HONONONONO

No one wants a powerful neighbour

G4 are four countries which want permanent seats on the UN Security Council (rn the permanent seats are the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China).

But Germans are the ones that want the EU to become 1 country; shouldn't they be supporting a EU seat?

>But Germans are the ones that want the EU to become 1 country; shouldn't they be supporting a EU seat?
Only if France gives the EU their seat. Otherwise France has defecto indpenedece over EU

>They run the EU anyway, the vote will still be theirs.

No it won't. The EU would likely adopt some kind of rotational model.

Permanent seats are contrary to the spirit of an assembly of nations

UNSC's role is to ensure global peace
General Assembly is to act as forum for inter governmental dialog

Yes. That's why there is an assembly kek

>But Germans are the ones that want the EU to become 1 country
Source?

Read your constitutions preamble

me

You miss the point. Permanet seat powers are contrary to the purposes of ensuring peace and security

someone should tell germany that its NEVER happening

its NEVER happening

germany its NEVER happening

what does turkey have against india?

>You miss the point. Permanet seat powers are contrary to the purposes of ensuring peace and security
Not really, if the UNSC didn't have vetos then the USA and USSR would of left long ago because they couldn't veto dumb legistaion pushed by some weak povo country in the GA. Because the USA and USSR had these powers they have a vested intrest in maintaing the UN and the international order. Giving special privalages to the countries that are actually needed to enforce international peace ensures that they actually enforce international peace, otherwise you get the league of nations where noone can stop italy invading abyssnia.
The sole purpose of the UNSC is to enforce global peace. By international law the only way you can legally fight a war is either through self defence or the UNSC's approval.

Your conclusions are unjustified and follow circular logic.
The priviliges are not there because theyre necesary for peace, they're because the ones that won ww2 made the rules.
No justification for what privileges are necessary if any, based on international peace and not more guns during the 40s
No justification on why those countries should be the ones to have those privileges, based on international peace and not more guns during the 40s
No reason to believe having those privileges means they will use it to enforce international peace instead of their selfish foreign policy.
And you have permanent member states waging war ignoring or bypassing UN like US did on Irak

The whole concept is stupid, all these four countries deserve to have a permanent seat. Actually, France and Germany should merge their seat into an EU seat and give the leftover one to Israel.

oy

honestly japan and india should be on there, brazil definitely not, germany meh. uk should get kicked out, they're about as relevant as we are. not a serious country

must support Pakistan because fellow muslims

>The priviliges are not there because theyre necesary for peace, they're because the ones that won ww2 made the rules.
Because they won WWII and can make the rules they by extension are the countries that can enforce the rules and thus peace
>No justification for what privileges are necessary if any, based on international peace and not more guns during the 40s
Not sure what you mean by this one please expand
>No justification on why those countries should be the ones to have those privileges, based on international peace and not more guns during the 40s
They continue to be the most powerful nations on earth and by extension are the countries that can enforce the rules and thus peace
>No reason to believe having those privileges means they will use it to enforce international peace instead of their selfish foreign policy.
The point is that the super powers use the GA for their own selfish policy by lobbying countries to vote in their intrest. By giving great powers a veto they are confortable in participating in the UN as if they feel unjustly treated they can veto rather than withdraw. If they don't partcipate you get the war in Korea where the UN fights the soviets because the USSR didn't parycipate in the UN. You don't think that if China didn't have a veto in current year and all the nations of the world voted through legisaton that ran against chinas intrests they wouldn't just leave?
>And you have permanent member states waging war ignoring or bypassing UN like US did on Irak
And that is why the war in Iraq is looked at with distain even here in the west.
The system is not perfect, but a UN without veto powers for great powers would be far worse than what we have now. This is why no states are trying to abolish veto power, only develop it by adding more memebers. Ergo your point in that "Permanet seat powers are contrary to the purposes of ensuring peace and security" is wrong.

Attached: vetos.png (600x697, 184.62K)

Chinkim Zhangook yet again

Attached: Chinkim Zhangook.png (2048x916, 1.09M)

>Why doesn't LatAm want Brazil to get a seat?

the spic fears the LVSOBVLL

Attached: 1600291876948.png (700x1476, 521.14K)

it will happen