AHC: Canada with a permanent Security Council Seat

[CthulhuFhtagn]

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.

I guess you're right. Right now, India is the only one of the four that's strong enough (and the only one with nukes).

But Germany and Japan both spend more on their respective armed forces than India, which seems to imply that both countries are more than capable of building up a UNSC-level military. Their respective nuclear programs also show that they could build nuclear weapons. If they were to rearm, I think they would definitely qualify, although I'm pretty sure that France and China would freak out a little.

 

[zoomar]

I guess you're right. Right now, India is the only one of the four that's strong enough (and the only one with nukes).

But Germany and Japan both spend more on their respective armed forces than India, which seems to imply that both countries are more than capable of building up a UNSC-level military. Their respective nuclear programs also show that they could build nuclear weapons. If they were to rearm, I think they would definitely qualify, although I'm pretty sure that France and China would freak out a little.

I agree, if Germany and Japan expanded their armed forces, and showed greater willingness to use that weaponry in UN-sponsored global peacekeeping efforts they would deserve serious consideration. Both nations would still have to build up their strategic and logistic forces to support global operations, and as you note this would raise eyebrows of some existing SC members as well as significant sections of their own populations. France might accede to German membership...there is no way China would accept Japanese membership.

 

[Mike D]

But Germany and Japan both spend more on their respective armed forces than India, which seems to imply that both countries are more than capable of building up a UNSC-level military.

I think it implies more that they don't pay their soldiers on a third world level. One of the biggest costs for any military is wages/benefits and I would imagine that both Germany and Japan pay out a lot more in both than India. I remember reading once that a Brigadier in the Indian Army was earning less than I was as a Corporal in the British Army.

 

[SunilTanna]

A lot of this discussion kind of misses the point of having veto powers.

The reason they have a veto is that so the UN can not do something that would be so objectionable to a major power as to cause a war.

For example, if the UN decides to do something harmful to some tiny central American republic, that republic might object, but it doesnt cause an international crisis or a major war.

On the other hand if the UN decides to do something seriously harmful to one of the major military powers, you get a major war, which is why you give them a veto - so the UN won't do anything that would trigger a war.

Bear that in mind and a lot more becomes apparent:

In 1945 it makes no sense to have commonwealth veto seats, rotating or otherwise. The only cw country that will trigger a war for anything other than its own territorial integrity is Britain. Other cw members may fight to help Britain, but they are unlikely to initiate a war all by themselves. Generally speaking they don't have the means to either.

In 1945, china probably didn't deserve a seat on merit... But it came from American aspirations for china, as well as a desire to add legitimacy to the organisation.

Today: India might deserve a seat now or in near future. Brazil, Germany, and Japan don't if we use the historic criteria.

 

[thaddeus]

seen it mentioned several times elsewhere if Vichy France had continued a bit longer or been more active collaborator with Germany, etc. that France might have been replaced with Canada.

maybe farfetched, suppose if some treaty had been reached and a government fought the Allies more than colonial forces in N.Africa?

IMO Brazil would have gotten French seat not Canada.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

seen it mentioned several times elsewhere if Vichy France had continued a bit longer or been more active collaborator with Germany, etc. that France might have been replaced with Canada.

maybe farfetched, suppose if some treaty had been reached and a government fought the Allies more than colonial forces in N.Africa?

IMO Brazil would have gotten French seat not Canada.

Brazil might have gotten it in OTL if it had managed to make a more organized contribution to the war. But it might be seen as being under America's influence.

If France isn't on the UNSC, the most likely options are:
1. Don't bother adding a 5th member.
or
2. India. It hates Britain, it's wary of the US, China, and the USSR, it's not really capitalist, it's not really socialist, and it's huge. Of course, these might just be reasons why all 4 UNSC members would reject it.

 

[zoomar]

Brazil might have gotten it in OTL if it had managed to make a more organized contribution to the war. But it might be seen as being under America's influence.

If France isn't on the UNSC, the most likely options are:
1. Don't bother adding a 5th member.
or
2. India. It hates Britain, it's wary of the US, China, and the USSR, it's not really capitalist, it's not really socialist, and it's huge. Of course, these might just be reasons why all 4 UNSC members would reject it.

Probably needs a fifth member to avoid too many tie votes. In 1945 there really wasn't an option except for France. As long as deGaulle's Free French are in the picture they would probably get that seat even if Vichy fought alongside Hitler. India wasn't even independent yet in 1945 and as you noted the USSR would probably object to Brazil as a US puppet. A more realistic option in 1945 would probably have been to ditch China and France and go with a triumvirate of Britain, USA, and USSR. An odd number and clearly the most important countries at the time.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Probably needs a fifth member to avoid too many tie votes. In 1945 there really wasn't an option except for France. As long as deGaulle's Free French are in the picture they would probably get that seat even if Vichy fought alongside Hitler. India wasn't even independent yet in 1945 and as you noted the USSR would probably object to Brazil as a US puppet. A more realistic option in 1945 would probably have been to ditch China and France and go with a triumvirate of Britain, USA, and USSR. An odd number and clearly the most important countries at the time.

Unlikely. FDR wanted to build up China and Churchill wanted a strong France to act as a Contental ally and counterweight to the SU. Plus, Britain was about to lose most of their colonies. I don't think Canada can get a seat without it being a larger (in population) and independent state.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

Unlikely. FDR wanted to build up China and Churchill wanted a strong France to act as a Contental ally and counterweight to the SU. Plus, Britain was about to lose most of their colonies. I don't think Canada can get a seat without it being a larger (in population) and independent state.

Canada was an independent state. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 confirmed this.

But I agree that Canada would not get a seat.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Canada was an independent state. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 confirmed this.

But I agree that Canada would not get a seat.

I know. I meant one that could and would take an independent foreign policy. Canada was largely in Britains sphere. Just like South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

I know. I meant one that could and would take an independent foreign policy. Canida was largely in Britains sphere. Just like Suth Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

Far less so than Australia and New Zealand and even South Africa. Even pre-Statute of Westminster, Canadian governments of both stripes were already flexing an independent foreign policy (eg Chanak).

Certainly, there was the perception that Canada was just another vote for Britain, but by WWII, Canada was more likely to be in the 'American sphere' (much to the chagrin of many Tories such as Dief).

But I understand the point you are making

 

[Anaxagoras]

Stalin would never agree to this.

 

[Hades]

A more apocalyptic WW2 leaves the Americas as the first world, and the Security Council is as follows:

Argentina
Brazil
Canada
India
UK
USA

 

[Lee-Sensei]

A more apocalyptic WW2 leaves the Americas as the first world, and the Security Council is as follows:

Argentina
Brazil
Canada
India
UK
USA

Russia not getting a seat wouldn't happen. The only way to change the UNSC would be to go back before 1900 and raise the population of a country like Canada, Australia or Argentina or to keep one or two of the Axis countries neutral.

 

[oreocruncher]

I agree, if Germany and Japan expanded their armed forces, and showed greater willingness to use that weaponry in UN-sponsored global peacekeeping efforts they would deserve serious consideration. Both nations would still have to build up their strategic and logistic forces to support global operations, and as you note this would raise eyebrows of some existing SC members as well as significant sections of their own populations. France might accede to German membership...there is no way China would accept Japanese membership.

The problem is that both Germany and Japan really don't like doing military stuff though...
And it's not just China who would be against Japanese membership, South Korea is too...
And German membership isn't opposed by France, but it is by Italy and Spain, and there would be questions as to "Why are there 3/4 (depending on whether Russia counts) European countries with permanent vetoes?! It's not fair!!!" Not to mention the fact that for some (like the aforementioned Italy and Spain) a common EU seat would be a better option than Germany getting a seat...

 

[ennobee]

From my knowledge of history, the five permanent seats in the US security council were made up out of the original.three allies:US, UK and USSR with two 'stand-ins' for the axis powers: France for Germany (and a bit for Italy too) and China for Japan.

So the best scenario I can think of to make Canada a permanent vetoing member of the Security Council would be to make Canada a fourth allied power, not just a dominion of the UK. I don't know much about Canadian politics in the Roosefelt era but what if a more assertive and independent Canada would take the lead in bringing the US, Brittain and Russia together, with a Canadian head of state present at all the major meetings like Tehran, Jalta and Potsdam, hell... One could even butterfly the Breton Woods conference to Ottawa instead.

As for military, up to 1939 Canada had not much to show for, but at that time neither did the US. I doubt it had the economic potential to raise an army out of nothing the way the US had, but it could surely compete with the UK.
May be if they took a more prominent role in fighting - under their own flag- in Europe or Asia? Perhaps if there was a second Japanese front along the Pacific northwest?

 

[IndefatigableRN]

From my knowledge of history, the five permanent seats in the US security council were made up out of the original.three allies:US, UK and USSR with two 'stand-ins' for the axis powers: France for Germany (and a bit for Italy too) and China for Japan.

So the best scenario I can think of to make Canada a permanent vetoing member of the Security Council would be to make Canada a fourth allied power, not just a dominion of the UK. I don't know much about Canadian politics in the Roosefelt era but what if a more assertive and independent Canada would take the lead in bringing the US, Brittain and Russia together, with a Canadian head of state present at all the major meetings like Tehran, Jalta and Potsdam, hell... One could even butterfly the Breton Woods conference to Ottawa instead.

As for military, up to 1939 Canada had not much to show for, but at that time neither did the US. I doubt it had the economic potential to raise an army out of nothing the way the US had, but it could surely compete with the UK.
May be if they took a more prominent role in fighting - under their own flag- in Europe or Asia? Perhaps if there was a second Japanese front along the Pacific northwest?

Canada was influential in getting the US and Britain together. King, the PM was an important intermediary. The Head of State was the British King, although represented by the Governor General (who has limited political power).

Canada did raise an army out of nowhere. But with a population of maybe 1/3 of Britain, it really won't be able to compete with Britain.

Canada did fight under its own flag for the entire war. It entered on its own accord, passed by Parliament, 4 days after Britain declared war. Canadian troops fought in their own Divisions, Corps, and Army. There were even times when British Divisions served under Canadian command.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

From my knowledge of history, the five permanent seats in the US security council were made up out of the original.three allies:US, UK and USSR with two 'stand-ins' for the axis powers: France for Germany (and a bit for Italy too) and China for Japan.

So the best scenario I can think of to make Canada a permanent vetoing member of the Security Council would be to make Canada a fourth allied power, not just a dominion of the UK. I don't know much about Canadian politics in the Roosefelt era but what if a more assertive and independent Canada would take the lead in bringing the US, Brittain and Russia together, with a Canadian head of state present at all the major meetings like Tehran, Jalta and Potsdam, hell... One could even butterfly the Breton Woods conference to Ottawa instead.

As for military, up to 1939 Canada had not much to show for, but at that time neither did the US. I doubt it had the economic potential to raise an army out of nothing the way the US had, but it could surely compete with the UK.
May be if they took a more prominent role in fighting - under their own flag- in Europe or Asia? Perhaps if there was a second Japanese front along the Pacific northwest?

Two stand ins? The original major Allies were France and Britain. China was for the most part isolated. The US was a pro-Allies neutral and Russia was all, but working with the Axis. The UNSC, was made up by the primary victors of WW1.

 

[ennobee]

Two stand ins? The original major Allies were France and Britain. China was for the most part isolated. The US was a pro-Allies neutral and Russia was all, but working with the Axis. The UNSC, was made up by the primary victors of WW1.

Yes, but that was in 1939. At the conferences in Tehran and Yalta, there were practically only Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. Pretty good to represent the allied front, but if they were to represent the whole world in their new version of the league of nations, they would have to add someone from continental Europe and someone from Asia, and the two biggest players in those areas: Germany and Japan had just disqualified themselves by being the enemy, so they went to the next bigger ones instead

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Yes, but that was in 1939. At the conferences in Tehran and Yalta, there were practically only Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. Pretty good to represent the allied front, but if they were to represent the whole world in their new version of the league of nations, they would have to add someone from continental Europe and someone from Asia, and the two biggest players in those areas: Germany and Japan had just disqualified themselves by being the enemy, so they went to the next bigger ones instead

Not really. The world wasn't represented. South America, the Middle East, Australasia and Africa weren't represented and China never quit fighting. De Gaulle might not havebeen pleasant to the British and Americans, but he was always there too.