Interesting points, Mustavaris. I think a proportional vote based on a population x GNP would be the fairest formula for all concerned. If the third world wants to have a real voice in how the planet is run they can clean out the corrupt thugs running things there and start making a bit of money, like wise Europe can choose whether or not to vote as a single bloc or independently. This allows some of the more independent minded European nations to exercise a 'conscience vote' if they feel so inclined. Forget military power, the whole idea of a forum like the UN is so people can talk not shoot, leave the guns at home.

Frankly we should just get out of the UN until it reverts back to JUST a place for diplomacy.

Not holding your breath then. I can appreciate that.

Is it, though? Military is always playing a large role in diplomacy. The Security Council annoys me. 5 uber-nations, then even more so, the US, the uber-uber nation. Germany, Japan, India, are all being omitted from the council. Boot off France and Great Britain, put in those 3, and make it 6. Don't argue that Russia shouldn't be there, because it should.

"Fiat experimentum in corpore vili" Here are some options, and their drawbacks: Zero permanent members with veto power. All countries on the UNSC would vote up or down on UN resolutions, and the most persuasive countries would rule the agenda. 1 permanent member with veto power. Who would we trust with this power? Switzerland? 2 permanent members with veto power. A permanent Cold War. ... 15 permanent members with veto power. The UN shuts down due to lack of interest. I think the United Nations is obsolete anyway. Why do we need a neutral ground for diplomats from opposing countries to posture at each other anymore? Can't we just give all the nations' diplomats an America Online chat room?

Mustarvis, I think your note illustrates some of the problem regarding the UN we're having. For instance, "one recognized country has one vote in UN and in few exceptions some coutries have creater power as permanent members of certain councils and/or by having a veto. Should there be some other way to share the power?" Sorry, but this is just wrong. First, you've confused and lumped together the General Assembly and the Security Council. Have you ever read the Charter of the United Nations? The General Assembly *has NO power*. It's a debating society. Strictly speaking, it was conceived as a "permanent diplomatice conference", but not one with any binding power, whatever. The Security Council was conceived as an instrument of power, but one whose power derived from the it's member nations, especially the Permanent Members. It never was intended to be a democractic institution. If it had been, it wouldn't exist. It would never have been created in the first place. None of the Permanent Members ever agreed to contribute their power and freedom of action and accept that the rest of the world could control it on a one country one vote basis. I understand the appeal of the idea that more than 150 countries can contribute very little, but get a handle on the great powers and order them to do or not do as they please. Sorry, we didn't agree to that and we don't agree to that and if you try to act as if that's the actual state of affairs in the world you'll find us angry and refusing to continue to participate in your League of Nations. What Europe looks like is a completely open question which I, for one, can't possibly predict with any certainty. I strongly doubt you'll create a federation out of the whole EU in that time frame. If you try, you'll probably bust the institution apart. You might get a much tighter arrangement out of some portion of the present membership, but certainly not out of the whole thing. And, frankly, I'd like to see how even the most committed federalists react to the first really severe crisis (which the present events in the world are not, as of yet). Somehow, I doubt that the Franco-German entente cordiale is really that stable or permanent. Perhaps I'm wrong. Time will tell.