Timeline for How did Russia retain the UNSC veto power of the Soviet Union?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 1, 2018 at 15:00 | history | suggested | lly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar; phrasing
|
| Jul 1, 2018 at 13:33 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 1, 2018 at 15:00 | |||||
| Jun 28, 2018 at 0:40 | comment | added | smci | Other obvious options would have been to replace USSR or rebalance by adding an extra country(/ies), although that would also have opened an unresolvable can of worms about which countries. If Brexit happens and the UK downsizes its military and has a sustained economic decline, it might well be in the same situation as 1991 USSR. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 14:47 | comment | added | T.E.D. | @Rekesoft - I agree it would be totally unrealistic, but not because of Russia's physical size. If that were a reasonable critera, Canada as #2 should be on there. See my answer here for more info on why the UNSC permanent membership is made up the way it is, and how realistic it would be for it to ever change. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 14:44 | comment | added | Rekesoft | We don't really disagree. But the idea of kicking Russia, the largest country in the world, out of the council, it's as unrealistic at least than kicking out China, the most populated. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 14:41 | comment | added | T.E.D. | @Rekesoft - The Republican government of China that originally held the Security Council seat (as a US ally in WWII) was chased to Taiwan, where it still resides. Its a little backwards to talk like this was "Taiwan" somehow taking China's rightful seat, when if anything the opposite happened. Admittedly, that was just a matter of admitting political reality, and rightly done, but still the only party to this that has any cause whatsoever to be sore about having a seat taken away is the Republic of China (ROC). | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 14:23 | comment | added | Rekesoft | @T.E.D. As AmiralPatate notes, it's not only that China could have been next, but it had already been there, from 1949 to 1971 when its seat at the Council was occupied by Taiwan. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 14:03 | comment | added | T.E.D. | As the largest country in the world, China would never "have been next". Even the US (who is chiefly responsible for China having that seat in the first place) would likely have vetoed that. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 12:07 | comment | added | AmiralPatate | It's also interesting to note China was in a somewhat similar position in 1971, when the seat of the Republic of China was awarded to the People's Republic of China after everybody finally agreed the PRC was the one and only China, and that was well after the PRC controlled all but Taiwan. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 10:46 | comment | added | Annatar | I think this is the core reason. The NATO powers surely could have bent/rewritten the international laws if they had really wanted to (as victors of the Cold War with no rival to stop them). But it was very pragmatic to fasten the status quo before Germany, Japan, India etc. started thinking too much about alternative setups of the Council. | |
| Jun 26, 2018 at 10:19 | history | edited | Rekesoft | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jun 26, 2018 at 10:08 | history | edited | James K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling
|
| Jun 26, 2018 at 9:51 | history | answered | Rekesoft | CC BY-SA 4.0 |