Australia's seat on the UN security council

[mr friendly guy]

Ok so rogue states better beware because we have now won a seat in the UN security council.
linky

As to how influential it will be, well we will see.

Naturally the ALP are falling over themselves to congratulate each other on the upset win. We also see the Liberals are complaining that the 24-25 million dollars is wasted because its only temporary like all seats for the non permanent members.

Keep in mind we spent $310 million on the Olympics at an awesome rate of $10 million for each medal, which is only temporary in a sense, that the next olympic will select another winner in that same event.

So what do Australians think (non Aussies please comment as well). Do you think it was money well spent?

[Haruko]

Oh, shit, I thought it was a permanent seat. My heart almost skipped a beat, it seemed so left field.

[Broomstick]

I'd rather have a relatively sane country like Australia on the security council than some batshit crazies I could name. Can you be voted in for a second term?

[Korto]

Oh, shit, I thought it was a permanent seat. My heart almost skipped a beat, it seemed so left field.

Left field? You mean left flippin' planet, as in "What planet are you living on?"
We were talking about it a little last night, and a friend said that while there may have been a reason for the Permanent Members with special powers when the UN was first formed, that there was no real need for it anymore, and it would be better if they were put on the same level as everyone else. I pointed out that that wasn't going to happen, as they were permanent with special powers, and they weren't going to give that up. He said it would be fairer. I said they have a veto, and they wont agree. He said maybe if the UN general assembly vote for it, and I said "...and they'll VETO it"
(Which was pretty tricky, talking in red colour and strikethrough).

The money it cost is pocket-change to a national government. Apparently South Australia goes through similar money for the Grand Prix, and at least this lasts two years. It's also a bit more pride-value than the equivalent two or three gold medals, so yeah.
As for how much use it is, I think any effect would be subtle, but apparently the Security Council votes on a lot of varied bills and shit, some of which affect Australia in various ways. Now, if I was writing a bill, if I could just tweak it a bit to get myself an extra vote, I'd consider it. It's not like we have balance of power (I assume), but whoever writes a bill is going to consider who votes on it, and how to make it more likely that they'll vote for it. Now we're one of the ones they'll consider.

[mr friendly guy]

The UN permanent members are formed by those who pledged to fight the axis powers, and in return they gave themselves special powers in the newly formed UN. These powers were the USSR, the British Empire, the USA, the Republic of China and France (which was occupied at the time). The British empire became the UK, the USSR collapsed being replaced by the Russian federation, while the Republic of China lost the civil war and its successor state became the People's Republic of China (yay, name change). The most contentious change was that the ROC still existed ( in Taiwan) when it was decided maybe the world should recognise the PRC as the "true" representative of the Chinese people and due to sheenanigans, the Chinese seat was given to the PRC.

Generally when a permanent member has been "replaced" its usually by its successor state and not a state with no relation to the previous one. As such I doubt a new member would come up any time soon, especially when existing members have no intention of diluting their power, so they can just veto it.

Now that being said, if the economic, military, and political power was changed such that the five permanent members aren't that powerful any more, it would seem intuitively ridiculous to have them there purely because of historical reasons. Lets just say 5 different countries magically appear who surpass the five permanent members in all of the 3 criteria I have listed, it would be silly to keep them there. However for the moment the permanent members have the two largest economies - the US and China, while Russia is still a powerful military in terms of nukes, and France and Britain still have sizable militaries even if their economies have been surpassed by various countries, eg Germany and Japan (which is ironic considering they were the axis powers who the permanent members fought against).

[Saxtonite]

Generally when a permanent member has been "replaced" its usually by its successor state and not a state with no relation to the previous one. As such I doubt a new member would come up any time soon, especially when existing members have no intention of diluting their power, so they can just veto it.

Now that being said, if the economic, military, and political power was changed such that the five permanent members aren't that powerful any more, it would seem intuitively ridiculous to have them there purely because of historical reasons. Lets just say 5 different countries magically appear who surpass the five permanent members in all of the 3 criteria I have listed, it would be silly to keep them there. However for the moment the permanent members have the two largest economies - the US and China, while Russia is still a powerful military in terms of nukes, and France and Britain still have sizable militaries even if their economies have been surpassed by various countries, eg Germany and Japan (which is ironic considering they were the axis powers who the permanent members fought against).

Someone mentioned the possibility of the U.K. and France transferring their security council seats/merging them into a security council seat for the European Union in the future. Presumably, not the near future but what do you think about that hypothetical?

[General Brock]

$10 million dollars for an emotional moment of positive nationalism that can be shared by most of the country and the world at the same time seems not a bad deal even allowing for all the negatives associated with the modern Olympic movement and uncertainty of the trickle-down to grassroots sporting activity.

[bobalot]

Local state governments have recently spend far more than $25 million dollars on useless things like the grand Prix. The Howard government spent over a $1 Billion dollars on government advertising.

Unlike the above, the UN seat actually does have some influence and use. The Liberal party whining about the cost is pure sour grapes.

[GuppyShark]

South Australia spends $0 on the Grand Prix. We lost it a decade ago.

[bobalot]

South Australia spends $0 on the Grand Prix. We lost it a decade ago.

Why so unhappy? Everywhere else it's gone, it's had to rely on tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer support each year.

[Ralin]

We were talking about it a little last night, and a friend said that while there may have been a reason for the Permanent Members with special powers when the UN was first formed, that there was no real need for it anymore, and it would be better if they were put on the same level as everyone else. I pointed out that that wasn't going to happen, as they were permanent with special powers, and they weren't going to give that up. He said it would be fairer. I said they have a veto, and they wont agree. He said maybe if the UN general assembly vote for it, and I said "...and they'll VETO it"
(Which was pretty tricky, talking in red colour and strikethrough).

While that is very true, I do have to wonder what would happen if enough countries just went "Fuck you, reform or we leave the UN" and followed through on it. Hard to be an United Nations without any other nations united with you.

[mr friendly guy]

Someone mentioned the possibility of the U.K. and France transferring their security council seats/merging them into a security council seat for the European Union in the future. Presumably, not the near future but what do you think about that hypothetical?

Do you mean whether I think its likely, or a good idea?

Most probably unlikely for reasons I already mentioned about diluting power. As to whether its a good idea, I suppose it makes the security council apparatus easier to wield purely by virtue that there is one less member. However if were to remake the security council under whatever criteria I wish, then it should simply reflect both current economic reality and allow it to give all regions a say. So by nixing France and Britain into a EU seat, it at least gives more European nations a voice, and better reflects the economic capabilities of Europe. Since if they are representing the whole EU they would be representing a region with a GDP bigger than the US. So most probably not a bad idea.

[thejester]

I'm sure you can make an argument for it, but not sure that $24 million is representative either - we won the seat on the back of African votes, which have been delivered by AusAID's brand new African aid program. A program created, as I understand it, purely to win those votes increase our engagement in transnational initiatives globally. Maybe I'm cynical but pretty confident this will go down in posterity as yet another giant ego trip from one K. Rudd.

[atg]

South Australia spends $0 on the Grand Prix. We lost it a decade ago.

Why so unhappy? Everywhere else it's gone, it's had to rely on tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer support each year.

IIRC the GP in adelaide turned a profit or was at least neutral moneywise. I might be mistaken though.

Anyway why the distinction on tax payer money? The olympics rely on hundreds of millions of taxpayer money and people can still enjoy it just fine :/

[Raw Shark]

$10 million dollars for an emotional moment of positive nationalism that can be shared by most of the country and the world at the same time seems not a bad deal even allowing for all the negatives associated with the modern Olympic movement and uncertainty of the trickle-down to grassroots sporting activity.

Not to mention the shitload of money that (if successful) it pours into the local economy, particularly the oft-neglected service industry. I could probably buy my own cab on the back of Olympic Games held once in Denver.

[Welf]

Most probably unlikely for reasons I already mentioned about diluting power. As to whether its a good idea, I suppose it makes the security council apparatus easier to wield purely by virtue that there is one less member. However if were to remake the security council under whatever criteria I wish, then it should simply reflect both current economic reality and allow it to give all regions a say. So by nixing France and Britain into a EU seat, it at least gives more European nations a voice, and better reflects the economic capabilities of Europe. Since if they are representing the whole EU they would be representing a region with a GDP bigger than the US. So most probably not a bad idea.

I'm not sure if the council would work better just because there are 4 instead of 5. If EU-Europe has a strong central government, then yes. But that is very unlikely. France and Britain can send 5.000 soldiers and spend 2 billion in aid right now, that is something you can bargain with. Also, they have clear ideas what they want, so they are predictable. The EU maybe theoretically could send 50.000 men and spend 20 billion, but would need months of inner negotiation to get to that point. And with continuous inner quarrel the EU would be much less predictable. So in the end, it would be bad for the big Eu countries like Germany, France or Britain, but good for the small ones.

For Australia, I don't think there's much gain. It's probably nice for their diplomats, since the get more "street cred" with other politicians and diplomats, but I don't see how that benefits the people of Australia. being permanently in the council is probably of value, since you make a lot of connections, and are part of many deals. But the important trade agreements are made bilateral and at the WTO, so it's only an indirect effect. And if you're permanently involved, other nations expect you to shoulder bigger expenses and send your soldiers into wars.
So basically it's probably no more then bling-bling for diplomats. But there's no reason for Australian's to not feel happy and proud about it. Especially since they already paid for it.

[Irbis]

I'm sure you can make an argument for it, but not sure that $24 million is representative either - we won the seat on the back of African votes, which have been delivered by AusAID's brand new African aid program.

Wasn't that money spent for entirely different purpose, though, and its counting a little bit unfair? Like counting money spent on charity lottery tickets?

[Crown]

IIRC the GP in adelaide turned a profit or was at least neutral moneywise. I might be mistaken though.

That was back when you could have tobacco advertising though.

In regards to the OP, I too thought that the thread title implied that we had a permanent seat on the UN SC and my initial reaction was; before India?!!! <Christopher Walken>That's cray-zy!</Christopher Walken>

How in the world, can the world's second most populous nation, the world's largest democracy and a nuclear power as well not be on the SC with a veto is one of life's great mysteries.