Top contenders for permanent members are Brazil, India, Egypt.
We need Bolivia. It is the only native american majority country left. And its very well run.
More members with more vetos?
This would just make the UN security council even more ineffective.
You're 100% correct, the only way I can see how this makes sense is if they think Brazil, India, Egypt et al will vote in line with US interests so it gives the appearance of the "world" voting one way and isolating Russia and China. Of course that could backfire and make it look like it's the US, UK and France that are going against the "global consensus". The US has probably written off the security council as pointless so why not use it for propaganda purposes?
This move probably would have made more sense a couple years ago when both Brazil and India were going full fash (idk much about Egypt), but I think with Bolsonaro and Modi's movements both seeming to taper off this won't work out the way they want it to. Like if Lula wins and gets to appoint Brazil's SC rep, they will almost certainly end up voting against America most of the time.
Then again maybe I'm being overly optimistic and the state department figures those movements are a lot more durable than I do.
I can't see other nations not going for this, since of course they are going to try to increase their own power if they have the opportunity, but if we're going for some kind of global democratic representation in the UN then either the security council shouldn't exist at all and its powers should just be decided by normal votes, or the SC should exist but have its members chosen by percentage of the world population, or fuck it abandon all pretense and make the SC include every country with nukes because that's really what it's a proxy for isn't it.
A broad spectrum of the world seems ready to work more closely together after plagues, famines, and wars.
If Ol' :biden-point: nukes the post-WWII UN Security Council hegemony that would be a good thing for everyone on the planet. Every single permanent member has abused their veto powers with zero oversight. More undemocratic than even the US Senate.
As an Internationalist: Would sure be nice if we could elect our UN representative.
Who do you see winning as a UN rep in the United States?
Who do you see winning as a UN rep in the United States?
whoever the bourgeois decides to back with media and funding
seems to me like a nationally elected UN rep would just end up being a lower tier of Presidential election, so it would probably get fought over by the Buttigiegs of the country,
It'd be Samantha Power vs Nikki Haley type shit, every time
The more I think about it though the more I think it would probably do a lot of good to have a national election that revolves entirely around foreign policy. People might actually learn a little bit about other countries, and a niche party could hijack that to get some based foreign policy ideas into the public consciousness.
Could be a good thing in theory, but I just don't think they'd allow those kinds of positions a platform even if they did let foreign policy be voted on.
"Elections cannot be allowed to change
economic policyforeign policy" - EU motherfucker whose name i didn't care to rememberPeople might actually learn a little bit about other countries
:data-laughing:
Death to America
God dammit you just made me watch the final scene again. Damn...
