|
| Usnc Reform | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 1 2015, 01:34 PM (583 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. |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| C.E | Mar 6 2015, 02:29 AM Post #11 |
![]()
|
![]() Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations While the Security Council has been acknowledged as an "Island of Sanity" within the United Nations, recent years have shown the UNSC incapable of addressing important matters such as Iran's nuclear weapons programme, Syria's Chemical Warfare, etc. . We believe a reform should focus on having the UNSC operating rather than expanding. |
![]() |
|
| Degen83 | Mar 6 2015, 01:53 PM Post #12 |
|
Vitaly Churkin Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations Russian Federation We find the Chinese proposal acceptable. We feel that the contributions of nations today reflect a different balance of power than was the reality when the UNSC was formed. Russia would support additions to the UNSC, However, the Israeli delegation and Chinese do bring up good points, we need to limit the number of new vetos because the USNC can be hampered due to veto powers now. In adding additional members we must be sure to keep the veto potential at a lower rate. |
![]() |
|
| Eryk | Mar 6 2015, 08:22 PM Post #13 |
|
СССР
|
Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations It would be difficult to alter the veto without effectively ending the distinction that permanent members enjoy based on their overall influence. If we were able to ensure that the UNGA is able to tackle important questions related to world peace and security when the UNSC is deadlocked, perhaps veto-wielding members would be more considerate of world opinion. By virtue of such consideration compromise would become a necessity as the states threatening a veto would risk provoking action from the UNGA, where all members are equal and where there would be decisively less room for grandstanding and limited diplomacy. |
![]() |
|
| Litos | Mar 6 2015, 08:23 PM Post #14 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Harald Braun Permanent Representative to the UN if required, seeing the disaster of no reform at all which would destroy the UN's capacity to function into the next century with the confirmation of the powers of four more influential and high-donating figures to this organization, we suggest a limited number of annual vetoes in line with Russia's call for a limitation of vetoes, by new members only for a trial period of five years. |
![]() |
|
| Bobithy | Mar 6 2015, 11:13 PM Post #15 |
|
Great Leader of the Korean People
|
![]() Lana Zaki Nusseibeh Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations United Arab Emirates Esteemed delegates, The debate of reform for the United Nations Security Council is one that has been had before and will likely continue to be had. The United Arab Emirates would like to point out that, while we have no issue with the reformation of the UNSC, there is currently a process for the General Assembly to act. On 3 November 1950, the General Assembly adopted resolution 377 A (V), which was titled "Uniting for Peace". The most important part of resolution 377 A (V) is section A which states that where the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly shall seize itself of the matter and hold emergency meetings among other things. In addition the language of the resolution clearly reveals, the General Assembly can never be a full substitute for the Security Council in this area. Thus only "recommendations" can be made. But in practice this is enough to ensure the situations can be handled. The UAE proposes that the Uniting for Peace resolution is effective and should not be changed. As for recommendations for new members of the Security Council: The UAE believes that the list, as it stands currently, would be detrimental more than it would be helpful. The veto issue has not been a problem since the days of the Soviet Union and has only come back because of the worries of a second Cold War. However stacking permanent seats with countries which are not friendly with one side is not going to fix the problem, it will simply drive one of the sides into a corner. There needs to be very seriously thought put into this to ensure that it is not a one sided council, which the current proposals seem to show. Lastly, limiting the veto's allowed makes little sense: Veto's are there for a reason, that being to ensure that the UNSC cannot be used by any one side. Limiting those veto's would allow one side to simply push ridiculous resolutions to force veto's to run out and then push a biased resolution which would not be able to be vetoed. Delegates: The UNSC works, and has worked for many years. What is not working is cooperation. The recent NATO - Russia rift has caused levels of tensions not seen since the Cold War and that is what is getting in the way of the UNSC doing its job. Not the UNSC's current setup or membership. With due respect: the permanent members of the Security Council need to start putting their differences aside and work together towards international peace and security, and stop using the United Nations as a playground for their individual grievances. |
![]() |
|
| Eryk | Mar 7 2015, 05:55 AM Post #16 |
|
СССР
|
Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations The process that the representative of the United Arab Emirates cites is, in the context of the Charter, dubious. We are all well aware of the Uniting for Peace resolution, but because only recommendations can be made, there is no legal mechanism for the UNGA to compel states to act. The Soviet Union and its successor, the Russian Federation, have argued that the UNGA has no authority in such matters. It would be difficult to have any sort of practical effectiveness through this procedure therefore, when members of the UNSC openly question the legality of such actions. The purpose of this reform would be to make the UNGA the final authority on matters of world peace and security if the UNSC is deadlocked and fails to act. If this is enshrined in the charter, there will be no ambiguity. |
![]() |
|
| iceviking | Mar 7 2015, 06:48 AM Post #17 |
|
Swedish UN spokesperson Sweden believes that it's time of change . We support Germany, Brazil, India and Japan to have permanent seats, but Africa has been lifted out. We believe that South Africa and Australia should be added too. |
![]() |
|
| winisle | Mar 7 2015, 07:47 AM Post #18 |
![]()
|
Sir Mark Lyall Grant Her Britannic Majesty's Permanent Representative from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations The United Kingdom supports reform within the United Nations Security Council. We see two separate issues, where one is concerning the number of members, both permanent and non-permanent, and the other is concerning the veto-power currently enjoyed by the permanent members. On the matter of the number of seats, and possible new permanent seats, there is the United Kingdom in favour of expanding from 15 to 20 seats, granting permanent seats to: - Brazil - Germany - India - Japan On the matter of the veto, there we believe that the veto shall remain, and remain with the permanent members. But, it is problematic, not at least shown lately, when, as my Chinese colleague pointed out. We do believe that the there should be a way for the veto to be overruled... Possibly by the "Uniting for Peace" solution, or by an "supermajority" in the Security Council, where 16 of its members, including 8 out of 9 permanent members votes AYE. |
![]() |
|
| Litos | Mar 7 2015, 07:50 AM Post #19 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Harald Braun Permanent Representative to the UN While we agree with may of the UAE's pints, we cannot be held down by archaic restrictions in a new 21st century condition of a shifting balance of power. The limitation of vetoes makes sense if it suits our current purposes, and beyond a five year trial period to see if vetoes will be used excessively by new members or not, the GA can decide through democratic vote if their vetoes should be unlimited. We further thank deeply all countries who have voiced their approval for additions. Edited by Litos, Mar 7 2015, 07:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Gabe | May 24 2015, 12:44 AM Post #20 |
![]()
|
Antonio Patriota Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations Brazil moves to bring this matter to a vote as debate as clearly closed. On the ballot would be permanent status in the UNSC for: - Brazil - Germany - India - Japan |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 5 · Next Topic » |














6:37 AM Jul 11
