Brazil, Germany, India, Japan launch joint bid for UN Council seats

Should those countries be permanent member of the UNSC ?

  • Yes, all the four, and also an African and/or a Muslim nation

    Votes: 18 21.4%
  • Yes, all the four, but not more

    Votes: 22 26.2%
  • Only some of them

    Votes: 7 8.3%
  • None of them. It should remain the same

    Votes: 10 11.9%
  • We should remove some today's member

    Votes: 8 9.5%
  • Other solution

    Votes: 15 17.9%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 4 4.8%

  • Total voters
    84

Marla_Singer

United in diversity
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
13,653
Location
Paris, East side.
afp_lo_1.gif
From Yahoo! (AFP) :

NEW YORK (AFP) - Brazil, Germany, India and Japan launched a united bid for permanent UN Security Council seats, arguing that expanded membership was crucial to addressing new global threats. A joint declaration said all four countries, "based on the firmly shared recognition that they are legitimate candidates for permanent membership in an expanded Security Council, support each other's candidature."

capt.sge.lnc56.210904233630.photo00.default-380x275.jpg

The statement followed a meeting between Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, and the Indian and Japanese prime ministers, Manmohan Singh and Junichiro Koizumi, at a New York hotel on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

Their proposal, which also envisages a permanent seat for Africa and an expansion of the non-permanent Council membership, would represent the largest shake-up at the top decision-making body of the United Nations in its nearly 60-year history. Reform of the 15-nation Security Council has the firm support of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), who set up a high-level panel that is scheduled to offer concrete proposals for change in December.

The council has had the same five permanent members with veto power -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- since the United Nations was established in the wake of World War II. Ten other nations are elected as non-permanent members for two-year terms each.

Reform of the council, which passes resolutions that are legally binding on the UN's 191 member states, is seen as overdue by many observers, both supporters and critics of the institution alike. Annan has said the question of reform took on added urgency after last year's crisis over Iraq, when the United States went to war without the backing of the council.

"In order for the international community to effectively address the various threats and challenges that it presently faces, it is important to reform the United Nations as a whole," Tuesday's joint statement said. The common front established by the four nations contains compelling individual claims for permanent Council membership.

Japan pays more money into the UN coffers than any nation except the United States, and Germany is third. India is the world's largest democracy, and Brazil can make a strong case to represent South America. "All four states regard themselves as natural candidates," Fischer said after the meeting, "based on what they are doing for the UN, what they are capable of doing and also because of their regional roles."

Old regional animosities, however, are likely to ensure that none enjoys an easy ride. Pakistan could find it hard to accept India, their nuclear-armed neighbour, while Italy, a solid ally of the United States in Iraq, has already said it will oppose Germany, which did not back the war. Brazil's bid might get a lukewarm reception in Mexico and Argentina, and China on Tuesday indicated reservations over Japan's candidacy, saying the UN was "not a board of directors" whose composition could be decided by "the financial contribution of its members."

At least one of the five current permanent members, Britain, has already voiced its support for all four bids. Addressing the General Assembly later in the day, Koizumi fleshed out Japan's credentials, pointing to its reconstruction efforts in Iraq and, as well as its leading role in talks to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. "Countries with the will and resources to play a major role in international peace and security must always take part in the Council's decision-making process," he said. Koizumi also claimed a unique voice for Japan as the only country to have suffered a nuclear attack.

The reform question has been thrown back and forth for years and it remains to be seen whether Annan's panel can come up with a working or acceptable plan. Meanwhile no consensus has emerged on who should represent Africa, and there is debate over whether geographical criteria alone are sufficient, with many since the Iraq war now pushing for a dedicated seat for a Muslim nation.
 
Interesting indeed. As for that push for a "Muslim" nation, if I recall, India has either the world's second or third largest Muslim population so I would say it qualifies in that sense. I see no reason why Japan and Germany should not get a seat nor why Brazil shouldn't being the largest nation in Latin and South America. With India, in my opinion, it being a democracy and the world's second most populous nation at that makes it qualify. However, when looking at things realistically, I don't think anything will ever happen as the P5 (permanent 5) would probably not be willing to share veto power.
 
Makes sense, I don't really see a problem with it.
 
The part that most caught my eye was the part about regional disputes working against these four admissions. Various nations don't want various other nations in the SC for the simple reason that it's against their interests.

As a meeting place, the UN seems to be working out--but as an entity that can actually get stuff done, the UN needs a rewrite on a very basic level.
 
The only problem I see is that there would be nine nations with veto power. If Japan, Germany, Brazil and India are made permanent members, then the Security Council is restricted by not only the domestic interests of the US, UK, France, China and Russia but also the new member nations. I'd like for these nations to have permanent seats in the SC (though I think that Germany and France should combine their spot in power to an EU seat), but right now they would further bog down UN bureaucracy.

My solution is require a certain number of permanent members voting yes to pass a resolution, not all of them (with 5, that would be 4 of 5, with 9, 7 of 9) to help prevent the special interests of the permanent members from clouding judgment, but the current Big Five wouldn't agree to that.

EDIT:

African nation? Maybe South Africa; none of the other African nations are stable enough, but even South Africa isn't any more important in world affairs than, say, Canada or Poland.

Muslim nation? Possibly Egypt or Turkey, but the rest are nearly all authoritarian, highly theocratic regimes. Also, I think a Muslim nation should only be added if the aforesaid 4/5, 7/9 (8/10) rule was instated.
 
Brazil, anti-U.S. creeping dictature - No.

Germany, anti-U.S. socialist power - No.

India, just plain old anti-U.S. - No.

Japan, pro-U.S. ally - Yes.
 
FredLC said:
IMHO, there should be none with veto power, so I chose "other solution".

Regards :).
Being a permanent member and having the veto power are two different things. Of course, today it means the same, but I'm not sure it will remain so in the case 5 other members become permanent. In such a case, the risk everything would be vetoed is too strong.

I personally believe that those 4 countries should be member, and none should have any veto, not even among the current 5. Of course, I hardly see any member who would be ready to lose its veto power... so here lies the main difficulty to see new permanent members appearing. But anyway, in the idea, I still support the initiative.
 
I can't really see I care, as I think the world would be a better place without the UN anyway. But going for the lesser of all the evils, I'll choose that they should not be included, this will hopefully continue to minimize the UN's ability world wide.
 
Germany, India, and Japan are obvious candidates, but not Brazil. What ranks Brazil above say, South Korea or Spain or Italy or Canada in terms of power and influence?

[no offense to our Brazilian posters]
 
Cuivienen said:
My solution is require a certain number of permanent members voting yes to pass a resolution, not all of them (with 5, that would be 4 of 5, with 9, 7 of 9) to help prevent the special interests of the permanent members from clouding judgment, but the current Big Five wouldn't agree to that.
I like this solution. But of course, it's also sure it won't be accepted. There's a high chance that if those 4 new ones are accepted, they wouldn't have the veto power, but the old 5 will keep theirs. It's a crappy solution, but according to each countries interests, it seems the most probable. :(

African nation? Maybe South Africa; none of the other African nations are stable enough, but even South Africa isn't any more important in world affairs than, say, Canada or Poland.

Muslim nation? Possibly Egypt or Turkey, but the rest are nearly all authoritarian, highly theocractic regimes. Also, I think a Muslim nation should only be added if the aforesaid 4/5, 7/9 (8/10) rule was instated.
Could someone explain me since when Egypt is not authoritarian ? According to a recent study, Mubarak is the second Egyptian leader who stayed the longer in power after Ramses II. :hmm: :coffee:

Besides that, I agree with you. The main problem about a muslim nation or an African nation is that there are no countries who can decently pretend to share the board... That's the reason why I finally vote for "only the 4". I agree with the principle, but I think that it wouldn't work. A nation needs to be enough strong and autonomous to pretend to become a permanent member.
 
Germany, India, and Japan are obvious candidates, but not Brazil. What ranks Brazil above say, South Korea or Spain or Italy or Canada in terms of power and influence?

Brazil is the Latin American superpower and has considerable influence
 
The UN itself is getting out of hand, it needs some serious work.
As for the Security Council: I support the removal of veto power. I think that a simple 2/3 majority should be required.
On the topic of the 4 new candidates, I think we should move to have 11 countries on the SC, but replace France with Germany or leave as is, and replace three rotating seats with Brazil, India, and Japan.

France and Germany act too much alike to warrant seperate seats. That's just giving the EU an unwarranted advatage over any other special interest group.
 
nihilistic said:
Germany, India, and Japan are obvious candidates, but not Brazil. What ranks Brazil above say, South Korea or Spain or Italy or Canada in terms of power and influence?

[no offense to our Brazilian posters]
Brazil is a country of 180 million people. It has a strong influence over the whole South America. None of the countries you've mentionned have as much influence as Brazil.
 
Whew these posts are coming fast a furious....

Brazil is a country of 180 million people. It has a strong influence over the whole South America. None of the countries you've mentionned have as much influence as Brazil.
Yes but south america is almost irrelevant in serious world politics is it not? Its not like you ever here about it on the news, besides the occasional drug-related thing.
 
Arminius said:
The UN itself is getting out of hand, it needs some serious work.
As for the Security Council: I support the removal of veto power. I think that a simple 2/3 majority should be required.
Yeah that may be a solution. I like better the principle of double majority posted by Cuivienen : a 2/3 majority of all the members and a 2/3 majority of the permanent members.

On the topic of the 4 new candidates, I think we should move to have 11 countries on the SC, but replace France with Germany or leave as is, and replace three rotating seats with Brazil, India, and Japan.
France has a considerable influence in the world, way larger than Germany. France has kept a special relationship with most of its past colonies. It has also a strong influence on Arab countries. That doesn't mean Germany shouldn't be a member. I simply think both should be.
France and Germany act too much alike to warrant seperate seats. That's just giving the EU an unwarranted advatage over any other special interest group.
So do the UK and the US. Why don't you want to remove the UK from the Security Council then ?
 
These four for certain, and lose the veto. No to the Muslim/African countries until it's clear which ones will be stable for a while.
 
Back
Top Bottom