Four nations launch UN seat bid

[SunWuKong]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3678736.stm

Four nations launch UN seat bid

Brazil, Germany, Japan and India have launched a joint bid for permanent seats on the UN Security Council.

"The Security Council must reflect the realities of the international community in the 21st Century," their joint statement said.

The four states pledged to back each other's case and said similar status should be given to an African nation.

The Council's five veto-wielding permanent members are Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

The 10 other Council members are chosen for two-year terms by regional groups.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is known to favour an expansion of the Council, to enable it to command greater respect - especially in the developing world - and to make it more effective.

'Representative' Council

The joint statement was issued after talks between Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York.

The statement noted that there has been a nearly four-fold increase in the UN membership since it was founded after World War II in 1945, including a sharp increase in the number of developing countries.

"The Security Council, therefore, must be expanded in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, including developing and developed countries as new permanent members," the joint statement said.

"It must be representative, legitimate and effective."

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, the Brazilian leader, known as Lula, said the Council's composition must reflect today's reality, rather than perpetuate the post-WWII era.

In another speech, Mr Koizumi said Japan's reconstruction role in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, entitled it to a permanent seat on the Council.

'Natural candidates'

Japan pays more money into the UN coffers than any nation except the US. Germany is the third-biggest contributor.

Supporters of India's membership point out that the country is the world-largest democracy where some 1.2 billion people live, while some of Brazil's backers say it can make a strong case to represent South America.

"All four states regard themselves as natural candidates," Mr Fischer said after the talks.

The joint statement also said Africa must also have a permanent seat, amid reports that African leaders are currently discussing which of their states should be put forward.

However, historic regional animosities are likely to complicate the joint bid, analysts say.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

good luck convincing China to let Japan in...

[yoMAMA]

so now we'll have 9 permanent members?

damm...

[VV o n g B a]

while i think those nations belong on the council in some form, if they are let on, veto powers should be reworked. maybe at least 2 nations are required to veto a resolution b/f it goes down. or simply deny the new additions any veto power at all. 10 members w/ veto power will render the security council more ineffective than it is right now.

or maybe they should just scrap the idea of a security council all together. who says these self selected nations should represent the entire world on security decisions anyways?

[kitty]

about bloody time. if the US and co get veto ability, than the rest of the nations in the security council should as well. i think this is a great move -- i just doubt that the nations currently on the security council will be willing to share the power more evenly.

[SunWuKong]

while i think those nations belong on the council in some form, if they are let on, veto powers should be reworked. maybe at least 2 nations are required to veto a resolution b/f it goes down. or simply deny the new additions any veto power at all. 10 members w/ veto power will render the security council more ineffective than it is right now.

well i think the idea of the veto is so that all the permanent seats have a concensus on an issue before it is allowed to pass, so that you won't have alliances being formed and affecting all the policies. i think if you require more than one seat to veto, it'll totally throw that idea out of whack.

about bloody time. if the US and co get veto ability, than the rest of the nations in the security council should as well. i think this is a great move -- i just doubt that the nations currently on the security council will be willing to share the power more evenly.

ok, so the current permanent seats are:

China
France
Russia
United Kingdom
United States


these are the nations that want to join:

Brazil
Germany
Japan
India


first and foremost, i have serious doubts that China will let Japan on board. i don't know if China will let India in either, because the Chinese government probably would prefer India in a subordinate position, being that they share a border and that India is hosting the Dalai Lama. i don't know what Brazil's relationships are with the 5 countries that have permanent seats. i think Germany probably has the best chance to get in, but not sure if its anti-war stance is going to make the US government veto it.

[VV o n g B a]

well i think the idea of the veto is so that all the permanent seats have a concensus on an issue before it is allowed to pass, so that you won't have alliances being formed and affecting all the policies. i think if you require more than one seat to veto, it'll totally throw that idea out of whack.



ok, so the current permanent seats are:

China
France
Russia
United Kingdom
United States


these are the nations that want to join:

Brazil
Germany
Japan
India


first and foremost, i have serious doubts that China will let Japan on board. i don't know if China will let India in either, because the Chinese government probably would prefer India in a subordinate position, being that they share a border and that India is hosting the Dalai Lama. i don't know what Brazil's relationships are with the 5 countries that have permanent seats. i think Germany probably has the best chance to get in, but not sure if its anti-war stance is going to make the US government veto it.
i understand that consensus is the point, but everyone complains that the security council doesn't do anything. this will make it do less. it turns the security council into the EU where anybody can hold up progress. its just a bad system imo. is it right that the US vetoes 11 to 1 votes on resolutions regarding israel over and over and over again? w/ more members, this will just get worse. it protects any country w/ a single strong ally on the permanent council.

[SunWuKong]

i understand that consensus is the point, but everyone complains that the security council doesn't do anything. this will make it do less. it turns the security council into the EU where anybody can hold up progress. its just a bad system imo. is it right that the US vetoes 11 to 1 votes on resolutions regarding israel over and over and over again? w/ more members, this will just get worse. it protects any country w/ a single strong ally on the permanent council.

see, i think that's just the way it's got to be. likewise, any of the other permanent seats can be the single veto on one issue over and over and over again. otherwise, alliances will form and overpower the voices of the other members.

[kuilong]

well i think the idea of the veto is so that all the permanent seats have a concensus on an issue before it is allowed to pass, so that you won't have alliances being formed and affecting all the policies. i think if you require more than one seat to veto, it'll totally throw that idea out of whack.

I'm not sure there was such a well-developed idea behind it; from what I understand, the veto system exists because the USSR insisted on it.

I'm not so sure China will be opposed, either -- China has traditionally been very passive where the UN is concerned; they've only used their veto four times. They usually only act when there's a pressing issue which directly confronts Chinese interests.

Anyway, I welcome this -- at the very least it'll modernize the power structure of the UN, which until now has been stuck in post-WWII times.

[Banana]

Why does it feel like Japan is buying their way into position?

BTW: Brazil and China have a pretty good business relationship with China buying many of Brazil's military equipment. Don't be fooled. Brazil makes some pretty strong/tough fighter planes and tanks.

[Mr.Lum]

I'm not sure there was such a well-developed idea behind it; from what I understand, the veto system exists because the USSR insisted on it.


That was my understanding of it as well. I think the one member veto is just annoying. Keeps them from accomplishing anything. I guess that's good for the US tho.

I can see most of these nations as being good candidates...but what about Fiji? LOL. If they're going to rep South America they ought rep Oceania. I mean Fiji was holding it down in Lebanon and else where. J/K.

[Martino]

Why does it feel like Japan is buying their way into position?

You mean in the same way Japan is bribing poor countries like Madagascar and Mali to join the International Whaling Commission? Japan is openly courting small, poor (and often land-locked!) countries in an attempt to gather enough friendly votes to overturn a moratorium on commercial whale hunting. It's currently targeting Malawi, generously writing off 70% of Malawi's debts to Japan.

But can Japan afford to buy its way onto the Security Council?

Nah ...

...

Could it?

[kitty]

i hate the veto idea. i think the veto idea should be done away with --- it artificially gives certain nations faaar more power than others, and is a holdover from a different era of foreign relations and int'l politics.

[VV o n g B a]

i'm rethinking my previous cautious support of the additional nations period. permanent members should be retitled to "persistent members."

spots should be allocated by region/continent. and the number of spots each region/continent gets should be determined by economic/military/population factors. those conditions will drop "hangers on" such as russia who don't have good numbers in any of the above mentioned factors except military nukes. it would also keep out either germany or france. only 1 of those 2 countries needs to be represented.

it would also keep india out of a spot until its economic and military influence outgrows that of japan. south america and africa wouldn't get a seat at all until one of their nation's influence grew to parity w/ the lowest ranking persistent member.

the ranking would be reevaluated every 10 to 15 years so as to kick out members that don't retain their influence. it's certainly happened before w/ china and taiwan. and ussr and russia.

otherwise, whats to keep every nation on earth appealing for a permanent seat? if korea reunites, then should try to get a seat like germany? they'll have a large economy, military (prolly w/ nukes), and decent population. but they certainly don't have the influence of china or japan. then the security council just becomes more and more worthless b/c of the rising number of vetoes. it can't continue indefinitely.

[Yeahman]

i hate the veto idea. i think the veto idea should be done away with --- it artificially gives certain nations faaar more power than others, and is a holdover from a different era of foreign relations and int'l politics.
I agree with kitty. :eek: :eek: :eek:
Have a US Congress-like system. 2 houses. 1 where all the nations of the UN have 1 vote. And another house where each nation's vote is weighted according to population, GDP, and military power.

[SunWuKong]

if korea reunites, then should try to get a seat like germany? they'll have a large economy, military (prolly w/ nukes), and decent population.

actually it's very likely that the Korean economy will take a big hit if reunification ever occurs. the South has to support the North. same thing happened with Germany.

[bluemonq]

I'm not sure there was such a well-developed idea behind it; from what I understand, the veto system exists because the USSR insisted on it.

I'm not so sure China will be opposed, either -- China has traditionally been very passive where the UN is concerned; they've only used their veto four times. They usually only act when there's a pressing issue which directly confronts Chinese interests.

the reason that the ussr insisted on the veto system was because... well think about the security council right after world war II: united states, france, united kingdom, china (meaning the republic of china), and the ussr. chew on that for a moment, and tell me why the ussr could possibly want the veto system...

as for the congressional system, is that really any better? in both "houses", the problem is with large, well-off countries buying votes of the smaller countries. come to think of it, that sort of happens in congress now right> with "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours" kind of deals"... we'd need like a super-duper majority, say 80 to 90% instead of the 67% in our congress...

[Yeahman]

as for the congressional system, is that really any better? in both "houses", the problem is with large, well-off countries buying votes of the smaller countries. come to think of it, that sort of happens in congress now right> with "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours" kind of deals"... we'd need like a super-duper majority, say 80 to 90% instead of the 67% in our congress...
What stops nations from doing that in the UN now?

actually it's very likely that the Korean economy will take a big hit if reunification ever occurs. the South has to support the North. same thing happened with Germany.
After the world saw what happened in Germany, it's highly unlikely that Korea would use the same blueprint. Reunification can only come after a complete reformation of North Korea's economy. Only then can we pursue GRADUAL reunification.

[SunWuKong]

After the world saw what happened in Germany, it's highly unlikely that Korea would use the same blueprint. Reunification can only come after a complete reformation of North Korea's economy. Only then can we pursue GRADUAL reunification.

easier said than done. the biggest helper to North Korea's reforming economy would be, yup, you guessed it, South Korea. North Korea can't bring up its economy all by itself.

[VV o n g B a]

easier said than done. the biggest helper to North Korea's reforming economy would be, yup, you guessed it, South Korea. North Korea can't bring up its economy all by itself.
no, look i mean that if u give korea a few decades they could look like germany does now. i didn't mean they would suddenly become a world power if they reunited.

[SunWuKong]

no, look i mean that if u give korea a few decades they could look like germany does now. i didn't mean they would suddenly become a world power if they reunited.

Germany is still not doing all that well. the East is still draining money and resources from the West. i mean, i would love to see Korea reunified, but there are economic consequences to that.

[VV o n g B a]

Germany is still not doing all that well. the East is still draining money and resources from the West. i mean, i would love to see Korea reunified, but there are economic consequences to that.
no germany isn't doing that well. but they are still pushing hard for a permanent seat. thats more my point. IF at some point in the future, korea or any other country for that matter becomes relatively more powerful and another one weakens, then they should switch seats. i'm not specifically arguing for or against unification really.

[SunWuKong]

Beijing boosts Delhi's bid for UN council seat
By Siddharth Srivastava

NEW DELHI - India's quest for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has for the first time been endorsed by China, a signal that Beijing's foreign policy has shifted significantly - from one of distrust dating from a brief border war with India in 1962 to one that now recognizes India's importance and seeks to engage with the major South Asian power.

China expressed its support for India's council bid last week during the visit of Chinese state councilor Tang Jiaxuan, China's first foreign minister from 1998-2003 and who plays an influential and authoritative role in Beijing's foreign policy today. Tang's visit marks the highest-level contact between India and China since the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assumed office earlier this year. Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing and representatives dealing with border issues, including national security advisor Dai Bingguo, already have visited India to interact with representatives of the new government.

[China has made it clear, however, that it opposes a permanent seat on the Security Council for Japan, which also has made a quest of a permanent council seat. Though the two nations are close economic partners, they are at political odds over Japanese aggression in China in World War II and what China sees as rising militarism.]

During his visit, Tang said, "The Chinese government is supportive of a reasonable and necessary reform of the UN Security Council, believing that the reform should take into account the interest of all parties, the developing countries in particular, follow the principle of equitable distribution, and give priority to increased representation of the developing countries. The Chinese government values India's influence and role in international and regional affairs and is willing to see a greater Indian role in the international arena, the United Nations included."

"We hope to see India playing a larger and constructive role in the Security Council for world peace and development," Tang said in response to questions by journalists. "China fully understands and endorses your country's interest in playing a bigger role in international affairs," he said.

more... (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FJ26Df01.html)

[Kuchana]

I applaud the idea of adding more members on the Security Council. The U.N. is in dire need of a major overhaul. But I'm not altogether certain if the original members will want to share any of its power or are any of them willing to?

And I agree with doing away with the veto. It has hampered the U.N. from taking more decisive action due to the self-interests of some of the countries on the Security Council. Ex. Sudan.

You mean in the same way Japan is bribing poor countries like Madagascar and Mali to join the International Whaling Commission? Japan is openly courting small, poor (and often land-locked!) countries in an attempt to gather enough friendly votes to overturn a moratorium on commercial whale hunting. It's currently targeting Malawi, generously writing off 70% of Malawi's debts to Japan.

But can Japan afford to buy its way onto the Security Council?

Nah ...

...

Could it?

I remember how disgusted I was when I found out about Japan bribing poor countries to legalize commerical whale hunting in a class that I took. If Japan is doing it, there's no question that other powerful countries are doing the same thing in other areas.

i'm rethinking my previous cautious support of the additional nations period. permanent members should be retitled to "persistent members."

spots should be allocated by region/continent. and the number of spots each region/continent gets should be determined by economic/military/population factors. those conditions will drop "hangers on" such as russia who don't have good numbers in any of the above mentioned factors except military nukes. it would also keep out either germany or france. only 1 of those 2 countries needs to be represented.

it would also keep india out of a spot until its economic and military influence outgrows that of japan. south america and africa wouldn't get a seat at all until one of their nation's influence grew to parity w/ the lowest ranking persistent member.

the ranking would be reevaluated every 10 to 15 years so as to kick out members that don't retain their influence. it's certainly happened before w/ china and taiwan. and ussr and russia.

otherwise, whats to keep every nation on earth appealing for a permanent seat? if korea reunites, then should try to get a seat like germany? they'll have a large economy, military (prolly w/ nukes), and decent population. but they certainly don't have the influence of china or japan. then the security council just becomes more and more worthless b/c of the rising number of vetoes. it can't continue indefinitely.

The idea of persistent members sounds interesting and something to look into as well as allocating spots for countries by region/continent.

As for the persistent members, I really don't see why Germany needs to be on the SC when France is already there. I feel there should be more diverse members instead of from the same areas. I definitely agree with the idea of adding an African country on the SC though and also a country from South America; maybe Australia would be ideal as well.

[SunWuKong]

I remember how disgusted I was when I found out about Japan bribing poor countries to legalize commerical whale hunting in a class that I took. If Japan is doing it, there's no question that other powerful countries are doing the same thing in other areas.

richer countries have always been "bribing" poorer countries for their purposes, except they don't call it "bribe", they call it "economic incentives" or "humanitarian aid" or "loans", etc etc. you name it. a friend of mine even suspects that the reason the US government even puts tariffs on certain imports is so they can take if off later and act like it did the exporting country a favour in exchange for something that it wants.

[RangerX]

richer countries have always been "bribing" poorer countries for their purposes, except they don't call it "bribe", they call it "economic incentives" or "humanitarian aid" or "loans", etc etc. you name it. a friend of mine even suspects that the reason the US government even puts tariffs on certain imports is so they can take if off later and act like it did the exporting country a favour in exchange for something that it wants.

That is interesting,

Who are "They" ?

Are you saying that, "they" use words that do not reveal truth about their actions/intentions in order to confuse their victims ? (keep their victims oblivious to the fact)

For example, as you stated:

They don't call it "Bribe" but "Economic Incentives" or "Humanitarian Aid", now which sounds much more "Friendly" ?

-RangerX
RWSWJ

[SunWuKong]

That is interesting,

Who are "They" ?

Are you saying that, "they" use words that do not reveal truth about their actions/intentions in order to confuse their victims ? (keep their victims oblivious to the fact)

For example, as you stated:

They don't call it "Bribe" but "Economic Incentives" or "Humanitarian Aid", now which sounds much more "Friendly" ?

-RangerX
RWSWJ


"they" as in the nations that do this, including the US, China, Japan, certain European countries, etc etc. and no, it's not to "confuse" their "victims". i'm sure the governments of the countries that are/were paid know fully well what's really going on. the purpose is to mask the purpose of this money to the general international public.

[Mr.Lum]

As for the persistent members, I really don't see why Germany needs to be on the SC when France is already there. I feel there should be more diverse members instead of from the same areas. I definitely agree with the idea of adding an African country on the SC though and also a country from South America; maybe Australia would be ideal as well.

Well, they already do have France and the UK and Russia. Europe and N America are probably the most over all fit regions to have Security Council members. After that it's prolly China. I'm not so sure on India or Brazil. I'm not really seeing their importance militarily. They just have lots of land/people. India has nukes but aside from that, what else? And Brazil, well. Brazil it's just really big. The current SC members in my mind are pretty ideal if we were going by the colonial eara. But I think they should add India on just because it's so big and there ought to be a third world voice up there. I can't imagine any African countries except maybe South Africa, Egypt Nigeria or Algeria that would be qualified to be on the SC. I mean, sad to say, but most of them can't even feed all their people. None of them except Egypt (which militarily is almost dependent on the US and UK) and South Africa are "powers" in any real sense. I'd be reluctant to put up African or South American countries on the SC perminantly.

[RangerX]

"they" as in the nations that do this, including the US, China, Japan, certain European countries, etc etc. and no, it's not to "confuse" their "victims". i'm sure the governments of the countries that are/were paid know fully well what's really going on. the purpose is to mask the purpose of this money to the general international public.

Thank you for your response and answer.

I asked you, if "they" use words that do not reveal truth about their actions/intentions in order to confuse their victims. (keep their victims oblivious to the fact)

You stated that the purpose is to *mask* the purpose of this money to the general international public.

*mask*

conceil/hide something, someone, an action, etc.

keep the victims of this deceit (or "General Public") oblivious to the fact.

I could be incorrect.

-RangerX
RWSWJ

[SunWuKong]

I'm not so sure on India or Brazil. I'm not really seeing their importance militarily. They just have lots of land/people. India has nukes but aside from that, what else? And Brazil, well. Brazil it's just really big.


well, having a large population is actually one of the key points that India is using to push for a permanent seat.

Thank you for your response and answer.

I asked you, if "they" use words that do not reveal truth about their actions/intentions in order to confuse their victims. (keep their victims oblivious to the fact)

You stated that the purpose is to *mask* the purpose of this money to the general international public.

*mask*

conceil/hide something, someone, an action, etc.

keep the victims of this deceit (or "General Public") oblivious to the fact.

I could be incorrect.

-RangerX
RWSWJ


yes, thanks for reiterating what i said in different words. and your point is....... ? :confused:

[VV o n g B a]

Thank you for your response and answer.

I asked you, if "they" use words that do not reveal truth about their actions/intentions in order to confuse their victims. (keep their victims oblivious to the fact)

You stated that the purpose is to *mask* the purpose of this money to the general international public.

*mask*

conceil/hide something, someone, an action, etc.

keep the victims of this deceit (or "General Public") oblivious to the fact.

I could be incorrect.

-RangerX
RWSWJbribing or "aiding" other countries is just another facet of international relations. are u objecting to it in principle? if so, that seems a bit naive. it is simply a tool that is used in international relations to get one country to do what another country wants. while it's most uneven when u compare a rich nation bribing a poor one, usually, the poor nation is the one that reaps a greater reward. when rich nations bribe each other, that's called diplomacy.

using the whaling example, japan bribes small countries to get a whaling ban lifted. who does this hurt? u can say this hurts the general public, but really it only hurts those who are very concerned over the whales and not the rest of the world. i'm personally not hurt b/c i don't feel any attachment to the whales. i'd regret their extinction i suppose, but i wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

using another example however, the general international public isn't hurt. china and taiwan have been bribing small countries for decades on whether to recognize taiwan as a sovereign nation. in this case, it really only hurts the tax payers in china and taiwan.

yet another example is of sending "aid" to north korea. other nations formally bribed n. korea not to pursue nuke development. i would say that if n. korea didn't break the treaty that this bribe would have helped the international public.

[RangerX]

well, having a large population is actually one of the key points that India is using to push for a permanent seat.




yes, thanks for reiterating what i said in different words. and your point is....... ? :confused:

My point is that People may use Words that do not reveal truth and are designed to further confuse and keep the Person being deceived (the victim) oblivious to the fact. The words do not help to reveal truth when the victims are taught to use them.

My suggestion for the victims is to ask questions about the words/terms being used (and the actions behind the words), try to reveal truth as to what exactly is taking place and what action is the word cloaking. and/or redefine a word with a meaning that best reveals truth in order to promote justice and correctness.

-RangerX
RWSWJ

[truMp]

easier said than done. the biggest helper to North Korea's reforming economy would be, yup, you guessed it, South Korea. North Korea can't bring up its economy all by itself.
That's why China would be the basis and foundation of economic aid for the under developed North Korea. It would be similiar to what the United States does as known by their foreign policy which would be to help nations financially and hopefully be able to reap "profits" from it.

[Vedic_Warrior]

I hope that India gets a seat.

Just recently, Russian PM Vladamir Putin threw his support behind India's bid.

[loserbutt]

sure, why not?