There are 5 permanant members of the Security council and 10 other random member states rotate every 2 years. Syria's term has ended.

How is it bad that Syria has had an oppurtunity to participate in open diplomacy? They were selected, therefore they were obligated to furfill the duty, its part of being a member. If you do not allow each member to be involved, then its not coalition diplomacy and the international organization will have no real power, leading to failure.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

u can let syria into the un that's for sure,but a country who supports terror organizations should not be allowed to discuss the matter of world security.

Moderation my friends...
While it is ridiculous to give Syria too much control over such an issue, it is equally important that they be given a voice. I'm fully convinced that the other voices will drown them out. But democracy requires open discussion, even from people who oppose it. Feelings of utter powerlessness lead to lack of hope, desparate behavior, and worse.
By giving Syria some voice, we also put them in a position where there is something to lose and something to gain. Then we can pressure them into reform, a voice for their own people, an end to terror.
Even in rats, anticipated positive outcomes are more influential than negativie reinforcement, especially in situations of desparation and hopelessness. For them to take risks, they must be able to see potential gains and know that their current situation is better than it would be if they did not.

Personally, I think that power within the U.N. should be tied to human rights records. By that measurement, Syria would be very much marginalized.

[quote="kaka100";p="182977"]You can also argue that countries that have nukes, like Israel and the U.S., have also no right to discuss world security. Despite the individual differences of each state, everyone has the right to discuss world security because world security does not just mean the security of the U.S. and its friends, it means everyone.

That would no doubt lead to instant failure. You would not only be alienating half the governments in the U.N., but you would be alienating the states and all people in those states, at the same time consolidating power in the hands of western states. Clearly the nations would be divided, not united.

__________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. " — John Stuart Mill

Actually, it would give all countries, including the United States, an incentive to respect human rights at all times. It would raise the overall ethical standard in the world.

Even Machiavelli understood that a person (or nation) with nothing cannot be controlled. I really hate to think about things in Machiavellian terms, but we are talking about trying to control the behavior of countries when it really comes down to it. To a disenfranchised or disaffected person (or country) carrots and sticks mean little. They only have meaning when the person (or country) is involved in the system.
For instance, how would being suspended from school affect you if you were unable to obtain a diploma anyway for some reason? What good would a heavy tax cut do for you if you have no property and minimal income?

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

In my opinion, if the UN treats every state as equal in decision-making processes, the result will be that the better nations are dragged down to the ethical mean. In terms of sanctions, though, I would never cut off food or medical supplies.

amm first of all wildbore,israel never said she had nukes.she keeps the right of silence as u say.it's better this way.

oh and to force of the truth:then u would consider the ussr out?all of the arab contries?china?east europe in the cold war?all of them didn't respect human rights.the un is mainly for disscusion and mostly to insults between super powers and it's supporters.....

Well, with China, for example, I would reward its government for every step towards democracy and the recognition of basic freedoms by giving it more power in the UN. In that way, China's wish to have power in the global community would be fulfilled only if it complied with basic standards of human rights. This is the behaviorist approach.