Permanent UN Security Council seat Allocated by Continent

So what would happen if the Permanent Members of the Security council were decided by continental landmasses.
So you would have one chosen from Africa, Asia, Europe, North And South America and Australia.

How would this effect how the UN Security council operates?
 
Well Europe's representative would have to be the USSR. And North America is the USA. Assuming that the UN is formed at the same time, and under the same general circumstances as OTL, then China is the Asian representative, which becomes problematic when it becomes Communist. South America is Brazil. Which just leaves Africa. Africa is really hard, given that it's before decolonisation. At first glance I'd say South Africa, but that would give South Africa, a member of the Commonwealth, more power than the clearly-more-powerful Great Britain. So I'd have to go with Egypt. If Mao comes to power, this is actually quite convenient: 2 Western nations, 2 Communist ones, and a non-aligned.

Edit: just saw that Australia is in this. But then I guess when Egypt goes pro-Soviet, as OTL, then it'll be fair.
 
What about The US, GB, and USSR get permanent seats that have veto power then there are seats for each continent elected by the members from that continent? Initially I can see France getting the Europe seat (but quickly being replaced by Sweden); Asia going to China, South America goes to Brazil. Africa goes to Ethiopia (sympathy vote since they were the nation screwed by the League of Nations), North America is probably Mexico given concern that Canada would be a puppet of GB.

Would Oceania get a seat? Initially that would be Australia or New Zealand but eventually with countries that come into being the Pacific Islands should get representation.
 
What about The US, GB, and USSR get permanent seats that have veto power then there are seats for each continent elected by the members from that continent? Initially I can see France getting the Europe seat (but quickly being replaced by Sweden); Asia going to China, South America goes to Brazil. Africa goes to Ethiopia (sympathy vote since they were the nation screwed by the League of Nations), North America is probably Mexico given concern that Canada would be a puppet of GB.

Would Oceania get a seat? Initially that would be Australia or New Zealand but eventually with countries that come into being the Pacific Islands should get representation.
Notes:
1) You just maimed the already maimed UN.
2) Why Sweden? It has a lower population that France,West Germany, Spain,Italy....and don't say it's because they have an untouched industry or anything like that...
3) Giving Ethiopia a sympathy vote?! The very idea of a sympathy vote scares me..(don't forget to add in Poland,Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia........)
 
NA: USA
SA: UK (Falkland Islands, Jamaica, etc.)
Europe: France
Asia: USSR
Australia: Netherlands (Indonesia) or Australia

A more Western-dominated Security Council than OTL, and no China seat. I'd expect a more hostile PRC, and maybe no realignment with the West.
 
So what would happen if the Permanent Members of the Security council were decided by continental landmasses.
So you would have one chosen from Africa, Asia, Europe, North And South America and Australia.

How would this effect how the UN Security council operates?

This wouldn't happen without the intervention of Skippy the ASB.
Britain and France would refuse (quite sensibly) to being represented by the USSR. Push this through, and you'll have a UN without two of the great powers of the time. America isn't going to agree with this either.
At the time, there wasn't any country in either Africa or South America, or Australasia, with enough clout to justify such an elevation.
 
This wouldn't happen without the intervention of Skippy the ASB.
Britain and France would refuse (quite sensibly) to being represented by the USSR. Push this through, and you'll have a UN without two of the great powers of the time. America isn't going to agree with this either.
At the time, there wasn't any country in either Africa or South America, or Australasia, with enough clout to justify such an elevation.

Could we give the USSR a seat of its own and then pick two from each continent?

So:

North America: USA, Mexico
South America: Brazil, Argentina
Europe: Britain, France
Asia: PRC, India
Africa: South Africa, Egypt
Oceania: Australia, New Zealand
USSR
Antarctica

And make it so that there is no UNSC liberum veto - make it so that there have to be at least three members agreeing to veto.
 
Could we give the USSR a seat of its own and then pick two from each continent?

So:

North America: USA, Mexico
South America: Brazil, Argentina
Europe: Britain, France
Asia: PRC, India
Africa: South Africa, Egypt
Oceania: Australia, New Zealand
USSR
Antarctica

And make it so that there is no UNSC liberum veto - make it so that there have to be at least three members agreeing to veto.

1: Mexico wasn't anywhere near powerful enough to warrant that. And probably not tightly enough under US "control" for the Americans to accept this.

2: Neither nation has the clout to warrant this.

4: India was a third-world country....and a bit too friendly with the Soviets. Wouldn't have been accepted by the US.

5: Not happening either. South Africa was firmly in the British camp, and granting them a permanent seat would have been, in effect, granting Britain two seats. The Soviets (and the Chinese) wouldn't have gone for that.

6: Same as #5. This would give the UK 4 effective permanent seats, and NEITHER the US nor USSR were going to go along with that.

7: Antarctica??

Also, you'll have made the UNSC even more of a Polish_parliament than it already is, because you'll have the 12 permanent members, and then the other seats where member states take turns.
And no liberum veto isn't going to be accepted by any of the parties. Neither the US nor the USSR were willing to risk being curbstomped by the others, and understandably so.

So IF this solution was insisted upon, it would have been with the liberum veto as per OTL, and we'd end up with an even more impotent and currupt UN than we already have.
 
Isn't it "not after 1931", when the Statute of Westminster came into effect?
Maybe legally, but Jan Smuts was so far in bed with the British establishment (Churchill actually seriously considered Smuts as his replacement should he be killed) that it made little difference until he was deposed in the '48 election.

Also, the PRC did exist before 1949, it just didn't control as much territory.
No, the PRC was proclaimed in 1949, before that the communists were just one of the factions fighting for control.
 
limiting it to one per continent per Syphon's post and assuming the UN is formed under the same circumstances I would say.

North America: USA
South America: Brazil
Europe: USSR
Asia: ROC
Africa: Egypt
Oceania: Australia

But I would ultimately have to agree with dissenting voices that it is an ASB idea. The Security Council OTL was quite simply made up of the Great Powers following WW2, those countries are going to demand representation that conflicts with a one country per continent setup.
 
Notes:
1) You just maimed the already maimed UN.
2) Why Sweden? It has a lower population that France,West Germany, Spain,Italy....and don't say it's because they have an untouched industry or anything like that...
3) Giving Ethiopia a sympathy vote?! The very idea of a sympathy vote scares me..(don't forget to add in Poland,Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia........)


1) The three main powers aren't going to accept being put up to a vote. If they don't agree there is no U.N.

2) In 1947-50 Who besides France is going to be available as a European country? Germany isn't 'rehabilitated' yet. Spain is a surviving Fascist nation. The rest of the continent is divided between the two sides of the cold war. Sweden is an unalligned choice.

3) There aren't many independent countries in Africa in the late 40s. Egypt, Liberia Ethiopia, Rhodesia, South Africa. the last two are part of the Commenwealth. The British were still slightly upset at the Egyptians preparation for Rommel's entry into Alexandria and Cairo. Ethiopia was invaded by Italy in the mid 30s and the Legue of Nations did nothing. Yea not the best of reasons but ...
 
1) The three main powers aren't going to accept being put up to a vote. If they don't agree there is no U.N.

2) In 1947-50 Who besides France is going to be available as a European country? Germany isn't 'rehabilitated' yet. Spain is a surviving Fascist nation. The rest of the continent is divided between the two sides of the cold war. Sweden is an unalligned choice.

3) There aren't many independent countries in Africa in the late 40s. Egypt, Liberia Ethiopia, Rhodesia, South Africa. the last two are part of the Commenwealth. The British were still slightly upset at the Egyptians preparation for Rommel's entry into Alexandria and Cairo. Ethiopia was invaded by Italy in the mid 30s and the Legue of Nations did nothing. Yea not the best of reasons but ...

2. Switzerland? Finland? Yugoslavia?

3. How about Liberia, then? (BTW, Rhodesia was still a British colony at this time.)
 
Top