UNSC seat for Germany?

[muck]

Lately, Germany repeatedly tried for a permanent seat in the UNSC. There are different solutions for the apparently coming SC reform, in any case Germany had not veto right in the council. What do you think, does Germany (or other nations in general) deserve a seat or is it still the winners-only-board?

[Freibier]

Patience is ze key.
After part III, we have all ze seats anyway.

[signatory]

A ridiculous idea.

[Moledet]

And you should get a seat for? I think France, UK and Russia represents Europe pretty well in the council (way better than any other continent is represented).

[oldsoak]

I 'd like to see her on the UNSC. The war has been over for 60 years or more and we are no longer as powerful or as influential as we were - why not place Germany on the UNSC as an influential, pro democracy state ?

[Jarhead]

True words oldsoak

[Moledet]

I 'd like to see her on the UNSC. The war has been over for 60 years or more and we are no longer as powerful or as influential as we were - why not place Germany on the UNSC as an influential, pro democracy state ?
Because then you create a breach for other countries to join and it's hard enough as it is to pass anything there. Why Germany and not India, Japan, Brazil, Australia and others?

[sp2c]

I agree somewhat but I wonder about the point of the whole thing

other then Germany gaining some political power in world affairs what is this going to change? With the whole "fear" (for lack of a better word) of proactive/offensive peacekeeping that seems to be a growing trend these days I don't think Germany is the best choice

the only real difference would be another state that can vote against operations they aren't going to deploy in anyways ... wont make the UN more effective

[oldsoak]

@ moledet - Then the way forward may be to have countries elected to the post for a fixed term.

[Noble713]

the only real difference would be another state that can vote against operations they aren't going to deploy in anyways ... wont make the UN more effective


x2. The question shouldn't be "How do we reward ze Germans for behaving?" but "How do we make the UN worth a damn?". It's hard enough to get anything done as is...

[Thor]

Because then you create a breach for other countries to join and it's hard enough as it is to pass anything there. Why Germany and not India, Japan, Brazil, Australia and others?
Australia???

Anyway. Tear up the whole UN system and start a new G4 group (US, EU, Japan, and China) and have a larger auxiliary discussion forum outside of that.

[muck]

The question is on which base nations should receive permanent representation in the SC.
At the moment, only the Allied Powers are represented (without the small exception of China which succeeded Taiwan in 1973 if I remember correctly). Australia for example is an important economical player and a regional power in the Pacific region, but it's population figure is quite low. Japan is the second largest industry nation of this world and also has a big population whilst Brazil has a big population as well but no strong economy. Whats about other continents? To which major nation in the Middle East for example could you entrust this responsibility?
A kind of clear pattern is missing.

In my opinion, the ten largest and ten smallest countries both per population and ecomony (without double seats of course) should get the seat and the veto-system should be abolished, too.

[Thor]

I can only see four entities that are worthy of such a positon (those listed). Maybe 4+1 in which the last one is an alternating spot for India, Brazil, African Union and perhaps a few more.

[Tokamak]

I agree the veto-system should be removed.

So only the G-4 would decide what is right and wrong, I don't think so.

[sp2c]

im we should scrap the security council all together
have the general assembly make decisions, give nations a certain number of votes based on gdp and population and majority wins

though that may mean china wins everything so it'll probably won't work either, but something needs to be done other then giving more nations veto powers

[Freibier]

With the whole "fear" (for lack of a better word) of proactive/offensive peacekeeping that seems to be a growing trend these days I don't think Germany is the best choice

That's what I thought aswell

[Thor]

So only the G-4 would decide what is right and wrong, I don't think so.
Why not?

IMO very few entities are worthy of such a seat. 4+1 or 4+2 (one or two alternating seats) is a viable solution. You could have one alternating seat for the larger nations and one alternating seat for the rest of the world.


im we should scrap the security council all together
have the general assembly make decisions, give nations a certain number of votes based on gdp and population and majority wins

though that may mean china wins everything so it'll probably won't work either, but something needs to be done other then giving more nations veto powers
I don't see why there should be a world governing body at all. E.g. why should China have any saying regarding affairs that doesn't concern them and were they lack influence anyway?

There are many informal forums that work way better than the UN and that could take it's place. Also, UN is based on how the world appeared in May 1945 and progressive reforms to adopt it to the future are hardly possible in the polarized climate of today.

[Kitsune]

other then Germany gaining some political power in world affairs what is this going to change? With the whole "fear" (for lack of a better word) of proactive/offensive peacekeeping that seems to be a growing trend these days I don't think Germany is the best choice.


How about "Angst"?;-) But I think I know what you mean...
But the opposite may also be true: a bit of responsibility may be good for Germany. The problem is mainly that the Federal Republic has too long existed tucked away in the Western Alliance system, to perform on the grand stage in foreign political and security matters is something this state is simply not used to. But perhaps Germany would rise to the occasion.

There is no question that there are other nations who should be also considered for a permanent Security Council seat - mainly Japan, India and Brazil. Moledet's argument that Europe would be overrepresented with France, Britain and Russia is not correct however. The problem is that France's seat represents only France, while Britain's seat represents just Britain - none of them represents Europe or any other nation of it. And Russia, well, Russia certainly does not represent Europe either, Hell, many Russians do not even consider themselves as Europeans but as Asians or just Russians. In any case, they have nothing to do with the European seats.

To solve the problem of "European overrepresentation", France and Britain would have to be stripped of their pemanent seats - good luck convincing them of that. That these two will insist of keeping their seats can however not mean that a nation like Germany, which, if I may mention this fact, is economically and populationwise the largest nation of the EU, should be eternally deprived of its right to be represented only so that France and Britain are. Which has been the case now for more than half a century - enough is enough. I don't know how the situation could be resolved with the utmost fairness and consideration but one possibility might be to create two permanent European seats which rotate between Britain, France and Germany so that each country has a seat two years and then takes a break for one. This would be a slight loss for France and Britain but a rather limited one they should be able to live with. But then I may be wrong with this assumption.

[Ordie]

Europe is over represented in the SC.

My picks:

India (Balances Asian represntation in terms of population)
Brazil (Fills a void in Latin America & tie breaker)

[little icebear]

I´d rather like to see, say, Japan join the club than India. India is another new nuclear power and adding it to the UNSC-Club which is already exclusively consisting of nuclear power is not a good sign in my opinion.

The message would be like: "You wanna be heard? Get yourself some nukes!"

[Thor]

Europe is over represented in the SC.

My picks:

India (Balances Asian represntation in terms of population)
Brazil (Fills a void in Latin America & tie breaker)
It was never about the size of the population and I really think US and EU would object to such a policy as "the world" would vote them down completely.

[ZhukovG]

I think JA! they must have a seat on UNSC
cuz Germany is a very big economy and has a lot of influence all over the world

[JJC]

I think U.N. needs to be scrapped. More $$ is wasted to support the org than yearly productivity from that place. A better idea would be to establish smaller regional orgs to handle different matters and issues, 192(?) members and still no action on Darfur. If it wasn't for NATO Kosovo conflict would continue etc.. Is it necessary to support lavish positions of the 192 member diplomats in order to accomplish the task of sending yearly rice and basic meds to feed the hungry children in Africa?

[little icebear]

I will never get what the anti-un-crowd´s thinking. The reason for inefficiency can be found amongst the member states.
The UN decides sh*t. It´s up to its members. If they can´t come to terms what is for example the general secretary supposed to do?
The UN is not trying to be some sort of a super-state. It is a forum.

[Thor]

UN has a great deal to do with international law and as such it and it's auxliary institutions act like de facto international governing bodies.

[Ordie]

The UN was created to prevent the world from going to hell.
It was not created to bring heaven on earth.

[little icebear]

Stil dependant on the members decissions, isn´t it?

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

The UN was created to prevent the world from going to hell.
It was not created to bring heaven on earth.

Excellent! I completely agree.

[JJC]

I will never get what the anti-un-crowd´s thinking. The reason for inefficiency can be found amongst the member states.
The UN decides sh*t. It´s up to its members. If they can´t come to terms what is for example the general secretary supposed to do?
The UN is not trying to be some sort of a super-state. It is a forum.

You just answered "what the anti-un crowd's thinking". If the 192 members don't agree upon issues many because of the most corrupt, abusive regimes controling seats on important councils and commissions, than there is no hope or reason for big powers to pump huge amounts of cash into the org, when the tasks can be accomplished by smaller orgs that would actually be productive.

[Ordie]

The UN is a forum of nations, not a governing body.

The UN is an umbrella for many organizations, without which our daily lives would be more challenged.

For example:

IACO: Sets internatoinal air traffic and aviation standards, otherwise planes will be crashing into each other.

IMO: Sets international maritime and naviation standards, otherwise ships would be crashing into each other or get shipwreaked.

World Bank: provides funds for development projects

IMF: Provide loans to service international banks and nations, otherwise countries would invade each other for the lack of cash.

World Health Organization: mitigate pandemics and epidemics.

Is it perfect? no but the world would be a worst place without the UN.

[Thor]

The UN was created to prevent the world from going to hell.
It was not created to bring heaven on earth.
I can't see how UN has stopped anything from going to hell. The sole reason the cold war never got hot was the presence of strategic nuclear arsenals.

Internationalism as a movement centers around UN and one can only hope it's significance will continue to down-spiral.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

The UN is a forum of nations, not a governing body.

The UN is an umbrella for many organizations, without which our daily lives would be more challenged.

For example:

IACO: Sets internatoinal air traffic and aviation standards, otherwise planes will be crashing into each other.

IMO: Sets international maritime and naviation standards, otherwise ships would be crashing into each other or get shipwreaked.

World Bank: provides funds for development projects

IMF: Provide loans to service international banks and nations, otherwise countries would invade each other for the lack of cash.

World Health Organization: mitigate pandemics and epidemics.

Is it perfect? no but the world would be a worst place without the UN.

One notable exception would be, ICANN, which is responsible for the global coordination of the Internet's system of unique identifiers. IIRC in 2003 at the Global Internet Summit, the UN tried to place ICANN, which conducts open-door meetings, under the International Telecommunication Union, which is part of the UN and can meet behind closed doors.

[Thor]

^^

Not to mention the International Bowling Association that isn't a UN organization but still, in some mysterious way, manages to get by anyway and agree on standardized international rules etc.

[theholeinthedonut]

I first thought about writing something funny but then I changed my mind.
I think for germany, when I speak of germany I mean it's population and the whole spectrum of it's political class, to deserve a seat in the UNSC it will have to grow more mature and much more responsible regarding international as well as internal matters. I closely followed the last weeks discussions about the three different mandates in Afghanistan and the shameful Muppet show the Green party made out of this, as well as the lasting discussion about interior security, internet searches, Bundeswehr missions inside of the borders and the shooting down of terrorist contolled airplanes. Just to show you that I'm really trying to keep in touch with things: I daily read the Spiegel and Zeit internet sites and most of the days time I'm listening to the Deutschlandfunk.
Specially the discussionjs about Schäuble made me want to cry, if the germans do not have more confidence about the strength and democracy and the rule of law in their society they should not apply for a seat in the UNSC but they should autodissolve the Federal Republic and ask to be governed again by the Allied.

[Doublethinker]

The whole UN structure seems a bit oudated. Perhaps it should stick to humanitarian aid and cultural programs, while the NATO can stick to military operations on behalf of world community.

On the side note, Most decisions with regards to international operations are made either in Washington or during the behind-the-curtain negotiations anyway. We are only one step away from going back to secret diplomacy, which was modus operandi prior to WWI, when the population didn't even know the real conditions of treaties signed.

[Rakki]

If they want a seat, have them fight for it....

[Xaito]

I think the idea of a seat for EU would be interesting but then again the EU is too big and the countries (especially some new members) are too different to ever be in agreement about something.

[Telmar]

The EU is not a federation. There is no future in short term for any foreign policy. All members are extremely self centered.

Unless all countries of EU would accept to have no Foreign Affairs Minister of their own and accept to have a common Ambassador for every country based in Brussels, nothing can be achieved.

It would be a catastrophe for the UN to have the UK and France replaced by an EU seat.

However, in Europe, Germany deserves to be represented as one of the countries that help shape the world, perhaps more economically than militarily. But the UN is not only about military operations...

[sp2c]

However, in Europe, Germany deserves to be represented as one of the countries that help shape the world, perhaps more economically than militarily. But the UN is not only about military operations...

but the Security Council is

in fact I don't think Russia and China really deserve their seat either since they aren't really doing anything on that aspect either except vote veto or threathen to veto from time to time.
Sure the others do that too but they do commit forces to UN operations

imo we should give Canada or Australia a seat

[tsuri]

Germany and Japan are of course major powers even though their populations do not realize that. So they deserve a say in the Security Council.

The Problem with Japan is: They cannot really do much more than pay for things. Germany has at least done a lot more dirty work since the iron curtain fell and therefore has a little more leverage.

The Problem here is not an overrepresentation of Europe in the Security Council but an overrepresentation of Europe on the world stage. Putting poor places like Brazil or India on the council won't do any good.

Germany does face domestic opposition in Europe and therefore I believe a permanent EU seat which rotates with the presidency (excluding UK and France of course) would be the best solution.

[Telmar]

but the Security Council is


...

You are right. But I wanted to point out that the first steps against rogue nations are usually economic sanctions before military interventions (I am not saying it all that succesful though).

As a major world sized economic powerhouse, Germany should have its word. And be involved in the decisions.

[seer]

EU should speak with one voice. France and GB should give up their seats and there should be one seat created for the whole EU.

Fat chance of any of this happenig.

[theholeinthedonut]

EU should speak with one voice. France and GB should give up their seats and there should be one seat created for the whole EU.

Fat chance of any of this happenig.

You sure you do not want to think this one over?

[seer]

You sure you do not want to think this one over?
Why? You want 3 seats for EU?

[budgie]

Because then you create a breach for other countries to join and it's hard enough as it is to pass anything there. Why Germany and not India, Japan, Brazil, Australia and others?

Would be nice to see - a sort of expanded security council with only the biggest, richest nations in it. China and Russia would be far outnumbered by western democracies. Of course there's still the veto thing...

[muck]

As long as the veto system remains in the SC the committee is nearly incapable of acting quick and with determination.
For the same reason I oppose a seat for the EU.
Take the SC reaction meeting concerning the riots in Myanmar this evening as an example. How should 27 nations be able to find a decision till then?

[theholeinthedonut]

Why? You want 3 seats for EU?
First of all I think a SC seat for Europe is utopia if there is no common foreign policy.....I believe as strong in it as in the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary. Second I might not have your logical skills but I do not think it is such a smart idea to change two seats for one.

[gaijinsamurai]

I'd like to see Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil added. Last year, the Japanese Government was advocating for this, but was opposed by China and South Korea, because they didn't want Japan to get it.

[Kitsune]

Specially the discussionjs about Schäuble made me want to cry, if the germans do not have more confidence about the strength and democracy and the rule of law in their society they should not apply for a seat in the UNSC but they should autodissolve the Federal Republic and ask to be governed again by the Allied.


I find this remark of yours deeply offensive and, since you seem not to be a German yourself, I think that you had no right to make it in the first place - frankly, unless someone very recently shat into your braincase I don't even know why you say such a thing. Additionally, it would be fair if you could state where you are from so that I can start making offensive statements about your homecountry in return.

[little icebear]

I find this remark of yours deeply offensive and, since you seem not to be a German yourself, I think that you had no right to make it in the first place. Additionally, it would be fair if you could state where you are from so that I can start making offensive statements about your homecountry in return.

I am German and I disagree... with you and with holeinadonut.
He´s free to state his opinion. I see no insult in it.

[Kitsune]

Well but I do. Some statments are simply below the girdleline and even having the right to say such things does not change that. If someone uses his right of free speech to make such an offensive remark he cannot really complain if I take chunk out of his arse in return.

[Freibier]

drama queen :roll:

[Kitsune]

Perhaps. Doesn't change that I'm right, though.

[muck]

Today's remarks of German politicians about Merkel's indirect apply for a permanent seat in the SC:

"chumming up"
"embarrasing"
"an affront"
"an ancient project"
"an expression of increasing megalomania in Germany"

[theholeinthedonut]

I find this remark of yours deeply offensive and, since you seem not to be a German yourself, I think that you had no right to make it in the first place - frankly, unless someone very recently shat into your braincase I don't even know why you say such a thing. Additionally, it would be fair if you could state where you are from so that I can start making offensive statements about your homecountry in return.
The quoted statement is hypothetical Kitsune my foxy friend!!!!!!! There was an "IF" preceding it.
All the germans are free to worry about the laws their politicians are trying to pass. Alltough the reactions I witnessed at the said media outlets were ridiculos.... Schäuble was represented either as an arsonist...by many readers or members of the audience as a Nazi and worse...just for advocating a law none of them seemed to have a grip on. So what I wanted to express is that if your political system would be as weak and as endangered as those people make it out to be, the germans should consider their state as failed..........THERE IS AN IF...mind this is not what I think about germany ...just the opposite.
Regarding the braincase defecation...the one who starts yelling and screaming and using the "Kakapipi" language is lost in advance. But if it helps you go on be my guest.

[theholeinthedonut]

Perhaps. Doesn't change that I'm right, though.

Ever heard about "Supra-reality"...anyhow the most stupid thing is that most of the time both of us preach the same gospel.... don't over react.
There's nothing germany and it's citizen's need to be ashamed of!
Immer diese blöden Minderwertigkeitskomplexe!

EDIT: Sorry I forgot to translate: Allways that supid inferiority complex.

[Kippari]

Maybe Germany, India, Brazil and African Union deserve a seat. They atleast send a lot of peacekeepers around... SC is not some world dominance organization, atleast it shouldn't be. NATO is not part of U.N. and conducts military operations whether U.N. gives permission or not. S.C. should be the governing body to prevent crisis and dealing with them by sending peacekeepers to the hot-spots around the globe. It really should evolve over the cold war era and let other important players to join.

Just my 0.02€

[tsuri]

Today's remarks of German politicians about Merkel's indirect apply for a permanent seat in the SC:

"chumming up"
"embarrasing"
"an affront"
"an ancient project"
"an expression of increasing megalomania in Germany"
That is the problem in this country. Have these people ever looked at a ranking? We are a major world power, we cannot act as if we were Liechtenstein!

[muck]

That's what I wanted to point out with providing these quotes.

[doug411]

Not trying to debate how wrong the Iraq war was but didn't Germany bury its permanent seat aspirations, at least for a while, by opposing US in the Iraq war? Will the Americans be willing to trust Germany after Germany turned its back on US when it seemed like US needed support the most? Didn't US have enough trouble with France alone?

[tluassa]

Not trying to debate how wrong the Iraq war was but didn't Germany bury its permanent seat aspirations, at least for a while, by opposing US in the Iraq war? Will the Americans be willing to trust Germany after Germany turned its back on US when it seemed like US needed support the most? Didn't US have enough trouble with France alone?

Bush is immune to any reform or advanced thinking, but he is gone soon and the next Pres. will depend on Germany and France because their great coalition is buried and even the Brits are running away.

[theholeinthedonut]

Bush is immune to any reform or advanced thinking, but he is gone soon and the next Pres. will depend on Germany and France because their great coalition is buried and even the Brits are running away.

Would you care to elaborate about the nature of the dependancy?
BTW you might not have noticed yet but Gerhard is now a full time toyboy for Putin and Mr Chirac is waiting for the PJ to raid his premises.........and Sarko seems to be nearer to Dubbya then he is to sweet Angie. So dream on about the next POTUS pushing for a permanent german seat on the UNSC.

[Subsonic]

UNSC seat for Germany?

No, it's only for the victors in WW2 ...and France.

[gaijinsamurai]

...and do you think we should be dwelling on WWII forever? It's been over 60 years now....

[Nightsky]

dissolve it ...everyone is just going to vote according to its own geopolitical interests, or, remove the veto thing entirely and make it a majority vote of some sorts.

The veto right means that the Israeli situation, Myanmar, Sudan ... cannot be resolved as long as veto members hold political interest in one of those states.

[quinsen]

UNSC seat for Germany?

No, it's only for the victors in WW2 ...and France.

China did win WW2...? Interesting. :roll:

[muck]

China did win WW2...? Interesting. :roll:

China was confronted with Japan and an ally of the Angloamerican Forces in WW2.

Though not a communist but nationalist China fought together with the Allies. The nationalists were ousted from the mainland in 1949. And who's representing China today? The People's Republic, not Taiwan.
Thus, the SC is by no means a WW2 winners club anymore but simply a circle of those countries that were the first major nuclear powers.

An U.N. reform must include abolition of veto rights for the permanent members. Otherwise, the SC will continue to be incapable of quick and determined actions.

[Herrmannek]

Sorry, voted No... For me its enough Germans can swing EU any way they want :)

[european]

Why Germany?
France and Germany claim to be important EU countries (20% and 16% of EU budget arrives from them).
So, if they are really 'europeans', why not to back a common EU seat?
France didn't deserve a UNSC since the UN creation.
France 'NO' to EU constitution backstabbed the future of a common mighty EU. A Germany seat to UNSC will be the death of a pacific democratic EU.
The other EU countries will see 3 countries to be leader of the other 24. That's inacceptable.
Again, there are already 2 EU countries in UNSC (Ok, noone has still understood if Uk is a EU country or not, but that's another problem...). Adding a 3rd country there will be a overrepresentetive of european countries that will have the weakly point to not represent the entire EU....

I admit Germany is the most important economic power of EU. Uk, France and Italy are comparable for GDP and population. it will be another option to give up France undeserved seat and give the french seat to Germany.

More. Germany is not a military power, at least in terms of force projection. Inside EU there are more countries that have more military projection capabilities than Germany.
So, Germany is not a military great power and had never got an important military support to UN peacekeeping operation. Except in $$ contribution, but UNSC means strong responsabilities is not a seat that is possible to buy as a Theatre ticket.

A UN reform is necessary, but is not necessary to reform with such huge mistake like a simply enlargement of the UNSC.
The world today is not as in 1945. Uk and France are not the former British Empire or French Empire. Military nukes capabilities too, are not an evidence of great powers.
Today ecery country in the world with cash (€€€) can buy nuclear technologies and/or develop it.

UN needs a strong reform and not a simply update.

[muck]

Germany is not a military power, at least in terms of force projection. Inside EU there are more countries that have more military projection capabilities than Germany.
So, Germany is not a military great power and had never got an important military support to UN peacekeeping operation.

Aha.

Since 2003, Germany has at any given time nearly 10000 peacekeepers deployed around the world.
Germany still has a total of 683,150 Military and paramilitary forces in active and reserve units, placing it on rank 19 in international comparison and on rank 1 within the European Union.

[MZKT]

One SC seat for whole EU will never happen. France and GB may allow Germany to join but will never accept to loose their seats. It would take a large chunk of their national pride, international weight etc

A possible solution would be to extend the security council to represnt more poele then it does today, so India, Brasilia, Germany, Japan and African Union should join, while the traditional powers keep their seats. Veto-right should be abolished.
Middle East should theoretically have a vote either but they don't have a real uniting organization, so won't be able to find an own representative for UN.

[european]

One SC seat for whole EU will never happen. France and GB may allow Germany to join but will never accept to loose their seats. It would take a large chunk of their national pride, international weight etc



True. To back Germany is necessary for Uk and France. The alternative to support a EU seat will mean to lose Uk and France seats.
I believe that will be more profitable to Germany too to support a EU seat. Germany is the true power inside EU. If Germany will support a EU seat, then the other EU countries will be more 'happy' and will force the no longer powers (France and Uk) to abdicate in favour a future European Union.

The clever manouvre for Germany is to support EU and push for a EU seat. That will be a true reform and not a simply update of the table.
If Germany push for a EU seat, then at least the french seat will give up and probably also the Uk will have to choice if continue to stay in EU as a EU country or to go alone.

@muck (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=32561)
Germany today has 10000 soldiers involved in UN operations?
Do u have a source?
Do u say 683000 soldiers? How much in active duty (not reserve)?
It's worth noting that Germany has still a military based on coscription and not only professional.

[kosse]

Aha.

Since 2003, Germany has at any given time nearly 10000 peacekeepers deployed around the world.
Germany still has a total of 683,150 Military and paramilitary forces in active and reserve units, placing it on rank 19 in international comparison and on rank 1 within the European Union.
Pfft. Finland has officially 490 000 in reserve though the figure should come down to 350 000 by 2008. Is Finland a military power? No. Like said, Germany does not have force projection capabilities (no, peacekeepers don't count). Must be a crappy/biased military strenght comparison if Germany is placed first.

[muck]

10000 is an average value, and I've said peacekeeping missions. However, according to the MoD website are currently 750 soldiers deployed with UNIFIL and 3100 and 2500 deployed with both UN mandated missions ISAF and KFOR. This is due to the current situation in the operational area. The mandate limit is 1400 for UNIFIL, 3500 for ISAF and 8100 for KFOR.

The current strength of the military is 283000. And the comparison is only number of troops, I did not state anything else.

[european]

10000 is an average value, and I've said peacekeeping missions. However, according to the MoD website are currently 750 soldiers deployed with UNIFIL and 3100 and 2500 deployed with both UN mandated missions ISAF and KFOR. This is due to the current situation in the operational area. The mandate limit is 1400 for UNIFIL, 3500 for ISAF and 8100 for KFOR.

The current strength of the military is 283000. And the comparison is only number of troops, I did not state anything else.

In Unifil there are no german soldiers. The only military are from navy and are crew of ships.

In comparison Italy has more soldiers deployed and Spain too gives a strong contribution in UN operations in Unifil and A-Stan.

The fact remains. A seat for Germany is good only for the ward the position of the prehistoric powers of Uk and France, not for EU nor for Germany that still has a lot of countries that are not 'happy' at the idea to have Germany in the UNSC.

Germany will gain more pushing for a common EU seat.

[muck]

In Unifil there are no german soldiers. The only military are from navy and are crew of ships.

Well it's the maritime component of UNIFIL...:roll:


In comparison Italy has more soldiers deployed and Spain too gives a strong contribution in UN operations in Unifil and A-Stan.

I did not deny any of these facts, did I? By the way, the latter is quite pointless. Especially because both countries' Afghanistan contingents are outnumbered by the German one. d


The fact remains. A seat for Germany is good only for the ward the position of the prehistoric powers of Uk and France, not for EU nor for Germany that still has a lot of countries that are not 'happy' at the idea to have Germany in the UNSC.

Germany will gain more pushing for a common EU seat.

Aha. Since I have to stand your opinion I won't comment this except of the latter.
A common EU seat is in my opinon worth nothing. Not because I'd rather see a seat for Germany but because it is a matter of logic. The last months offered a good impression how difficult it is for the EU member nations to find a common line. If the SC has to act quickly like recently concerning the uprising in Myanmar, only hours may pass to the point where a decision is necessary. How could 27 member states ever make an agreement that fast?

[Vandervahn]

It's worth noting that Germany has still a military based on coscription and not only professional. No it´s not, since the amount of actual conscripts is around 16% and falling.

[european]

A common EU seat is in my opinon worth nothing. Not because I'd rather see a seat for Germany but because it is a matter of logic. The last months offered a good impression how difficult it is for the EU member nations to find a common line. If the SC has to act quickly like recently concerning the uprising in Myanmar, only hours may pass to the point where a decision is necessary. How could 27 member states ever make an agreement that fast?

How could 50 states in USA to act as 1?
If Germany will gain the seat in UNSC alongside Uk and France, so there will be in EU an elite class formed by the three (Uk, FR, DE) that will decide for all Europe. That's worst and will creat a non democratic Europe.
It's enough to listen the french presidents that with arrogance speaks as leader of Europe, another 1 is not necessary.
If Europe want to be strong has to learn how to act as one. May be that will be not easy at the begin, but it's the only good choice in long term.
EU must to speak with 1 strong voice and not with three weakly old voice that btw have not the consensus of all or at least the majority of EU countries.

What is ridicolous is that no longer world power, with a colonial past like France and Uk still have a UNSC.

[muck]

How could 50 states in USA to act as 1?

What a poor comparison! US foreign policy is made by one man and not by 50! You apparently don't know what a federation looks like. These states joined the union and gave up the right to make their own policy in certain branches. The European nations never would allow that.

If Europe want to be strong has to learn how to act as one. May be that will be not easy at the begin, but it's the only good choice in long term.But they won't learn how to act in concert!
To pick up your comparison, I doubt that for example Maine mistrusts California only because it is the bigger state. Though many European States distrust especially Germany, France or Italy as the states with the biggest population.
And furthermore, whilst Americans have been feeling like Americans since 1776, a Frenchman still is a citizen of Grande nation, and a British is still a national af si uenidet kingdoem, not to mention the nationalism of the new EU member states. The European Union was a product of Franco-German will for reconciliation, maybe the time wasn't ripe for transfering this idea to entire Europe.
Or the last World War is now too long time ago to make the people remember how important it is to act together for peace and wealth.

Today's mentality is unfortunately not what can I do for Europe ? but what can Europe do for me?

[european]

What a poor comparison! US foreign policy is made by one man and not by 50! You apparently don't know what a federation looks like. These states joined the union and gave up the right to make their own policy in certain branches. The European nations never would allow that.
But they won't learn how to act in concert!
To pick up your comparison, I doubt that for example Maine mistrusts California only because it is the bigger state. Though many European States distrust especially Germany, France or Italy as the states with the biggest population.
And furthermore, whilst Americans have been feeling like Americans since 1776, a Frenchman still is a citizen of Grande nation, and a British is still a national af si uenidet kingdoem, not to mention the nationalism of the new EU member states. The European Union was a product of Franco-German will for reconciliation, maybe the time wasn't ripe for transfering this idea to entire Europe.
Or the last World War is now too long time ago to make the people remember how important it is to act together for peace and wealth.

Today's mentality is unfortunately not what can I do for Europe ? but what can Europe do for me?

SO, do u believe that a good solution is to give more power to another member over the others?
If u say that EU countries are not still ready, so u can be sure that with another signal of separation as the seat to Germany, the EU will be more divided and will creat a feeling of mistrust for the future of EU.
Eu is a product of the will of every member to join common values, is not a franco-german inventions. The idea of a united Europe is older than WWII.
Modern EU was born to forget the bloody wars that were fought between the 2 powers of France and Germany in past centuries. The idea to share coal, necessary to forge weapons, was the basis.
Every one in EU gives is contributions, not only France and Germany.
There are no reasonse to consider Europe only this 2 countries over the others.

Btw that's not a problem, the idea to restore a new domination of France and Germany will meet the opposition of a lot of EU countries and a lot more of other nations that are not linked to Germany.
May be officially many countries will back Germany, but it will be only due to economic power and economic relations of Germany that is equally to buy this seat.
Of course, Germany will be not backed by the conscience of people..... except the dinosaurs France and Uk that still live over a pride of Grandeur of XIX century. :roll:

[european]

No it´s not, since the amount of actual conscripts is around 16% and falling.


How many professional soldiers are in active duty, not reserve and nor coscripted in German armed forces??
Example: France 245000, Uk 230000, Italy 200000, Spain 155000, etc.
Could u provide a number, please?
Thanks a lot.

[muck]

SO, do u believe that a good solution is to give more power to another member over the others?

Did I say that? EU and UN are two totally different things for my reasoning.


If u say that EU countries are not still ready, so u can be sure that with another signal of separation as the seat to Germany, the EU will be more divided and will creat a feeling of mistrust for the future of EU.

But this mistrust is already present! Smaller EU member states fear not to be able to bring their ideas in due to the number of votes the bigger states unite. I'm sorry, but it's the basis of every federational state system that the political clout of a state depends on it's population.
And again, EU and UN are two totally different things.


Eu is a product of the will of every member to join common values, is not a franco-german inventions. The idea of a united Europe is older than WWII.

I'm not talking about blurred ideas like Churchill's United States of Europe but about real treaties. The Montan Union Treaty which marks the laying of the foundation stone of a later formally united European system is a product of the Franco-German reconciliation process. What you've said about common values is not deniable in regard to for example Spain, Italy, Austria and so on, but to be honest it's kinda questionable with regard to some East European states and entry candidate Turkey.


Modern EU was born to forget the bloody wars that were fought between the 2 powers of France and Germany in past centuries. The idea to share coal, necessary to forge weapons, was the basis.

I concord!


Every one in EU gives is contributions, not only France and Germany.

Did I deny that? Only it's a matter of fact that some give more, not because they can give more but because they want.


There are no reasonse to consider Europe only this 2 countries over the others.

Nations in EU are equal as members, I did not deny that.


Btw that's not a problem, the idea to restore a new domination of France and Germany will meet the opposition of a lot of EU countries and a lot more of other nations that are not linked to Germany.
May be officially many countries will back Germany, but it will be only due to economic power and economic relations of Germany that is equally to buy this seat.
Of course, Germany will be not backed by the conscience of people..... except the dinosaurs France and Uk that still live over a pride of Grandeur of XIX century. :roll:

That sounds more like a kind of hostility or prejudice than like really based concerns, doesn't it?


How many professional soldiers are in active duty, not reserve and nor coscripted in German armed forces??
Example: France 245000, Uk 230000, Italy 200000, Spain 155000, etc.
Could u provide a number, please?
Thanks a lot.

I don't know the exact figures, but I've heard that they only drafted 40000 conscripts this year. That would made a total of 244500 active troops. In direct reserve (troops that conducted at least four years of active duty and that are deployed to abroad deployments as well (some 5% of all contingents are reservists)) do 358000 soldiers serve, the entire reserve has a manpower of 600000 soldiers.

[Vandervahn]

How many professional soldiers are in active duty, not reserve and nor coscripted in German armed forces??
Example: France 245000, Uk 230000, Italy 200000, Spain 155000, etc.
Could u provide a number, please?
Thanks a lot.

188.827 professional soldiers
38,550 Conscripts
23.450 "volunteer conscripts", semiprofessional soldiers that voluntarily add up to 14 months service to their conscription time of 9 months - often persons waiting for the beginning of their professional education, or people still considering a proper miliary carreer.

So, 188.827 soldiers + 23.450 semi-profesionals vs. 38.550 conscripts = approx. 251.000 active servicemen <- Germany for teh win!

And just to be complete:

102.525 Heer (Army)
44.994 Luftwaffe
18.559 Marine (Navy)
55.230 Streitkräftebasis (Logistics and Organization)
18.593 Sanitätsdienst (Medical Services)
8.069 in other use
...aaand including 14.570 women (7%)


(Source= www.Bundeswehr.de (http://www.Bundeswehr.de), August ´07)

[european]

188.827 professional soldiers
38,550 Conscripts
23.450 "volunteer conscripts",


(Source= www.Bundeswehr.de (http://www.Bundeswehr.de), August ´07)

Thanks Vandervahn.
Resuming, there are in active duty 188.827+23.450=212277 soldiers ready and not conscripts in German armed forces today.
In line with the other EU countries. No doubts good, well equipped and well trained armed forced, but nothing of very impressive.

It's worh noting the lack of power projections.

Military strenght is not the only parameter to evaluate for a permanent seat of UNSC. Of course.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Thanks Vandervahn.
Resuming, there are in active duty 188.827+23.450=212277 soldiers ready and not conscripts in German armed forces today.
In line with the other EU countries. No doubts good, well equipped and well trained armed forced, but nothing of very impressive.

It's worh noting the lack of power projections.

Military strenght is not the only parameter to evaluate for a permanent seat of UNSC. Of course.

With the exception of England since god knows when and Germany in the decade before WW1 no European country has ever really had global force projection because they have generally not needed to have force projection.

For a time Italy controlled but it was only for a few years until the Royal Navy got it's act together.

Historically speaking this is why the British ended up becoming the greatest empire the world has ever seen. As it did not need a huge army to face multiple powers at the same time. France, Prussia, Bavaria, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Sweden. They needed huge armies simply to defend borders from multiple nations.

Unless you have massive economic interests at stake it's pointless in trying to have power projection to distant theaters.

[european]

With the exception of England since god knows when and Germany in the decade before WW1 no European country has ever really had global force projection because they have generally not needed to have force projection.

For a time Italy controlled but it was only for a few years until the Royal Navy got it's act together.

Historically speaking this is why the British ended up becoming the greatest empire the world has ever seen. As it did not need a huge army to face multiple powers at the same time. France, Prussia, Bavaria, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Sweden. They needed huge armies simply to defend borders from multiple nations.

Unless you have massive economic interests at stake it's pointless in trying to have power projection to distant theaters.



???? I don't understand, sorry.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Take Germany/German states/HRE for example. It was wedged between France, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Russia, Austro-Hungarian empires thus requiring a huge army.

Like wise France who had Spain, Germany, Austro-Hungarian

Try as they might they could never develop the required fleet to have substantial power projection because of the size of the armies needed to maintain the frontiers. Let alone armies for offensive operations.

Combine this with poor geographical access to the sea lanes and having power projection is not something they generally worried about.

[tsuri]

Your whole conflict is totally moot since the EU countries often have a joint position on the security council in the first place, so 3 members just means 3 votes for the EU which benefits everyone.

Joining the SC is more about information than anything else. Veto will not be given to new permanent members anyway.

[european]

Your whole conflict is totally moot since the EU countries often have a joint position on the security council in the first place, so 3 members just means 3 votes for the EU which benefits everyone.

Joining the SC is more about information than anything else. Veto will not be given to new permanent members anyway.

Often? r u sure?
In 2003 EU was divided in a minority of EU countries 4 out of 15 (France, Germany, Belgium and Lux vs the others).

I repeat, a Germany with this 'upgrade' will be the death of every union in EU.
Germany doesn't deserve a seat and I believe France too.