Oceania a new UN SC region?

[Brycec]

The United Nations Security council is split into Regional Groups. In each group, UN members are elected to be temporary members of the UN Security council.
As you can see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UNblocs.PNG the Oceania region (Bottom Right,) is marooned on the edge of the world, neither a part of the regional group of Asia, or the group which it is currently in (based in Western Europe.)
Nauru, has proposed a new Region of the Security council, called Oceania. (See http://www.un.org/ga/webcast/statements/nauruE.htm ,scroll down to 3rd last paragraph to avoid preliminary BS)

Oceania would include Australia, New Zealand and various other island nations in the area. It only makes sense, since this area looks out for itself, for example East Timor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERFET and is Geographically its own area.

This area would be dominated by the regional power, Australia. But if we look at a map of the current Permanent Security council members we see large holes in the geographic deployment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UNSC_2007.png (Blue ones are permanent members.)
We can clearly see a lack of representation in the southern hemisphere.
What the council needs is a Permanent security member that can 'cover,' the Oceania-pacific region, South East Asia, South Asia, and the Indian Ocean.
Take another look at that map. Australia could cover all of these regions, with what has already been described on these forums as a powerful navy.
Naturally Australia would have to beef up the military, but I think Australia is very good at rallying to a challenge. A optional 'national service' could solve this problem.

So, in conclusion should, Oceania should be created into a Security council region?
And further, should Australia be elected into a permanent position on the Security council? I think we were cheated out of our chance after WWII by not being offered a spot then.
Any thoughts?

 

[Waylander]

Please don't take it as an offence but there are enough other countries out there which have similar or greater influence on the world stage and most countries in oceania are really unimportant.
Implemention of Australia into the council without inviting at least half a dozen other countries seems for me the wrong idea.

BTW, with or without veto power?

 

[Brycec]

Please don't take it as an offence but there are enough other countries out there which have similar or greater influence on the world stage and most countries in oceania are really unimportant.
Implemention of Australia into the council without inviting at least half a dozen other countries seems for me the wrong idea.

BTW, with or without veto power?

I would say With Veto power. We need proper representation of our region, which is really what this is all about. The UN is not about importance of large countries, its the opposite. To give all nations, whatever the size, an equal chance.

 

[vijayshimla]

U N Security council

The United Nations Security council is split into Regional Groups. In each group, UN members are elected to be temporary members of the UN Security council.
As you can see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UNblocs.PNG the Oceania region (Bottom Right,) is marooned on the edge of the world, neither a part of the regional group of Asia, or the group which it is currently in (based in Western Europe.)
Nauru, has proposed a new Region of the Security council, called Oceania. (See http://www.un.org/ga/webcast/statements/nauruE.htm ,scroll down to 3rd last paragraph to avoid preliminary BS)

Oceania would include Australia, New Zealand and various other island nations in the area. It only makes sense, since this area looks out for itself, for example East Timor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERFET and is Geographically its own area.

This area would be dominated by the regional power, Australia. But if we look at a map of the current Permanent Security council members we see large holes in the geographic deployment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UNSC_2007.png (Blue ones are permanent members.)
We can clearly see a lack of representation in the southern hemisphere.
What the council needs is a Permanent security member that can 'cover,' the Oceania-pacific region, South East Asia, South Asia, and the Indian Ocean.
Take another look at that map. Australia could cover all of these regions, with what has already been described on these forums as a powerful navy.
Naturally Australia would have to beef up the military, but I think Australia is very good at rallying to a challenge. A optional 'national service' could solve this problem.

So, in conclusion should, Oceania should be created into a Security council region?
And further, should Australia be elected into a permanent position on the Security council? I think we were cheated out of our chance after WWII by not being offered a spot then.
Any thoughts?

UN S C is populated according to the 1945 balance of power.
There is a radical change in this- Europe which has 3 permanent members is the dying star. Within next 5 years there will be radical change in equilibrium of world powers & the U N will have to accordigly evolve or just fade away as an entity with power.

 

[Brycec]

UN S C is populated according to the 1945 balance of power.
There is a radical change in this- Europe which has 3 permanent members is the dying star. Within next 5 years there will be radical change in equilibrium of world powers & the U N will have to accordigly evolve or just fade away as an entity with power.

Yeah, similar to the League of Nations after WWI. So whats your opinion? Should Australia and Oceania be involved in this shift in power?

 

[Grand Danois]

Yeah, similar to the League of Nations after WWI. So whats your opinion? Should Australia and Oceania be involved in this shift in power?

Oceania represents too few people to hold a permanent seat, not to say a veto. Nor does its military or economic power warrant it.

I'd say India, Brazil, Japan and Germany would be candidates in that order.

UN S C is populated according to the 1945 balance of power.
There is a radical change in this- Europe which has 3 permanent members is the dying star. Within next 5 years there will be radical change in equilibrium of world powers & the U N will have to accordigly evolve or just fade away as an entity with power.

I wouldn't say Europe is a dying star, there is no decline, but rather that there are some new rising ones.

 

[Brycec]

Oceania represents too few people to hold a permanent seat, not to say a veto. Nor does its military or economic power warrant it.

I'd say India, Brazil, Japan and Germany would be candidates in that order.



I wouldn't say Europe is a dying star, there is no decline, but rather that there are some new rising ones.

Ive already responded to that argument.

 

[Grand Danois]

Ive already responded to that argument.

Then the answer would be no. You wouldn't get any other nation to recognise such an argument. And that is what matters.

I am not trying to detract anything from the affable Aussies, but spatial distribution/taking up a huge chunk of the surface of the globe matters little. Being able to throw some weight and carry responsibility does.

 

[Brycec]

Then the answer would be no. You wouldn't get any other nation to recognise such an argument. And that is what matters.

I am not trying to detract anything from the affable Aussies, but spatial distribution/taking up a huge chunk of the surface of the globe matters little. Being able to throw some weight and carry responsibility does.

Take a look at East Timor. Australia was enough to pull the country out of civil lawlessness and stop Indonesia launching cross border attacks. In that case we're carrying responsibility, and projecting power across our region, which was my first point.
Throwing weight is a problem, I agree. Like I said, if we really wanted to drive for this, a national service program, and a significant amount of extra budget would probably need to be devoted to the Defence Force.

Anyway, you're only responding to one question. I take it you only have an issue with Australia being a permanent member, and not Oceania becoming its own region for the Security council. I don't think this last is unreasonable.

 

[Grand Danois]

Take a look at East Timor. Australia was enough to pull the country out of civil lawlessness and stop Indonesia launching cross border attacks. In that case we're carrying responsibility, and projecting power across our region, which was my first point.

Yes, and a well done job it was. And Australia is also pulling its weight in the wider perspective now.

ET is an example of the relevance to Aus of having a permanent seat plus veto for carrying out such an op. In other words - it isn't relevant.

Permanent seats and vetos are for powers "it would be a bad idea to bypass". By giving them privileges it is hoped they will try to play their games in the UN rather than duking it out in the real world.

Anyway, you're only responding to one question. I take it you only have an issue with Australia being a permanent member, and not Oceania becoming its own region for the Security council. I don't think this last is unreasonable.

Oceania, just as Australia alone, lacks the weight to have that kind of influence over the rest of the world. Global players.

 

[Brycec]

Oceania, just as Australia alone, lacks the weight to have that kind of influence over the rest of the world. Global players.

How much less relevant is Oceania than South America? Africa?

 

[Grand Danois]

How much less relevant is Oceania than South America? Africa?

It's not an egalitarian world. Lest there be 192 permanent members of the UNSC each with their own veto.

Edit: Giving it a second thought, it might be an idea to have Aust alone as permanent member, without veto, on basis of geography. However, it would depend on how a wider reshuffle looked like.

I'd like to add again, that I'm not denigrating on Aust. I consider this a general discussion on what could qualify a nation.

 

[Mouse]

No offense, but i believe Oceania as a region has only limited influence around globe even when is cames to Asia - Pacific, If Australia would really like to gain a seat, It should act more like a real power, for example, help to stable the situation in Iraq, secure Afganastan or stop the bloodshed in African, (unlikely ) or it should try influence other country with it's tec & economy.

If Australia can have a seat, than why not Sudan or Vatican ?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Oceania still makes up around 20 countries. Small as they may be your still including things like Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Indonesia, PNG.
All with populations over 4 million.

More importantly your looking at a huge chunk of the worlds ocean resources, and area.

Australia is a near nuclear power any way you cut it. It certainly has a massive say in nuclear matters due to its huge uranium reserves.

Military wise Australia compares favourably with many G8 nations and I would rank above Canada in might terms.

I further put forward that Australia is extremely active in its region and globally. With personel in Afgahnistan, Iraq, East Timor, Sudan, Israel, Egypt Syria, Lebanon and Jordan (Operation Mazurka and Operation Paladin), not to mention a presence in Malaysia and numerous other missions at sea. We also run the Patrol boat program where 22 patrol boats are operated by 12 different countries.

Why not start start some of these projects through the UN instead of Australia doing it all alone, and feeding concerns of empire building and colonialism. Certainly the UN seems to be completely oblivious to Oceania regional issues.

It has the 15th Highest GDP in the world and approximately equal to India, Russia or Brazil. Australia is also growing stronger economically and military as well as politically.

 

[dioditto]

Without american around, Australia can't even defend itself against Indonesia if they decided to attack Australia. I wouldn't even rank Australia on the same term as Malaysia militarily. The issue of Australia to get a permanent UNSC seat is akin to a baby asking to be seated in the adult's table instead of kids table.

Be realistic mate.

 

[Tasman]

Without american around, Australia can't even defend itself against Indonesia if they decided to attack Australia. I wouldn't even rank Australia on the same term as Malaysia militarily. The issue of Australia to get a permanent UNSC seat is akin to a baby asking to be seated in the adult's table instead of kids table.

Be realistic mate.

I think you're being a bit harsh in your description of Australia as a baby and I have confidence that Australia could defend itself against Indonesia. I also believe that Australia ranks well as a military power compared with other countries in the region like Malaysia. As Britain demonstrated for centuries, the size of the regular army in itself doesn't determine a country's military capability. Unlike most other countries in the region Australia has continuously demonstrated its willingness and ability to deploy all three branches of its military to trouble spots throughout the world.

However, I do agree that Australia would be well down the list if an additional country was to be given a permanent UNSC seat. I think this is an unrealistic idea at present.

Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

Indonesia going to attack us?

Ive heard calls that the UK is not capable of independant action either. Recent events show that permanent members aren't gods on earth either, and a single 2nd or 3rd world country can make them look powerless and foolish. The world we live in is interdependant thats just the way it is. The US is proberly the only independantly capable force on the planet.

Once Australia completes its next block of upgrades it will be far more independant for the type of missions its going to face. With destroyers, LHD's, new aircraft and new subs, Australia would be entirely capable of handling a East Timor mission with out any major forign assets.

All out conventional war single handedly with Indonesia is not what our defence force is geared for. I think its clear Australia is a peaceful nation, if Indonesia tried to invade, as impossible and silly as that would be, Australia would easily be able to defend itself.

I think the capability Australia showed in WWI and WWII (when Australia really was a baby) proved it can be a major factor in major conflicts.

Australia's forces are the way they are because of regional concerns about upsetting the neighbors and arms races and major powers playing major power games.

Now if the UN permanent members want to see a more capable Australia then Im sure Australia is ready to listen. We can restart seeking nuclear capability that was holted in the 50's, get the aircraft carriers britain bailed out on us, the F-22 the US won't sell us etc.

While Im sure India and some other countries would love a seat, are they responcible enough to use it? Should they get it because they pursed nuclear weapons? It would be a open ticket to all countries to gain nuclear power.

Or is the argument the UN is just less and less important and has disenfranchied smaller powers. That because countries that are important regionally, such as Australia (but I will add Brazil and India) are essentially powerless at the UN level.

While its one thing for the US to act with out UN approval, when smaller nations start acting like this, the UN has been circumvented.

 

[Waylander]

And why just Australia and maybe India and Brazil?
What about Canada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Italy, Spain, South Korea,...?

There is no sense in giving Australia a seat while so many equally powerfull or more powerfull (Both in military and economic terms) countries are no part of the council.

And out of oceania there are just two countries which have countable regional not to talk of worldwide influence (Australia and Indonesia) and I hope that I don't offend the Kiwis here with not including NZ.

 

[dioditto]

I think you're being a bit harsh in your description of Australia as a baby and I have confidence that Australia could defend itself against Indonesia. I also believe that Australia ranks well as a military power compared with other countries in the region like Malaysia. As Britain demonstrated for centuries, the size of the regular army in itself doesn't determine a country's military capability. Unlike most other countries in the region Australia has continuously demonstrated its willingness and ability to deploy all three branches of its military to trouble spots throughout the world.

However, I do agree that Australia would be well down the list if an additional country was to be given a permanent UNSC seat. I think this is an unrealistic idea at present.

Cheers

Are you kidding me. Imagine a world without America. Do you seriously believe we can defend ourself against Indonesia? Without american presence in Pacific, without them supplying us weapons, without them giving us strategic intelligence from satellite, do you seriously believe we can defend ourself against Indonesia or Malaysia?

 

[dioditto]

Indonesia going to attack us?

Ive heard calls that the UK is not capable of independant action either. Recent events show that permanent members aren't gods on earth either, and a single 2nd or 3rd world country can make them look powerless and foolish. The world we live in is interdependant thats just the way it is. The US is proberly the only independantly capable force on the planet.

Once Australia completes its next block of upgrades it will be far more independant for the type of missions its going to face. With destroyers, LHD's, new aircraft and new subs, Australia would be entirely capable of handling a East Timor mission with out any major forign assets.

All out conventional war single handedly with Indonesia is not what our defence force is geared for. I think its clear Australia is a peaceful nation, if Indonesia tried to invade, as impossible and silly as that would be, Australia would easily be able to defend itself.

I think the capability Australia showed in WWI and WWII (when Australia really was a baby) proved it can be a major factor in major conflicts.

Australia's forces are the way they are because of regional concerns about upsetting the neighbors and arms races and major powers playing major power games.

Now if the UN permanent members want to see a more capable Australia then Im sure Australia is ready to listen. We can restart seeking nuclear capability that was holted in the 50's, get the aircraft carriers britain bailed out on us, the F-22 the US won't sell us etc.

While Im sure India and some other countries would love a seat, are they responcible enough to use it? Should they get it because they pursed nuclear weapons? It would be a open ticket to all countries to gain nuclear power.

Or is the argument the UN is just less and less important and has disenfranchied smaller powers. That because countries that are important regionally, such as Australia (but I will add Brazil and India) are essentially powerless at the UN level.

While its one thing for the US to act with out UN approval, when smaller nations start acting like this, the UN has been circumvented.

I am merely alluding to my point of military power. To get a UNSC seat, this is not the kids table anymore. If we get UNSC seat, Indonesia and Malaysia would surely feel they got more rights to it than us.