AHC: Canada with a permanent Security Council Seat
- Thread starter Ming777
- Start date
Did Canada ever try to get a permanent seat? If I recall correctly, Canada demobilized to nearly pre-war levels pretty much the second after Japan surrendered. Any bid at a permanent seat would require maintaining a decent sized military which didn't start happening I don't think until the Korean War.
I guess you could try to make a case for Canada now based on economic clout, but I would say that Japan, India and Brazil should all get dibs first.
I guess you could try to make a case for Canada now based on economic clout, but I would say that Japan, India and Brazil should all get dibs first.
Canada, unsc permanent seat? ASB. Canada doesn't have economic, political, military clout that the current 5 have.
The best solution to have a permanent unsc seat is if Canada is part of the USA. Otherwise, no part in Canada's history does it even come close to great power status from1945-2014 at the level of France, Britain, China, USA or USSR.
The best solution to have a permanent unsc seat is if Canada is part of the USA. Otherwise, no part in Canada's history does it even come close to great power status from1945-2014 at the level of France, Britain, China, USA or USSR.
Given that Canada has a ready supply of the raw materials to make a nuclear weapon, plus had some scientific involvement in Tube Alloys, and Chalk River Laboratories, it's possible to have a nuclear-armed Canada testing its first weapon sometime between 1952 and the 1960s. That could give it status on the Non-Proliferation Treaty as one of six nuclear-weapon states. How one goes from that to getting Canada on the UNSC is beyond me though.
So maybe an arrangement where each of others from the OTL original 5, except for China which at that stage doesn't have as much influence, gets a potential supporter like that as well... although maybe those permanent seats don't come with the power of veto?
So we have a Security Council with 9 permanent members?
Perhaps with Poland -- which supplied the Allied cause with a lot of troops, after all -- as either the French ally [in wartime thinking] or the Russian "ally" [as it turned out post-war] instead?
But then who would the other permanent member (seen as a likely supporter of etiher France or Russia] be?
Maybe Poland is originally seated [during the war] as the supposedly pro-French member, through its government in exile, whilst the USSR effectively gets two seats (for Russia proper, and... the Ukraine?) at that stage?
Son of Leman Russ
Banned
UH, with POD in 1930s, RAF is far weaker, Battle of Britain won by Germany, and Britain basically evacuate British Islands and fight on from Canada?
And eventually, due to massive wartime destruction in British Islands, the government basically wholesomely move everything to Canada?
And eventually, due to massive wartime destruction in British Islands, the government basically wholesomely move everything to Canada?
I wonder if the original designers of the UN could be convinced to allocate a permanent rotating non veto seat to the core Commonwealth at war's end? It would seem unlikely, but at that point those countries were reasonably powerful given their involvement in the war.
(South Africa, Australia, NZ, Canada)
(South Africa, Australia, NZ, Canada)
Quite.
Improbable, but theoretically possible.
If Canada were to get a permanent, non-veto seat, you'd have to give the same to a handful of other powers, e.g. Brazil, later Germany, India, etc.
It would be a very different Security Council.
That is a possible solution, but I'd go one step farther and propose that there be no "British" seat, but a British Commonwealth veto seat that rotates among Britain and the four Commonwealth members you mention (although SA might become iffy in the later apartheid years). This might help ensure that the Commonwealth remains an important organization in geopolitics.
Note that the Soviets originally made some objection to giving the Dominions separate seats in the General Assembly, under the argument that they should be all represented under one British Empire seat. They weren't entirely serious (mainly using it as a bargaining chip to try to get all the constituent SSRs to get their own seats), but they would certainly raise the concern if Canada was to be raised to an equal to the other 5.
More practically, the last thing the UN needs is even more veto powers, but that's a separate issue.
More practically, the last thing the UN needs is even more veto powers, but that's a separate issue.
At the time it was agreed that China would be given its permanent seat IOTL, it wasn't anywhere near the "great power" status itself...
But it was the world's most populous country, it certainly had been a great power at various times in its history, and had the potential to become one again. I don't think you can really compare that to Canada, which had 12 million people in 1945.
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Do I even want to ask what they're going to use as a delivery system?
Do I even want to ask what they're going to use as a delivery system?
CF-100 Canuck?
Pretty early for the Arrow...
Maybe a Bolingbroke?
Best,
Do I even want to ask what they're going to use as a delivery system?
CF-100 Canuck?
Pretty early for the Arrow...
Maybe a Bolingbroke?
Best,
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
A scenario like The Anglo-American Nazi War could satisfy the challenge:
-Nazis defeat the USSR.
-About 8 years later, the USA and the British Commonwealth invade Europe and defeat the Nazis.
-All of Western Europe has been turned into an irradiated warzone. France is a 3rd world country. Germany and the USSR no longer exist. Eastern Europe has been depopulated.
-The 5 most powerful nations in the world, and the only countries with nuclear weapons, are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and India. These 5 nations form the UN Security Council.
-Nazis defeat the USSR.
-About 8 years later, the USA and the British Commonwealth invade Europe and defeat the Nazis.
-All of Western Europe has been turned into an irradiated warzone. France is a 3rd world country. Germany and the USSR no longer exist. Eastern Europe has been depopulated.
-The 5 most powerful nations in the world, and the only countries with nuclear weapons, are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and India. These 5 nations form the UN Security Council.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
That's not a good rationale. The UN doesn't really work now. Under the current system, four of the largest and wealthiest countries in the world are excluded from having a veto.
India, Japan, Germany, and Brazil all have larger economies and populations than the UK or France, and yet they have much less influence because of how the world was back in 1945.
You are assuming that being populous or rich matters for UNSC membership. There's a reason it's called the Security Council, rather than the Economic and Population Council.
Of these four, only India deserves consideration. It is not wealth and economic power that matters in a Security Council but military power and (more imporantly) the will to use it. Germany and Japan remain completely irrelevant. Brazil comes closer, perhaps, but only India really qualifies.