Notes: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.
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.
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.
Not after 1948 it wouldn't be, and since the PRC didn't exist before 1949...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.
Not after 1948 it wouldn't be, and since the PRC didn't exist before 1949...
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.Isn't it "not after 1931", when the Statute of Westminster came into effect?
No, the PRC was proclaimed in 1949, before that the communists were just one of the factions fighting for control.Also, the PRC did exist before 1949, it just didn't control as much territory.
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 ...