|
| Usnc Reform | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 1 2015, 01:34 PM (578 Views) | |
| Koning | Mar 1 2015, 01:34 PM Post #1 |
![]()
|
David Rachline Permanent Representative to the United Nations from the Republic of France Members of the United Nations we come before you today to speak of something that has long been an objective of many nations here and that is reforming the Security Council and adding new permanent members. For many years now it is has been proposed to expand the scope of the Security Council to the following countries of Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan and we believe that these countries have demonstrated through their economic growth and commitment to the policies of democracy and stability. We believe it is time for us to begin expanding the United Nations to include these countries rather than remaining a power bloc of the whitest and most wealthy countries presently in the world. |
![]() |
|
| Uruk | Mar 3 2015, 10:42 AM Post #2 |
|
Asoke Kumar Mukerji Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations India appluads the French initative to give the worlds most populous nation and the leading nation of Latin America permanent voices in the UNSC. We are however somewhat troubled that France wishes to give Germany a nation that has in the last months expresses nothing but contempt for the UN statutes and resolutions a permanent seat. |
![]() |
|
| Koning | Mar 3 2015, 11:29 AM Post #3 |
![]()
|
David Rachline Permanent Representative to the United Nations from the Republic of France I fail to understand the inherent hate being displayed here for the Federal Republic of Germany whose relations with India I had thought were strong and vibrant. Germany has just as much of a place on this Security Council as does the other nations mentioned here which will strengthen the vibrancy and collective strength of the Security council |
![]() |
|
| Litos | Mar 3 2015, 11:30 AM Post #4 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Harald Braun Permanent Representative to the UN We too applaud this measure as one that may be difficult for the post-great war great powers to accept in terms of the greater number of votes and vetoes, but one that will adjust the world to the future in which these four countries have been or will be great powers in their actions and words. For India, we are especially supportive seeing as a seat on the UNSC will allow the delegate to have greater awareness of happenings on the UNSC. Germany has referred all its arguments back to past resolutions and has never acted outside of them or voted NAY on any proposed solutions that have been drawn up by mediators. We are at the forefront of bringing them along and in the Polish-Russian dispute arbitrated between both powers before choosing Russia due to international law reasons. International law is the only mechanism that we use for our decisions, and while constraining, it is better for the world. We have been negotiating for months for partners to accept a bilateral solution. Because of this, it is clear we, the second largest of the added economies and second largest donor to the UN among the group, are in line with the UN's priorities. We further refer to the Indian government's official position that has remained unchanged since the early 2000s that, to build solidarity among the added states, all support one anothers' bids without condition. A breach from this understanding, which is the founding of close ties between our four countries for the past decade, would damage relations severely in a time when foreign investment between these four countries has profited the whole world. Edited by Litos, Mar 3 2015, 11:31 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Chris | Mar 4 2015, 05:02 AM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Liu Jieyi | 刘结 Permanent Representative to the United Nations | 常驻联合国 While the expansion of the Security Council could be seen as a positive step, I wonder whether the inclusion of another European country is really necessary. If Germany were to be added, it should be in place of an existing member rather than in addition to one. What I would instead propose is a Security Council made up of
Edited by Chris, Mar 4 2015, 05:05 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Litos | Mar 4 2015, 06:12 AM Post #6 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Harald Braun Permanent Representative to the UN While we respect the Chinese position, we understand that these kinds of positions are the reason that this reform which is necessary to balance the forces of the world in this organization and adjust it to a modern reality have been hard to come into fruition. We remind the Chinese delegate of his admirable support of the Japanese UNSC bid throughout the last decade of discussion. While it is regrettable that we doubt France, and the UK especially, would forfeit their UNSC seats for the EU, we also point out the large number of Europeans is due to economic factors and those dealing with power. While imperfect, we reiterate the current proposal because each country has something to contribute. Japan and Germany are the second and third UN contributors and the second and third largest investment bodies in the world, peaceful economies who despite struggle and humiliation have built diplomatic and prosperous societies. Brazil is a necessary South American seat, and India is the world's second most populous country. The original proposal advances us all and we hope that no UNSC will introduce proposals that would slight existing SC members or any important contributors or regional partners. The advancement of national interest is important, but in these matters, impartiality will build a better world as this organization has been better than the self-interested League of Nations. Edited by Litos, Mar 4 2015, 06:12 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Chris | Mar 4 2015, 06:32 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
Liu Jieyi | 刘结 Permanent Representative to the United Nations | 常驻联合国 I understand your position Mr Braun, I fear however that filling the Security Council with additional veto holders may damage the Council and make the creation of new Resolutions more complex. Only today we have seen that a veto-wielding power is complicit in supporting the breach of Security Council Resolutions while threatening to veto a Resolution that would sanction a country in violation of a Resolution it voted in favour of. I agree that the existing make up was established based on perceived 'power', but times have changed and the current Security Council no longer truly represents the current world order, on that I think we can all agree. Yes, we (the P5) are all nuclear states, but that only translates to power for those stuck 50 years in the past. Perhaps we need to re-imagine what purpose the United Nations should serve in the 21st century. A new Council made up those contributing and economically powerful states given responsibility for certain matters and given the lead on humanitarian and development programs, while the antiquated Security Council would retain responsibility for security matters. Countries should be rewarded for their strengths in specific areas and not simply for their possession of a big stick. |
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | Mar 4 2015, 06:45 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations High Representatives, As Canberra is in support of a United Nations Security Council to better represents the 21st century, I must state that any reform plan should include Japan. For decades Japan has been the second contributor to the United Nations, and its important role in the world's economy seems an extremely validate point to ensure that it will be granted permanent membership to the security council. At the same time I would like to suggest much broader reform, and seek a reform that addresses the current veto-wielding powers. As the Chinese delegation has pointed out these powers have been hampering the efficiency of the security council, and as a result we should seek to address this issue as well. |
![]() |
|
| Litos | Mar 4 2015, 08:45 AM Post #9 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Harald Braun Permanent Representative to the UN We understand China's concern about multiple vetoes on the council and making it manageable. It is our position that South America must have a veto for the sake of regional representation, no matter how painful. However, we ask that for seats already in continents with vetoes, with India's exception by your discretion due to its importance, but also your mutual strategic competition, that new seats, for a trial period of several years, are non-veto. Therefore, Germany and Japan would have permanent voices on this council and permanent votes, but either a limited number of vetoes or none. Since we are supported in interest with our allies, this situation is hardly equal and fair for us, but is pragmatic and helps the council as a whole function. We would like to emphasize that neither us nor Japan since 2014 have once called for a P5 to veto a resolution, even in those we have spoken against. If given veto powers, we vow to use them only if the existence of Germany or the Northern and Central European economic bloc is threatened. |
![]() |
|
| Eryk | Mar 4 2015, 07:24 PM Post #10 |
|
СССР
|
Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations We find the Chinese proposal to be inadequate as several representatives have already pointed out. The European Union itself is not an actor equivalent to a sovereign state, but an organization composed of such states. It is our understanding that the common foreign and defense policies of all members of the European Union are limited in scope. We question how Europe could be adequately represented without a strengthening of the institutions of the European Union which would deal with the questions which the Security Council faces. If the member states of the European Union would be prepared to resolve the question internally and carry out adequate reforms to ensure that the representatives of the European Union could indeed represent all member states, then we would not be opposed to such a policy. We must also thank the Australian representative for his statement of support for Japanese membership in the Security Council. The credentials of all candidates are indisputable. All of the "G4" nations have served a combined sixty years as non-permanent members in the United Nations Security Council, and have provided constructive contributions to major issues throughout their terms. India and Brazil are among the world's largest democracies and the two greatest contributors to UN Peacekeeping missions, whilst Japan and Germany maintain the third and fourth largest economies in the world and have consistently provided large amounts of funding to the United Nations. Our interests our aligned with adequately rationally adapting the United Nations to 21st century realities. Japan would recommend a modified form of the 2005 Annan plan on Security Council reform, which could include the reform of the veto power to ensure that the council is not paralyzed when dealing with major questions. The Security Council would admit five states on a permanent basis with full veto-wielding powers. These states would include the G4 plus an African country - perhaps South Africa or Nigeria - in order to provide the greatest possible representation to all continents. The council would also expand with five additional non-permanent seats, for a total of 25 members. Veto powers would be reformed, rescinding the precedent set by the Soviet Union and requiring that any veto by a state occurs within the immediate concerns of peace and war. It could also be prudent to enshrine the "Uniting for Peace" resolution in the UN Charter, allowing the UNGA to settle major questions with a 2/3 majority if the security council enters into a deadlock. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 5 · Next Topic » |











6:36 AM Jul 11
