian one, India... well, if not well supported in Muslim central Asia... could have lobbied more support elsewhere.

A little bit too simplistic... For example Germany would have had better chances alone than Japan would have had alone. That's mainly due to the fact that Germany has great relations with France, is also actively backed by the UK, has historically very strong ties with the US and has good relations with Russia and China. Japan on the other hand has sour relations with China and is only actively backed by the US (I'm not so sure about the other three countries, but I guess they are neutral to positive...)

To put the blame in Japan, I think that is to go a little far.

Yep, I agree.

On the other hand, South Africa should have been in the team, since there is a Continent of 900+ million people (and growing fast) without permanent representantion.

Africa has other problems than that. They struggle with an AIDS epedemy, they are torn by civil wars, they lack necessary infrastructure and suffer from unfair trade relations or unbearable corruption. So trying to get a seat for South Africa has pretty much the lowest priority imaganable...

We should get rid of the Security Council.
It was made primarily by the winners of WW2, and basically remains so today.

Unless there's a better alternative let's keep it as it is. Two European nations in this council sounds good to me.

The US becoming a failed state and definately should be removed from the Security Council. Only thing is, too many US citizens lack knowledge of the rest of the world and some nazi like John Bolton would probably say "I told you they've been out to get us".

Right, remove the US as a failed state and keep China and Russia... We could add Iran and North Korea just for good measure, while we're at it...

[Sukotto]

Unless there's a better alternative let's keep it as it is. Two European nations in this council sounds good to me.

UK, France, Russia. That looks like 3 to me. Since the majority of Russian political power/population is west of the Ural mountains (in Europe).

Right, remove the US as a failed state and keep China and Russia... We could add Iran and North Korea just for good measure, while we're at it...

Well, how many stolen elections have Russian and China had in the last 7 years? Have any of those two lied to their populations to start a war of aggression. Or are involved in just about every other ongoing war of conflict in some way or another? This last sentance few people in the US are aware about. Do China & Russia maintain a militarist society even though they have no REAL enemies? while maintaining tHE largest prison population on the planet, tossing addicts in cages, health care falling apart (when will the first American epidemic sweep the country? they've already LET an entire city drown) letting cities rot from the inside with the only solution from gov't to militarize the police forces (with automatic weapons and body armor they look like they belong in a combat zone). they don't care if kids in the inner city drop out of school in the 4TH~! grade (this is the current generations, not 60 years ago) But, hey, at least those people that drop out in the 4th grade tend to realize the US gov't is a total crock and not there to help the populous (unless maybe you're upper middle class and probably white) - notice I didn't state "Bush".

Unless you maintain that a country is not a "failed state" as long as there is a government that can remain in power and maintain a lid on the problems by any means necessary...if the maintenance of gov't is all that makes it NOT a failed state, then sure the US is not a failed state. Everything's A-ok. Just get those Hi-definition tvs out there quick. The spectacle is starting to fail.



SECURITY COUNCIL
So far I still maintain the opinion that it should be eliminated.
Let the General Assembly countries invent a replacement, if any.
It is unfair and undemocratic.
Why should the few rich countries get to decide where action should be taken?
Why the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq was addressed,
but not the occupation of East Timor by Indonesia.
Because of money and the maintenance of distribution of power in the world.

The UN General Assembly should be empowered. One country, one vote.
I disagree with the amounts paid by countries should be by population.
At least (still) for now. The world has still not recovered from the colonial and neo-colonial eras. It would be nonsensical to think such a calamity could fix itself in merely years or even a few decades. In fact some would argue we are still in one such era. (sarcasm from here): "oh, you know. All that wealth we've been extracting for centuries, well, we'll just keep doing it. Instead we'll let local people be the government officials, and since the "corporation" has always been the instrument of wealth extraction (*a historic tool of imperialism), we'll just tell you that you cannot take "their" property away from "them" in your country and now the "corporation" is just a regular (and fair) way of..., oh, I don't know..., we'll call it "conducting business" and denounce opposition to this and label it "communism".


If there must be a SC, at least have ZERO permanent members.
Maybe pick the new year's members at random.