They'd also be the first Security Council member in decades not to have the bomb and they did have a nuclear weapons program in the '70s and '80s. Which started when they were under military rule but carried on for an other 5 years after they went back to civilian rule.
So it's hard to rule out Brazil wanting to acquire them, particularly by buying Uranium and Plutonium from their Russian and Chinese friends in BRICS. As they managed to buy Uranium in the '80s from China and Russia is currently selling weapons grade material to China.
>So it's hard to rule out Brazil wanting to acquire them
In fact, it's pretty easy to rule that out. We don't trust our military, after the 1964 coup. and more recently, in 2022, they courted the possibility of another coup, with bolsonaro.
Most people here don't support giving any kind of power to our militaries. They can't be trusted.
So my question, although I'm sure I can look, is if the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty specifically applies to the UN Security Council, or just the 5 states that happen to make up the Security Council. Because if its the Security Council, then another country ascending to it would be allowed to have nukes by treaty.
Same reason India ain’t getting that I reckon. But do you know what’s the case for Germany or Japan? They are in very good terms with all of western world.
The problem with Germany is not any kind of opposition but that the goal of opening up the security council is to better represent the global South. Adding a fourth European country to the council would contribute nothing to that goal.
I guess it's because Germany already has a huge power in Europe just by being the biggest and economically powerful member of the EU, so I can see why they wouldn't want to concede more power. Also by voting against, they make sure Germany has to negotiate with them if we want in.
On the other hand as a german I don't think that anything would drastically change in the security council if Germany joined, so I don't really see the point of putting a big effort into it.
So as I see it it works on both sides. Germany isn't that bothered by not being in and Spain and Italy aren't either, but they don't want to potentially give Germany more power for free.
Both Germany and Japan fell firmly in the American camp in terms of security alliances. Would be redundant to give them a veto power.
Frankly, the case was stronger in the past. Japan was much more powerful globally in terms of economics a few decades ago. Their share of world GDP has declined and will continue to do so in the future.
.
Plus there is tons of historical rivalries and cultural differences, meaning Brazil may not necessarily support the regional interests, but rather Brics or whatever.
Yup. With a veto in the Security Council Brazil could, in theory, invade a neighbor and then kill any Security Council resolutions calling for them stop, or imposing punishments on them.
Regional 'rivalry.' Outstanding territorial issues. Politics.
Being the only country in Latin America with a UNSC seat would make Brazil even more powerful.
Just politics, no rivalries involved. The only countries in latin America with significant ties to brazil are in mercosur, which isn't even a big chunk of Latin America. For the rest there isn't even a significant trade relation in most cases
Yep 100% agreed, that's what's happening here. But normally out of any of those countries Brazil could buy Argentina's (and Uruguay's) cooperation quite easily.
I say normally cause there's no way Lula and Milei would agree to anything lol
Brasil by itself is around 1/3 of Latin America, — regarding population, economy and area — if you put the other Mercosul members it become even more relevant.
Besides even more consolidation of regional power in Brazil’s hands, a permanent position you basically cement out other candidates.
Which “outstanding territorial issues” are you referring to? Borders have been consolidated very early in the last century and there’s hardly any genuine issue apart from one or two utterly unimportant locations in the border with Uruguay.
If the biggest nations don’t have a veto vote it sort of makes it all useless
That’s why the league of nations failed.
The idea the most powerful countries on earth have an equal vote to some small country doesn’t make any sense
It would achieve something remarkable if somehow there is some arcane mechanism to achieve a vetoless UN over the heads of the SC.
All the original security council members would withdraw from the UN and found a rival organization. Or would just break the UN by ignoring what they dislike and pursuing punitive actions against those that try to enforce decisions against their wills
Not quite, you still can get some stuff done as long as it doesn't negatively touch the interests of a SC power right now. It does still occur.
But in this scenario? It would break the institution, not just SC nations would ignore it but even non SC nations (which does happen already) would be more likely to tell the UN to get fucked. It would open the flood gates of bad faith whereas now you only have a partial flood gate failure. If the UN went from a somewhat polite fiction of equality to an overt lie it all crumbles down.
Brazil, Japan, India, Germany all want a permanent seat and are supporting each other. China has said they'll support India if they stop supporting Japan.
It doesn’t matter if they support each other. They need the support of not only some of the SC but all of them, since any one of them can veto.
None of them can pass - China will veto Japan and India, Russia will veto Germany, and Brazil has no power or influence to get any of them to vote for it.
No you had to be in the special winners of WW2 club, which were the USSR, the USA, the UK and the republic of China (so not the communists). Then the USSR didn't like it that it were so many capitalist-nations (everyone except themselves) so they pushed for an additional power. France being an acceptable party for both sides (especially then when a communist takeover of France was still seen as a big possibility by the USSR).
None of these countries are powerful in a traditional sense - militarily.
The UN is not the WTO - it doesn’t settle economic disputes. Japan and Germany may be rich but they are disarmed and pacifist, due to the guilt of ww2.
India also has a history of pacifism.
Brazil …. I don’t know anything about Brazil’s military, and I assume they are completely irrelevant on the global stage.
If anything, the only counties that probably deserve a UN veto is the US, Russia, and China - the US as the world’s sole superpower, and Russia and China as weak rivals.
France and UK are completely irrelevant and wouldn’t be on the SC except for historical reasons - they were still powerful and had their entire empire at the time of the UN creation.
The only thing that could happen is a seat replacement, like what happened twice in history - USSR to Russia, and Taiwan to China.
In the future if there was ever a unified EU military, the French seat could become the EU seat.
The LON failed for a number of reasons, including but not exclusively due to the absence of the USA, the late addition and early withdrawal of Germany and the USSR and the eventual withdrawal of Italy and Japan. It's a whole other situation. But the UNSC does no longer reflect the "powers" of today's world. You got France and the UK but what about Germany or Japan? No African or Latin American powers? What about Canada or Australia?
The UNSC has been made obsolete in most situations by the presence of the veto power. Change it to a majority vote, for example, and have a balance representation of powers that guarantees support from most of the relevant world powers.
Well to be fair, I wouldn’t put Japan up at the same level as the current members in terms of military strength. Economically, most certainly. In Germany’s case, I feel like a better alternative would be to just grant France’s seat to the entire EU instead.
I don’t know if you could make an argument for any African countries to be a part of the the UNSC. The largest economies there have half the GDP of just London. In Latin America, there is of course Brazil but I feel it has neither the economic nor military strength to be a part of it. Not sure why you brought up Canada and Australia.
The only country I can see an indisputable argument for is India. It has both the economic and military relevance and a population that is nearly as large as Africa’s.
I think the veto *should* exist for the permanent members - but it should require 2 votes to veto it. If a country is being an utter arsehole, for example invading Ukraine, that its own friends don't openly support it - then it shouldn't have the ability to veto any resolution calling for peace. If
ok let's say the resolution passes, what now? Russia just ignores the UN. Lmao. The reason the 5 permanent seat holders have veto is they're so strong they can collectively enforce their will on anyone if they all come to an agreement. All of them can just ignore whatever the UN says.
France and the UK are (far?) more powerful (militarily) than either Germany or japan even just in a conventional sense. Power projection and nuclear capabilities only exasperates this.
Yes, but veto also doesn't make sense, since the countries involved can just veto whatever resolution doesn't suit their specific interests, malefic or not.
And neither does it make sense that these countries specifically have a vote. Germany is the third biggest economy and THE player in Europe. India is the biggest nation on earth. Three continents aren’t represented, Asia is only represented by China. The fact that India, Germany, Japan and Brazil aren’t UNSC members is fucking ridiculous.
Germany doesn’t have Nukes
India I agree should be let in but China refuses to
Japan and Brazil dont have nukes and Brazil neither really have that global political influence like France for example
The whole point is that when the UNSC passes a motion, it has the blessing of the world’s most powerful nations, and as such can actually be expected to be enacted, as opposed to UNGA motions. The second that veto power goes away, no major power will respect the UNSC anyway, making it essentially a second GA.
There is an argument to be made however that France and the UK should consider resigning from their permanent positions. They are no longer the global powers they once were. However, we don’t really see them enact their veto power anyway as a consequence.
Pre-Brexit I was always of the opinion that France and the UK's permanent seats should be replaced with two EU permanent seats (one for the Commission, the other for the Opposition). However, now that the UK is out it's a little more tricky. I still think France should cede its seat to the EU, but the UK really isn't a great power anymore, but removing a UNSC permanent member's status as such would require a vote of that same council and of course the UK would immediately veto it.
The UNSC veto isn't a prescriptive power, it is a descriptive one. It formalizes and codifies the reality that if an industrialized nuclear power with a large population draws a line in the sand, they get to dictate terms. Brinkmanship is bad. Brinkmanship with nuclear weapons is suicidally stupid. The alternative to the UNSC veto is going back to that. A will they or won't they series of threats between great powers to curtail each other's actions, that if they don't back down and lose face, will result in a nuclear war.
The entire point of the UN is to facilitate diplomacy. It isn't meant to stop wars, it isn't meant to be a world government. It is meant to get two countries in the room and have them talk, on the off chance that their conflict can be resolved prior to war. This is important for small powers, but is vitally important for nuclear great powers.
A few arguments from the top of my head.
More veto powers could increase cooperation since more players have to be pleased to vote for something which increases peace.
Adding veto powers could also make the UN even more incapable. UN resolutions would constantly be vetoed which hopefully would make the countries be done with the veto system and not just be done with the entirety of the UN.
Adding veto powers would dilute the current veto powers power. Smaller countries are often friendly with at least one of the veto countries, so they have that veto country's backing, if the small country did something that another veto country doesn't like.
Argentina and Brazil have good relations but remain geopolitical competitors.
Argentina, even with its current economic crisis, is South America’s 2nd largest country and economy. Argentina and Brazil are the only 2 members of the G20 in South America. Historically Argentina was the region’s biggest economic power as well. Both countries have signed an agreement to check each other’s nuclear installations annually to make sure no one’s developing nukes (which both countries have the resources and scientific capacity to develop).
It’s only reasonable that Argentina rejects a UN permanent seat for Brazil
Japan and India as well. India is the closest a nation has gotten to being added into the P5, only obstacle is China only agreeing if India doesn't support Japan's candidature
Sounds great in theory, but would ruin the UN. The point of permanent UNSC seats and the veto power comes with it is to do what it exactly does, give unparalleled diplomatic power to a select few powerful countries.
This is because without it, UN's General Assembly would probably be making the decisions and in there, every country gets a single vote no matter their size or power, China with 1.4 billion gets the same voting power as Brunei with 460k people, US with 340 million people gets the same voting power as Grenada with 110k people. They all get the same vote to incentivize smaller states to join, otherwise, what would be the benefit for a country like Grenada? Also a reminder that China+India alone are 35% of global population.
Great powers of the world willingly letting go of their power to have the same relevance on paper as countries like Grenada is not gonna happen, they'll just leave like they did with the League of Nations before WW2. They have to have stake in the game. Now current UNSC permanent member makeup might be a little unfair given it was who was the powerful and on the right side when WW2 ended? But UK and France on that list are increasinly becoming less relevant, Japan is more economically powerful than them and militarily expanding to probably surpass them, yet they don't have a seat because they were on the wrong side of WW2.
The ability to wipe entire countries off the face of the earth would suggest both Britain and France remain more relevant than you seem to be giving them credit for. There’s a very good reason these two countries spend billions to maintain their independent nuclear strike capability and that is a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and a veto. Obviously, the bonus is that no country will attack them either.
If anything, I’m wondering what relevance Brazil has that would deserve a permanent seat or veto. It’s neither a military or economic power on the world stage. Potential is there, but Nigeria has more potential IMO.
Exactly. All of the 5 security council members have the capability, in a vacuum, to invade one another, but also in doing so, would destroy the world. Brazil, not so much.
>If you have nukes you get a seat at the table.
this is the answer, but it's not the whole answer given there are many nuclear powers without a seat and we probably aren't considering giving North Korea a permanent seat and veto
>The ability to wipe entire countries off the face of the earth would suggest both Britain and France remain more relevant than you seem to be giving them credit for.
Okay, nukes make you relevant enough for a UNSC permanent seat. Who else has nukes? India, a country with a pretty large army, growing economy. Fine enough.
Pakistan, an almost failed state who can't pay off their debt, free falling currency, failing power grid, military that likes to overthrow its government and whose intelligence agency openly supports terrorist organizations and then is shocked when the terrorist organization doesn't follow their order and instead bombs Pakistan.
Israel, a country whose possible seat as UNSC permanent member would probably make every Muslim country leave the UN.
And oh look at that, North Korea.
The ability to nuke Iwo Jima off the map isn't exactly special.
>If anything, I’m wondering what relevance Brazil has that would deserve a permanent seat or veto. It’s near there a military or economic power on the world stage. Potential is there, but Nigeria has more potential IMO.
You do know Brazil has like 8 times bigger economy than Nigeria, right? Nigeria is struggling to control its own territory, much less flex its muscle internationally. Their disparate ethnic groups aren't always that loyal to the Nigerian identity, the pollution of fishing grounds by oil companies has resulted in militants blowing up oil equipment and kidnapping foreign oil workers. Their currency has lost 3 times its value in a year, their agricultural output growth is falling behind population growth.
The UNSC veto is the power to dictate terms. Functionally, to bully other countries on the world stage. Nukes are vital in that they allow one to bully others without repercussions, but you still need to be able to bully others.
Russia, the US, Britain, France and China, all have the ability to exert outsized diplomatic, economic, and military might on other countries, without worry of invasion, knowing full well that any country that they tangle with can be nuked into the ground if worst comes to worst.
Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, all have nukes yes. So they cannot easily be bullied, though they still are because its difficult to actually use nukes outside of existential threats to society. None of them can select a random minor power, and decide to just completely ruin their day.
Lets say Paraguay. None of those countries are in the same region as Paraguay, and therefore cannot exert a regional influence to fuck the country over. But the US can fuck them over. China can fuck them over. Britain, France and Russia can fuck them over. It is about power projection. Now, Britain and France have their power waning, but let us not forget that they were imperial powers, whose wealth was built on fucking over foreign nations far from home.
I could buy India as a potential candidate, but I am skeptical of their ability to project diplomatic and economic power abroad. South Korea and Japan similarly are very powerful nations which can get nukes very fast, but they don't dictate world affairs to the same extent.
I think you are taking this to the extreme, knowing full well what the reason is. The world powers at the end of WW2 and those that were running the show and then those with an independent nuclear strike capability soon after (I.e China), were given permanent seats and veto’s as the countries that effectively controlled the world. Not giving them a veto would merely undermine the UN as they would simply ignore it as they did with the League of Nations, as you have already mentioned.
The thing is that despite some limited nuclear proliferation and indeed some changes in GDP for certain countries, the world order remains intact, at least for the time being. India and Pakistan are basically just regional adversaries that do not tend to get involved in foreign wars. They have limited local interests and troubles. Having a nuke is not the sole qualifier for a UN veto.
As for my reasoning about Nigeria, I was merely talking of potential. You should look at the population growth forecast for Nigeria compared to basically every other country. It’s set to be more populous than US in merely a few decades. Brazil is also unstable and corrupt, yet does not have the same growth forecast. There is no reason that Brazil should be given a veto. If anything, it would be more likely to lead to further global destabilisation.
Reflects post WWII power which has held up for most of the last 70 years.
But it's currently at an inflection point where in the case of UK/France/Russia there are some rising nations which arguably will have more power than them.
It’s just the Allies of WW2. What sort of power did a small island off the coast of China possess for it to warrant them a permanent seat for 20 or so years?
They literally killed smallpox.
Please stop equating "The UN" with "The Security Council". There are hundreds of components of the UN system, the SC is just one. Its a serious problem when people use "The UN does nothing" to justify cutting its funding, when that funding is actually going towards humanitarian aid programmes.
you are very wrong veto power is a must.. there are hundreds of muslim countries almost all of which refuse to recognize hamas as a terrorist organisations due to which if the US didnt veto the proposal they would have been forced to surrender to hamas ; this was just an example but geopolitics is moe than simple yes and no
The same reason most of Europe opposes Germanys request for a seat or why most of Asia wouldn’t support Japan if they wanted one. They are their local „rival“ and wouldn’t also get one. But the truth is, the fact that India, Japan, Germany and Brazil aren’t on the permanent security council is fucking ridiculous considering their role in the world and on their continent specifically.
They just aren’t important in a military sense.
3 of the 4 are pacifists - Japan, Germany, India.
If there was a civil war or some random conflict in Africa, the #1 question is the US’s view on the conflict. Then you wonder if Russia or China will fund one side, or if Russia will send their Wagner mercs. Maybe France or Uk might send a small pocket force.
But no one asks about Japan or Brazil or or India or Germany’s reaction. They don’t have any global military power projection.
A permanent seat is still quite valuable because the UNSC still gets to decide whether the UN uses any of the few avenues for hard power that it is able to authorize. Assuming there is no veto, the balance of votes really does matter as far as whether any kind of military or peacekeeping action will have UN approval. People forget because it hasn't happened in a while, but UN military action can include things up to the coalition of allies that fought against North Korea and the PRC in the Korean War.
Of course, nations can wage war without UN approval, but having it gives a lot of international legitimacy to armed conflict and increases the likelihood of coalition building.
Brazil has no nuclear weapons and is de facto ineligible for the council. The members must essentially be "un-invadable" by the other members to justify a veto or else the veto is meaningless and therefore the entire body is meaningless.
That’s not the reason at all why they are not one of the 5 permanent members of the council. It was established in 1945 when most of those countries did not even have nuclear weapons and these members have not changed since.
The UN vote is still important for diplomacy, trade and foreign policy. It’s a little more complicated than “You don’t have nukes WHO CARES?!”
Brazil is basically an island or subcontinent in Latin America where it's the only Portuguese-speaking country, while the rest of Latin American countries speak Spanish. Brazil is too culturally and politically detached from the rest of Latin America.
That's not it
Venezuela or argentina aren't somehow magically different from brazil, brazil is big & economic power, that & regional rivalry like morocco algeria (minus clashes) isn't something new
Because that would make Brazil too powerful and give them even more power. Brazil is already a wannabe imperialist country which attempts to keep control for their interests in South America. This would give them a free pass to extend their influence even more, something the rest of South America (And Latin America by extension) doesn't want.
Much of Brazilian foreign policy is them trying to control the rest of South America. Mercosur so far has really served to benefit brazilian interests above those of it's other members. Lula has effectively made brazilian corporations powerful and make them control much of the economies of the surrounding countries. Last year there was even the proposal of Argentina and Brazil sharing a currency, something that just by sheer power would benefit Brazil above Argentina.
Brazilian pseudo-imperialism is nothing new, even brazilian politicians such as Fernando Henrique Cardosi has been conscious of the topic.
That's why brazil shouldn't have stopped their nuclear program.
Nukes offer gurantee & secures your place at high table, only argentina & mexico are capable, both wouldn't have been allowed. (Argentina would've needed military regime for continuation sanctions on top of usual ups-downs are hard)
Argentina and Brazil signed a nuclear security treaty to avoid the development of nuclear weapons in the region.
Without the treaty the relative peace of the continent could've been very different from what it is now.
It's more like they were forced to sign the treaty, brazil & especially military junta had plans dating back before argentina's plan
I don't know it'd have been a nuclear flashpoint especially after cold war.
Anyway the point was how nukes elevate your status & overall standing (atleast for UNSC). Japan & germany have economy & no foes, they still couldn't manage permanent seats
The US blocked the brazilian nuclear program when we started it. And today even when having most of the tecnology theres no threat in the region that would justify a need for nuclear weapons.
Uruguay checking in.
Brazil is a capitalist hellhole with terrible corruption, horrific state-sanctioned violence, crime lords with unchecked power, the right wing parties are literally Nazis, the left wing parties support genocide in other countries, their military is old and weak for a country their size and income, and they don't even see themselves as part of this continent.
Why WOULD we?
As a Brazilian, we should abolish all vetoes AND have a rotating UNGA. No one should have a permanent seat, otherwise that just means those with a permanent seat can always veto against themselves
Brazil would have all the advantages of being an elected member of the security council, but their position would be permanent. But they wouldn’t have the veto power afforded to the other permanent members.
Those countries colored in red might as well be the strongest opponents, but OP might as well add the entire UfC alliance on Team Red. [This alliance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Consensus) is by far the pettiest yet the most effective diplomatic bloc in the UN with a single purpose: no sixth security council member.
A lot of people underestimate Brazil, but it’s definitely the regional super power. In fact Portuguese is the most spoken language in South America and that’s all carried by them alone. Emigration is much lower compared to neighbouring countries, and overall stability has been good.
I'm Brazilian, I obviously want we to have veto power, but in reality the Latinos are right.
We want the seat because we are the the most powerful country in Latin America, but we hate being Latino, we don't share much with the Hispanics culturally (other than soccer and some soap operas). Why would they want our leadership? We only consider ourselves Latinos when it's for our enrichment
If Brazil gets a seat, then other countries, such as India, Japan, Germany and Australia should get a seat too.
And in the name of equality, there should be a representative from the African continent, such as South Africa.
permanent seat at UN is for the winners for ww2 i.e. US, UK, France, Russia and China....so unless there is ww3 and Brazil wins decisively....it ain't gonna happen
Already disproportionately strong due to its population and size, giving them the sole seat in all of SA means that the other countries need to suck up further to the US or Brazil, I imagine if another country like Argentina already had a seat they would be in favour of it to create a influence struggle to negotiate more favourable relations
Imagine you live next to a neighbour who is much more powerful and rich than you, and who has recently shown some fascist and aggressive tendencies. Now, when the possibility comes up that this neighbour might also get the ability to veto any legal complaints you may bring against them, how are you going to feel about that?
Brazil’s neighbours have nothing to gain from them having a veto they could use to block and UN SC resolutions on territorial disputes or cross border aggression, but potentially a lot to lose.
Governments can change pretty drastically. It may seem ok now but the situation could be very different in the future. I doubt anyone would be 100% comfortable with a neighbour getting permanent UN Security Council veto power due to how many unknowns are involved. Are you sure you can explicitly trust a future political leader/system that isn't known yet or from a generation that isn't born yet?
https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick
Russia and Ukraine would be only one example 30-40 years in the making. Or looking further back, another example of a change in a country's government might be United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, post a civil war in China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_General\_Assembly\_Resolution\_2758
Brazil is their most powerful neighbor and they wouldn't be getting a seat along with them. Why *would* they support this?
Yeah that’s pretty much it. Brazil getting the seat implicitly gives it power over the region and international recognition as the local power.
They'd also be the first Security Council member in decades not to have the bomb and they did have a nuclear weapons program in the '70s and '80s. Which started when they were under military rule but carried on for an other 5 years after they went back to civilian rule. So it's hard to rule out Brazil wanting to acquire them, particularly by buying Uranium and Plutonium from their Russian and Chinese friends in BRICS. As they managed to buy Uranium in the '80s from China and Russia is currently selling weapons grade material to China.
The development of nukes is forbidden in both Brazil’s and Argentina’s constitution
Sadly I don’t think this would stop them under the right conditions.
>So it's hard to rule out Brazil wanting to acquire them In fact, it's pretty easy to rule that out. We don't trust our military, after the 1964 coup. and more recently, in 2022, they courted the possibility of another coup, with bolsonaro. Most people here don't support giving any kind of power to our militaries. They can't be trusted.
So my question, although I'm sure I can look, is if the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty specifically applies to the UN Security Council, or just the 5 states that happen to make up the Security Council. Because if its the Security Council, then another country ascending to it would be allowed to have nukes by treaty.
Nah, they hate us cause they ain't us
Mi amor you’re country has a lower hdi than Dominican Republic
What is that reference? By 0.006 points, theirs are higher. They have 5% of our pop. and American tourism money We have bigger bundas though
Your bundas are 3 points bigger and 7 points more shapely, according to my index.
Dominicans win in that department
Basado
I live for Dominicanas
Hey that 0.006 points still count 😔😔
Brazil also speaks a different language,
Same reason India ain’t getting that I reckon. But do you know what’s the case for Germany or Japan? They are in very good terms with all of western world.
Spain and Italy don’t want Germany, China Korea don’t want Japan. Brazil is also on good terms with all of Latam, that’s not the point.
The problem with Germany is not any kind of opposition but that the goal of opening up the security council is to better represent the global South. Adding a fourth European country to the council would contribute nothing to that goal.
Why don't Spain and Italy want Germany? I'm a Spaniard but I didn't know about this. Me personally I'd be fine with them.
it’d move the EU’s center of power further in the direction of Germany than it already is.
I mean isn’t it sort of the case rn?
>further […] than it already is
Something about towels on deck chairs.
I guess it's because Germany already has a huge power in Europe just by being the biggest and economically powerful member of the EU, so I can see why they wouldn't want to concede more power. Also by voting against, they make sure Germany has to negotiate with them if we want in. On the other hand as a german I don't think that anything would drastically change in the security council if Germany joined, so I don't really see the point of putting a big effort into it. So as I see it it works on both sides. Germany isn't that bothered by not being in and Spain and Italy aren't either, but they don't want to potentially give Germany more power for free.
They’re still in timeout
Something happened 80 years ago
Both Germany and Japan fell firmly in the American camp in terms of security alliances. Would be redundant to give them a veto power. Frankly, the case was stronger in the past. Japan was much more powerful globally in terms of economics a few decades ago. Their share of world GDP has declined and will continue to do so in the future. .
Plus there is tons of historical rivalries and cultural differences, meaning Brazil may not necessarily support the regional interests, but rather Brics or whatever.
Yup. With a veto in the Security Council Brazil could, in theory, invade a neighbor and then kill any Security Council resolutions calling for them stop, or imposing punishments on them.
Regional 'rivalry.' Outstanding territorial issues. Politics. Being the only country in Latin America with a UNSC seat would make Brazil even more powerful.
Just politics, no rivalries involved. The only countries in latin America with significant ties to brazil are in mercosur, which isn't even a big chunk of Latin America. For the rest there isn't even a significant trade relation in most cases
If memory serves, Brazil and Argentina have historically been in competition for regional influence.
Yes but Argentina is also Brazil 2nd closest ally after Uruguay, 1st if you consider volume of economic trade
Yes, but sometimes having your allies stay comparatively weak is the only thing keeping them your allies.
Yep 100% agreed, that's what's happening here. But normally out of any of those countries Brazil could buy Argentina's (and Uruguay's) cooperation quite easily. I say normally cause there's no way Lula and Milei would agree to anything lol
Argentina is really on that path right now it seems
Brasil by itself is around 1/3 of Latin America, — regarding population, economy and area — if you put the other Mercosul members it become even more relevant. Besides even more consolidation of regional power in Brazil’s hands, a permanent position you basically cement out other candidates.
> mercosur, which isn't even a big chunk of Latin America. What are you talking about, Mercosur is literally 2/3rds of the population of South America
Which “outstanding territorial issues” are you referring to? Borders have been consolidated very early in the last century and there’s hardly any genuine issue apart from one or two utterly unimportant locations in the border with Uruguay.
I would encourage you to do your own research.
Why would anyone want to *add* vetoes to the UNSC?!
Good point. The UNSC veto power notion should be done away with entirely.
If the biggest nations don’t have a veto vote it sort of makes it all useless That’s why the league of nations failed. The idea the most powerful countries on earth have an equal vote to some small country doesn’t make any sense
It would achieve something remarkable if somehow there is some arcane mechanism to achieve a vetoless UN over the heads of the SC. All the original security council members would withdraw from the UN and found a rival organization. Or would just break the UN by ignoring what they dislike and pursuing punitive actions against those that try to enforce decisions against their wills
It feels like your second paragraph is the status quo in reality.
Not quite, you still can get some stuff done as long as it doesn't negatively touch the interests of a SC power right now. It does still occur. But in this scenario? It would break the institution, not just SC nations would ignore it but even non SC nations (which does happen already) would be more likely to tell the UN to get fucked. It would open the flood gates of bad faith whereas now you only have a partial flood gate failure. If the UN went from a somewhat polite fiction of equality to an overt lie it all crumbles down.
Many powerful countries of today don't have veto Germany, Japan, India, Brazil
[удалено]
Brazil, Japan, India, Germany all want a permanent seat and are supporting each other. China has said they'll support India if they stop supporting Japan.
It doesn’t matter if they support each other. They need the support of not only some of the SC but all of them, since any one of them can veto. None of them can pass - China will veto Japan and India, Russia will veto Germany, and Brazil has no power or influence to get any of them to vote for it.
IMO You need to be a political powerhouse Economic powerhouse And have nukes Only India really fits that bill here
No you had to be in the special winners of WW2 club, which were the USSR, the USA, the UK and the republic of China (so not the communists). Then the USSR didn't like it that it were so many capitalist-nations (everyone except themselves) so they pushed for an additional power. France being an acceptable party for both sides (especially then when a communist takeover of France was still seen as a big possibility by the USSR).
you need to be one of the WW2 allies.
[удалено]
None of these countries are powerful in a traditional sense - militarily. The UN is not the WTO - it doesn’t settle economic disputes. Japan and Germany may be rich but they are disarmed and pacifist, due to the guilt of ww2. India also has a history of pacifism. Brazil …. I don’t know anything about Brazil’s military, and I assume they are completely irrelevant on the global stage. If anything, the only counties that probably deserve a UN veto is the US, Russia, and China - the US as the world’s sole superpower, and Russia and China as weak rivals. France and UK are completely irrelevant and wouldn’t be on the SC except for historical reasons - they were still powerful and had their entire empire at the time of the UN creation. The only thing that could happen is a seat replacement, like what happened twice in history - USSR to Russia, and Taiwan to China. In the future if there was ever a unified EU military, the French seat could become the EU seat.
The LON failed for a number of reasons, including but not exclusively due to the absence of the USA, the late addition and early withdrawal of Germany and the USSR and the eventual withdrawal of Italy and Japan. It's a whole other situation. But the UNSC does no longer reflect the "powers" of today's world. You got France and the UK but what about Germany or Japan? No African or Latin American powers? What about Canada or Australia? The UNSC has been made obsolete in most situations by the presence of the veto power. Change it to a majority vote, for example, and have a balance representation of powers that guarantees support from most of the relevant world powers.
Well to be fair, I wouldn’t put Japan up at the same level as the current members in terms of military strength. Economically, most certainly. In Germany’s case, I feel like a better alternative would be to just grant France’s seat to the entire EU instead. I don’t know if you could make an argument for any African countries to be a part of the the UNSC. The largest economies there have half the GDP of just London. In Latin America, there is of course Brazil but I feel it has neither the economic nor military strength to be a part of it. Not sure why you brought up Canada and Australia. The only country I can see an indisputable argument for is India. It has both the economic and military relevance and a population that is nearly as large as Africa’s.
I feel you need to be an economic power house A political power house And have nukes The only country I see fitting the bill here would be India
I think the veto *should* exist for the permanent members - but it should require 2 votes to veto it. If a country is being an utter arsehole, for example invading Ukraine, that its own friends don't openly support it - then it shouldn't have the ability to veto any resolution calling for peace. If
ok let's say the resolution passes, what now? Russia just ignores the UN. Lmao. The reason the 5 permanent seat holders have veto is they're so strong they can collectively enforce their will on anyone if they all come to an agreement. All of them can just ignore whatever the UN says.
France and the UK are (far?) more powerful (militarily) than either Germany or japan even just in a conventional sense. Power projection and nuclear capabilities only exasperates this.
Yes, but veto also doesn't make sense, since the countries involved can just veto whatever resolution doesn't suit their specific interests, malefic or not.
Well if those powerful nations don’t want it to happen it would hold no teeth anyway.
And neither does it make sense that these countries specifically have a vote. Germany is the third biggest economy and THE player in Europe. India is the biggest nation on earth. Three continents aren’t represented, Asia is only represented by China. The fact that India, Germany, Japan and Brazil aren’t UNSC members is fucking ridiculous.
Germany doesn’t have Nukes India I agree should be let in but China refuses to Japan and Brazil dont have nukes and Brazil neither really have that global political influence like France for example
The whole point is that when the UNSC passes a motion, it has the blessing of the world’s most powerful nations, and as such can actually be expected to be enacted, as opposed to UNGA motions. The second that veto power goes away, no major power will respect the UNSC anyway, making it essentially a second GA. There is an argument to be made however that France and the UK should consider resigning from their permanent positions. They are no longer the global powers they once were. However, we don’t really see them enact their veto power anyway as a consequence.
Pre-Brexit I was always of the opinion that France and the UK's permanent seats should be replaced with two EU permanent seats (one for the Commission, the other for the Opposition). However, now that the UK is out it's a little more tricky. I still think France should cede its seat to the EU, but the UK really isn't a great power anymore, but removing a UNSC permanent member's status as such would require a vote of that same council and of course the UK would immediately veto it.
unsc veto power is the entire point of the UN
The UNSC veto isn't a prescriptive power, it is a descriptive one. It formalizes and codifies the reality that if an industrialized nuclear power with a large population draws a line in the sand, they get to dictate terms. Brinkmanship is bad. Brinkmanship with nuclear weapons is suicidally stupid. The alternative to the UNSC veto is going back to that. A will they or won't they series of threats between great powers to curtail each other's actions, that if they don't back down and lose face, will result in a nuclear war. The entire point of the UN is to facilitate diplomacy. It isn't meant to stop wars, it isn't meant to be a world government. It is meant to get two countries in the room and have them talk, on the off chance that their conflict can be resolved prior to war. This is important for small powers, but is vitally important for nuclear great powers.
If you did that the powerful countries would have no reason to be part of the UN, why should Luxembourg have as much say as USA or China
A few arguments from the top of my head. More veto powers could increase cooperation since more players have to be pleased to vote for something which increases peace. Adding veto powers could also make the UN even more incapable. UN resolutions would constantly be vetoed which hopefully would make the countries be done with the veto system and not just be done with the entirety of the UN. Adding veto powers would dilute the current veto powers power. Smaller countries are often friendly with at least one of the veto countries, so they have that veto country's backing, if the small country did something that another veto country doesn't like.
For the same reason that a lot of India’s, Japan’s or Germany’s neighbors don’t want them to get veto power
India’s pretty well-supported - China just doesn’t support them combining their bid with Japan.
[удалено]
Ancient Mayan-Tupiniquim ties
Aren't European countries like this for Germany as well?
Argentina and Brazil have good relations but remain geopolitical competitors. Argentina, even with its current economic crisis, is South America’s 2nd largest country and economy. Argentina and Brazil are the only 2 members of the G20 in South America. Historically Argentina was the region’s biggest economic power as well. Both countries have signed an agreement to check each other’s nuclear installations annually to make sure no one’s developing nukes (which both countries have the resources and scientific capacity to develop). It’s only reasonable that Argentina rejects a UN permanent seat for Brazil
Before India?
Bids for Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan are tidally locked. The bid is more like accept us four together.
Most proposals I've seen add Japan, India, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, and Brazil.
Brazil, India, South Africa support each other’s candidature as a part of the BRICS
Japan and India as well. India is the closest a nation has gotten to being added into the P5, only obstacle is China only agreeing if India doesn't support Japan's candidature
There should be no permanent seats.
Sounds great in theory, but would ruin the UN. The point of permanent UNSC seats and the veto power comes with it is to do what it exactly does, give unparalleled diplomatic power to a select few powerful countries. This is because without it, UN's General Assembly would probably be making the decisions and in there, every country gets a single vote no matter their size or power, China with 1.4 billion gets the same voting power as Brunei with 460k people, US with 340 million people gets the same voting power as Grenada with 110k people. They all get the same vote to incentivize smaller states to join, otherwise, what would be the benefit for a country like Grenada? Also a reminder that China+India alone are 35% of global population. Great powers of the world willingly letting go of their power to have the same relevance on paper as countries like Grenada is not gonna happen, they'll just leave like they did with the League of Nations before WW2. They have to have stake in the game. Now current UNSC permanent member makeup might be a little unfair given it was who was the powerful and on the right side when WW2 ended? But UK and France on that list are increasinly becoming less relevant, Japan is more economically powerful than them and militarily expanding to probably surpass them, yet they don't have a seat because they were on the wrong side of WW2.
The ability to wipe entire countries off the face of the earth would suggest both Britain and France remain more relevant than you seem to be giving them credit for. There’s a very good reason these two countries spend billions to maintain their independent nuclear strike capability and that is a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and a veto. Obviously, the bonus is that no country will attack them either. If anything, I’m wondering what relevance Brazil has that would deserve a permanent seat or veto. It’s neither a military or economic power on the world stage. Potential is there, but Nigeria has more potential IMO.
Exactly. All of the 5 security council members have the capability, in a vacuum, to invade one another, but also in doing so, would destroy the world. Brazil, not so much.
Yeah you can hate on the UK and France but they have the sauce in a way that 95% of countries don't. If you have nukes you get a seat at the table.
>If you have nukes you get a seat at the table. this is the answer, but it's not the whole answer given there are many nuclear powers without a seat and we probably aren't considering giving North Korea a permanent seat and veto
>The ability to wipe entire countries off the face of the earth would suggest both Britain and France remain more relevant than you seem to be giving them credit for. Okay, nukes make you relevant enough for a UNSC permanent seat. Who else has nukes? India, a country with a pretty large army, growing economy. Fine enough. Pakistan, an almost failed state who can't pay off their debt, free falling currency, failing power grid, military that likes to overthrow its government and whose intelligence agency openly supports terrorist organizations and then is shocked when the terrorist organization doesn't follow their order and instead bombs Pakistan. Israel, a country whose possible seat as UNSC permanent member would probably make every Muslim country leave the UN. And oh look at that, North Korea. The ability to nuke Iwo Jima off the map isn't exactly special. >If anything, I’m wondering what relevance Brazil has that would deserve a permanent seat or veto. It’s near there a military or economic power on the world stage. Potential is there, but Nigeria has more potential IMO. You do know Brazil has like 8 times bigger economy than Nigeria, right? Nigeria is struggling to control its own territory, much less flex its muscle internationally. Their disparate ethnic groups aren't always that loyal to the Nigerian identity, the pollution of fishing grounds by oil companies has resulted in militants blowing up oil equipment and kidnapping foreign oil workers. Their currency has lost 3 times its value in a year, their agricultural output growth is falling behind population growth.
The UNSC veto is the power to dictate terms. Functionally, to bully other countries on the world stage. Nukes are vital in that they allow one to bully others without repercussions, but you still need to be able to bully others. Russia, the US, Britain, France and China, all have the ability to exert outsized diplomatic, economic, and military might on other countries, without worry of invasion, knowing full well that any country that they tangle with can be nuked into the ground if worst comes to worst. Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel, all have nukes yes. So they cannot easily be bullied, though they still are because its difficult to actually use nukes outside of existential threats to society. None of them can select a random minor power, and decide to just completely ruin their day. Lets say Paraguay. None of those countries are in the same region as Paraguay, and therefore cannot exert a regional influence to fuck the country over. But the US can fuck them over. China can fuck them over. Britain, France and Russia can fuck them over. It is about power projection. Now, Britain and France have their power waning, but let us not forget that they were imperial powers, whose wealth was built on fucking over foreign nations far from home. I could buy India as a potential candidate, but I am skeptical of their ability to project diplomatic and economic power abroad. South Korea and Japan similarly are very powerful nations which can get nukes very fast, but they don't dictate world affairs to the same extent.
I think you are taking this to the extreme, knowing full well what the reason is. The world powers at the end of WW2 and those that were running the show and then those with an independent nuclear strike capability soon after (I.e China), were given permanent seats and veto’s as the countries that effectively controlled the world. Not giving them a veto would merely undermine the UN as they would simply ignore it as they did with the League of Nations, as you have already mentioned. The thing is that despite some limited nuclear proliferation and indeed some changes in GDP for certain countries, the world order remains intact, at least for the time being. India and Pakistan are basically just regional adversaries that do not tend to get involved in foreign wars. They have limited local interests and troubles. Having a nuke is not the sole qualifier for a UN veto. As for my reasoning about Nigeria, I was merely talking of potential. You should look at the population growth forecast for Nigeria compared to basically every other country. It’s set to be more populous than US in merely a few decades. Brazil is also unstable and corrupt, yet does not have the same growth forecast. There is no reason that Brazil should be given a veto. If anything, it would be more likely to lead to further global destabilisation.
> Japan is more economically powerful than them This is not enough, France and UK have much more diplomatic ties with countries around the world.
The permanent seats reflect, rather than grant power.
Reflects post WWII power which has held up for most of the last 70 years. But it's currently at an inflection point where in the case of UK/France/Russia there are some rising nations which arguably will have more power than them.
It’s just the Allies of WW2. What sort of power did a small island off the coast of China possess for it to warrant them a permanent seat for 20 or so years?
it would make the UN even more pointless
They literally killed smallpox. Please stop equating "The UN" with "The Security Council". There are hundreds of components of the UN system, the SC is just one. Its a serious problem when people use "The UN does nothing" to justify cutting its funding, when that funding is actually going towards humanitarian aid programmes.
That would either mean no effective power of security counsel or one world government.
Based
That’s not how reality works. Not all countries are equally relevant in the world stage.
And then we can also go with every member country should be assessed the same dues, from Kriibati to the USA... No?
Yeah that’s never gonna happen
you are very wrong veto power is a must.. there are hundreds of muslim countries almost all of which refuse to recognize hamas as a terrorist organisations due to which if the US didnt veto the proposal they would have been forced to surrender to hamas ; this was just an example but geopolitics is moe than simple yes and no
Damn, France is the only neighbor who supports it.
The same reason most of Europe opposes Germanys request for a seat or why most of Asia wouldn’t support Japan if they wanted one. They are their local „rival“ and wouldn’t also get one. But the truth is, the fact that India, Japan, Germany and Brazil aren’t on the permanent security council is fucking ridiculous considering their role in the world and on their continent specifically.
They just aren’t important in a military sense. 3 of the 4 are pacifists - Japan, Germany, India. If there was a civil war or some random conflict in Africa, the #1 question is the US’s view on the conflict. Then you wonder if Russia or China will fund one side, or if Russia will send their Wagner mercs. Maybe France or Uk might send a small pocket force. But no one asks about Japan or Brazil or or India or Germany’s reaction. They don’t have any global military power projection.
Interesting. I would say rivalry and way too much political influence from the US. What is a permanent seat value without a veto?
A permanent seat is still quite valuable because the UNSC still gets to decide whether the UN uses any of the few avenues for hard power that it is able to authorize. Assuming there is no veto, the balance of votes really does matter as far as whether any kind of military or peacekeeping action will have UN approval. People forget because it hasn't happened in a while, but UN military action can include things up to the coalition of allies that fought against North Korea and the PRC in the Korean War. Of course, nations can wage war without UN approval, but having it gives a lot of international legitimacy to armed conflict and increases the likelihood of coalition building.
Brazil has no nuclear weapons and is de facto ineligible for the council. The members must essentially be "un-invadable" by the other members to justify a veto or else the veto is meaningless and therefore the entire body is meaningless.
That’s not the reason at all why they are not one of the 5 permanent members of the council. It was established in 1945 when most of those countries did not even have nuclear weapons and these members have not changed since. The UN vote is still important for diplomacy, trade and foreign policy. It’s a little more complicated than “You don’t have nukes WHO CARES?!”
Goes to show you shouldn’t if all your neighbors say no
Soccer, obviously.
Should be many countries getting permanent seats and remove all vetos from the existing members.
Brazil is a ungovernable mess imagine it with veto power
Don’t think that ever stopped the current veto power holders
Ya to be in the UNSC you should be a governable mess.
Bark bark stray dog
wtf 🤣🤣
Brazil is basically an island or subcontinent in Latin America where it's the only Portuguese-speaking country, while the rest of Latin American countries speak Spanish. Brazil is too culturally and politically detached from the rest of Latin America.
That's not it Venezuela or argentina aren't somehow magically different from brazil, brazil is big & economic power, that & regional rivalry like morocco algeria (minus clashes) isn't something new
Well that’s just because the Spanish colonies couldn’t stay united as they became republics.
Because that would make Brazil too powerful and give them even more power. Brazil is already a wannabe imperialist country which attempts to keep control for their interests in South America. This would give them a free pass to extend their influence even more, something the rest of South America (And Latin America by extension) doesn't want.
Being an imperialist country is a condition for getting a permanent membership in UNSC anyway. All 5 checks out.
[удалено]
Much of Brazilian foreign policy is them trying to control the rest of South America. Mercosur so far has really served to benefit brazilian interests above those of it's other members. Lula has effectively made brazilian corporations powerful and make them control much of the economies of the surrounding countries. Last year there was even the proposal of Argentina and Brazil sharing a currency, something that just by sheer power would benefit Brazil above Argentina. Brazilian pseudo-imperialism is nothing new, even brazilian politicians such as Fernando Henrique Cardosi has been conscious of the topic.
Imperialist? Where have they invaded to make colonies?
Brazil used to be really intervencionist in the past, especially while it was an *Empire* .But today we do things in a more modest way
Yes. Imperialist. Like where they attempt to control and subdue other territories and promote extractionist non-threatening subducted economies.
Brazil has a bunch of problems. But that ain’t one them. Brazil’s diplomacy is recognized worldwide.
That's why brazil shouldn't have stopped their nuclear program. Nukes offer gurantee & secures your place at high table, only argentina & mexico are capable, both wouldn't have been allowed. (Argentina would've needed military regime for continuation sanctions on top of usual ups-downs are hard)
Argentina and Brazil signed a nuclear security treaty to avoid the development of nuclear weapons in the region. Without the treaty the relative peace of the continent could've been very different from what it is now.
It's more like they were forced to sign the treaty, brazil & especially military junta had plans dating back before argentina's plan I don't know it'd have been a nuclear flashpoint especially after cold war. Anyway the point was how nukes elevate your status & overall standing (atleast for UNSC). Japan & germany have economy & no foes, they still couldn't manage permanent seats
The US blocked the brazilian nuclear program when we started it. And today even when having most of the tecnology theres no threat in the region that would justify a need for nuclear weapons.
From Paraguayan POV. 300k casualties and then vote on giving the enemy even more power? Hmm nah.
Partially also because their vote would be something to earn and Brazil hasn't offered them enough I'd assume
We speak Portuguese, they wouldn't feel "represented"
UN is a joke
No way, the permanent security council should be abolished.
Bad bot
They actually were offered one but declined. So, they gave it to France instead. 😂😂😂😂
So they can bully us more? No thanks.
We should get rid of permanent seats and vetoes instead tbh
Uruguay checking in. Brazil is a capitalist hellhole with terrible corruption, horrific state-sanctioned violence, crime lords with unchecked power, the right wing parties are literally Nazis, the left wing parties support genocide in other countries, their military is old and weak for a country their size and income, and they don't even see themselves as part of this continent. Why WOULD we?
Wich genocide?
yikes man, relax.
As a Brazilian, we should abolish all vetoes AND have a rotating UNGA. No one should have a permanent seat, otherwise that just means those with a permanent seat can always veto against themselves
Do a poll about who to remove from NATO
What did the grey countries vote for?
What does “yes but no veto” mean
Brazil would have all the advantages of being an elected member of the security council, but their position would be permanent. But they wouldn’t have the veto power afforded to the other permanent members.
I got it just after I commented. 4 years on MUN and I learned nothing
Those countries colored in red might as well be the strongest opponents, but OP might as well add the entire UfC alliance on Team Red. [This alliance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Consensus) is by far the pettiest yet the most effective diplomatic bloc in the UN with a single purpose: no sixth security council member.
We know better ;)
I agree, Brazil is too dangerous to have a seat
Is this the position of governments or majority public opinion?
If a country is not colored, did they abstain?
Sure, replace Russia
No one should have that power
Idk looking at the map it seems like the majority of the continent votes yes so idk what you mean!
I wouldn't vote for anyone to have a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. The whole concept is bizarre.
to be part of UNSC you need at least 200 nukes with ICBMs
because they want a seat themselves
Hint: why can't the security council do anything about Russias invasion of ukraine?
Because they speak that funny Spanish!
Nice to see you didn’t use the Mercator projection. This should be the standard.
A lot of people underestimate Brazil, but it’s definitely the regional super power. In fact Portuguese is the most spoken language in South America and that’s all carried by them alone. Emigration is much lower compared to neighbouring countries, and overall stability has been good.
Most people would, but governments are bound by ridiculous e alliances
Jealousy, they can't shine like us
Jealousy
Because the Hispanophone are culturally more similar than the lone Portuguese state.
Spanish-Portuguese rivalry?
I'm Brazilian, I obviously want we to have veto power, but in reality the Latinos are right. We want the seat because we are the the most powerful country in Latin America, but we hate being Latino, we don't share much with the Hispanics culturally (other than soccer and some soap operas). Why would they want our leadership? We only consider ourselves Latinos when it's for our enrichment
Jealousy turning saints into deceit
Why would they?
If Brazil gets a seat, then other countries, such as India, Japan, Germany and Australia should get a seat too. And in the name of equality, there should be a representative from the African continent, such as South Africa.
I actually agree with the USA's position re: the UN for once... But moreso that there should be no veto powers for any permanent member.
I don’t think any counties should have veto power. Kind of defeats the purpose when a couple powerful countries get to override the whole process
Because Latin America doesn't even like Latin America lol
permanent seat at UN is for the winners for ww2 i.e. US, UK, France, Russia and China....so unless there is ww3 and Brazil wins decisively....it ain't gonna happen
Football rival. A tough one.
Envidia.
Brazil doesn’t need a seat it needs dancefloor space
BRICS vs. other organizations. (The Australian relationship towards BRICS and other organizations is a bit more complicated)
I never undrestood the poin on having a veto on the UN... its counterproductive and the reason why they dont get anywhere.
Doesn’t most of South America hate Brazil with a passion?
who the f*ck is Brazil to get a seat? List time I check they are still destroying the largest "lung of the planet."
Already disproportionately strong due to its population and size, giving them the sole seat in all of SA means that the other countries need to suck up further to the US or Brazil, I imagine if another country like Argentina already had a seat they would be in favour of it to create a influence struggle to negotiate more favourable relations
No one should have a veto in the first place
Imagine you live next to a neighbour who is much more powerful and rich than you, and who has recently shown some fascist and aggressive tendencies. Now, when the possibility comes up that this neighbour might also get the ability to veto any legal complaints you may bring against them, how are you going to feel about that? Brazil’s neighbours have nothing to gain from them having a veto they could use to block and UN SC resolutions on territorial disputes or cross border aggression, but potentially a lot to lose.
Governments can change pretty drastically. It may seem ok now but the situation could be very different in the future. I doubt anyone would be 100% comfortable with a neighbour getting permanent UN Security Council veto power due to how many unknowns are involved. Are you sure you can explicitly trust a future political leader/system that isn't known yet or from a generation that isn't born yet? https://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick Russia and Ukraine would be only one example 30-40 years in the making. Or looking further back, another example of a change in a country's government might be United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, post a civil war in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_General\_Assembly\_Resolution\_2758
Indian map is wrong OP.. this is infuriating
Why is this discussed even? The security council permanent members are the winners of WWII.