We should allow the g4 states into the UN Security council

It's too bad that con didn't follow the rules of rebuttals for the 3rd round. No harm done though. Now let me first clarify what makes a country a member of the security council. A security council permanent member is a nation that proves itself to be a world super power, capable and willing to carry out UN mandates. A country that can use economic sanctions or shotgun diplomacy to sway other countries thinking. I think it's been pretty unanimous that the security council needs some kind of reform. Right now, all 5 nations with permanent seats support the g4 proposal (Except Japan, which China feels hasn't changed enough from ww2), with this in consideration, this will most likely pass unless China uses there obnoxious veto privileges again. With this being said. .. Lets begin. . http://www.un.org...Japan------- - My opponent claims that a permanent seat can't be purchased. I don't know when I claimed you could,but I agree. The thing is though, commerce is perhaps the most powerful weapon that's ever been put in effect. Believe it or not, countries have employed a thing called a embargo. This embargo can bleed a countries wealth dry. Of course this effects the home countries wallet to, but rich countries like Japan can afford the lost income. You would be surprised what some countries would do if they couldn't get there cheap Japanese cars and video games. The US embargo chokes a 625 million of lost potential each year. -Now as I stated earlier,one of the main goals of council members is to be able to carry out UN mandates. What better nation to do this then a rich nation like Japan. Japans economy allows it to be able to afford expensive mandates, even with some wiggle room. - My Opponent claims that Japans economy might fail. It's not wise to think decades ahead in hypothetical. For the moment It's well ahead of France,Russia, and the UK. Even if my opponents predictions are true, that's decades away. -HDI---> Yes I understand there's countries above Japan, but only a couple. The point I was trying to make was that Japans is above all other security members except the US. I didn't do a HDI rating for Brazil and India, because I already knew there's was low. I had other reasons I felt still made them edgible. -- A stable and uncorrupted government is a pretty big requirement though, don't you think? Countries ran efficiently and without corruption are better suited to make decisions. A permanent seat comes with amazing powers. A nation with much corruption can't be trusted to influence the world in the ways a council seat would enable it to. . http://www.dollarsandsense.org...India------Side Note-----------> Even though most of what's on wikipedia is true,it's not really a reliable source. I recommend you use the references at the bottom of the article. 1. I did not base there military strength on personal alone. I reasoned that they had a strong navy and a modest air force. They also possess a rather large arsenal of nuclear weapons. Considering only 10 nations own these weapons of destruction, it's reasonable to assume this would be a nearly if more important then the base army.2. North Korea is a different story. North Korea is believed to be quite obsolete in technology compared too modern day standards. They also have a pretty ragtag navy and air force. 3. Military size has a huge impact on the seat. Trust me, few countries want to deal with the horde. Especially one this size. 4. Did I mention nukes! ! ! 5. Well this ones a more opinionated argument. I believe the UN has been trying to get a South American and eastern country in the security loop for a while now. The African Union has even been trying to choose two African states to join the g4. The only argument I can offer is that only a country in South America would know what's best for South America. 6. India could also quickly resolve the Kashmir issue if it were a permanent council member. Brazil------ 1. The point you make is true for China also. Would you not consider China a superpower just because the majority are poor? This is a sad reality with many countries now adays. The rich in Brazil an India are above the poor, but I'm trying to illustrate the governments power and not the individuals wealth. Is it not true that the USSR in it's heyday was filled to the brim with famine and hunger? Yet they were still considered a superpower. 2. The point isn't that Brazil can contend with the US or China. The reason why so many people want Brazil in the council is to ensure a quick end to any south American disputes. South America represents a huge chunk in the world and we need a country to be able to carry out mandates there. I assure you that any country there would think twice before going up against Brazil. Closing--------My opponent claims that India, Brazil, and Japan have no say in international politics. He is partially right. The whole point of the security council is to give countries power in international politics. People would not be so receptive to the security council nations if they did not hold there positions. The positions they have used to solve so many dispute in the past. Think of how many more can be solved with new members. I am going to ask con if we can end this debate as it has already taken quite a chunk of my time.