|
| Usnc Reform | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 1 2015, 01:34 PM (581 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: | |
|---|---|
| KnightConcorde | May 26 2015, 11:59 AM Post #31 |
![]()
Canada
|
Robert Keith "Bob" Rae Permanent Representative for Canada to the United Nations | Représentant permanent du Canada auprès des Nations Unies The Government of Canada would like to make an honest suggestion for the reform of the UN Security Council. We would support the plan to add Brazil, Germany, Japan and India as permanent members of the UNSC, as long as 1 non-permanent seat for each of those regions remains open to other nations. Our proposal for the reform of the United Nations Security Council would be to remove the veto power of all permanent members of the Council. Instead, we would like to propose that only the President of the United Nations Security Council possess the power to veto resolutions, and that the veto should only be used when a resolution directly violates the Charter of the United Nations. In light of the fact that the President of the United Nations Security Council is elected by the Security Council itself, we would instead like to propose that the President of the United Nations Security Council should be elected by a majority vote from the United Nations General Assembly. Edited by KnightConcorde, May 26 2015, 11:59 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Uruk | May 26 2015, 12:23 PM Post #32 |
|
Permanent Representative to the United Nations The Government of India is prepared to support the Canadian proposal without reservations, |
![]() |
|
| Jai | May 26 2015, 06:47 PM Post #33 |
|
Jai Pharaoh | King of the Nile
|
Permanent Representative of the Turkish Republic to the United Nations The Government of Turkey supports the Canadian proposal. |
![]() |
|
| Litos | May 26 2015, 06:54 PM Post #34 |
|
Itō Hirobumi
|
Harald Braun Permanent Representative to the UN We too are in favor |
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | May 27 2015, 06:17 AM Post #35 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
![]() الممثل الدائم لدى الأمم المتحدة | Permanent Representative to the United Nations High Representatives, while Iraq does not stand unwilling towards a reform of the United Nations, we believe it is unrealistic to expect major reforms at once. Reforms calling for a scrapping of the veto-power, and expanding of the permanent seats, are considered to be far too complex to harvest any real result. The past years have shown us that unwillingness between various permanent members to cooperate has significantly hampered the effectiveness of the Security Council. While in an ideal situation the veto-power would be discarded, we believe that it is unrealistic to assume that the current permanent members will agree to this, as they on several occasions have already stated such. At the same time Baghdad is weary about reforms that make the Security Council even more ineffective or too complex. We therefore believe that a more comprehensive and realistic scenario needs to be discussed. Rather than presenting dozens of new plans, we suggest that we look at the plans that have been actively discussed in these chambers, and that have a chance for success. At the same time the main focus of the reform should, in the eyes of Baghdad, be to more evenly balance the power within the Security Council, and ensure that especially those regional blocs that are under-represented will receive additional seats. |
![]() |
|
| Uruk | May 27 2015, 10:16 AM Post #36 |
|
Permanent Representative to the United Nations India belives that drastic reforms are needed to avoid the current situation where pressing matters are deadlocked due to the Veto power of the P5s and thus supports the Canadian proposal that removes this hurdle while safegaurding that the UN stays true to its principles and statutes. When it comes to the proposal of the Peoples Republic of China we can not see how it will remove the current problems in the Security council. |
![]() |
|
| iceviking | May 27 2015, 11:04 AM Post #37 |
|
UN Italian delegation Italy fully supports expansion of the UNSC to include Japan, Germany, Brazil and India. |
![]() |
|
| KnightConcorde | May 27 2015, 02:07 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Canada
|
Robert Keith "Bob" Rae Permanent Representative for Canada to the United Nations | Représentant permanent du Canada auprès des Nations Unies Representative Alhakim, and all other Representatives, While we agree that it is unrealistic to expect that a major reform of the United Nations Security Council will occur all at once, we believe that all nations should have the opportunity to put forward solutions to the problem. While we agree that we should avoid making the Council more ineffective, we believe that our proposal will prevent it from becoming ineffective. The fact remains that the nations that have permanent seats on the Council received them based on their influence worldwide in the 1950's. The world has changed a lot since then, and thus we believe that increasing the number of permanent seats on the council is necessary. In terms of the veto power, we are not advocating that it be completely removed; rather, we want to have it placed only in the hands of a President of the United Nations Security Council who is elected by majority vote in the United Nations General Assembly, as this would prevent the constant problem of nations vetoing resolutions based on their own geopolitical interests. Also, we believe that the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council should not be allowed to unilaterally decide whether or not the veto power should remain in their hands, as it naturally benefits whatever country possesses it, and thus any country that possessed it would refuse to give it up. While we would be elated to see the permanent members give up the veto powers on their own accord, Canada believes that, as part of the reform of the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly should vote on whether or not permanent members should keep their veto powers. While the result of increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent seats on the council would be an increased complexity to the council, Canada would prefer a United Nations Security Council that is more complex than one that is deadlocked. A complex Council could still pass resolutions; a deadlocked one, as we have seen, cannot. In light of that, and as we have stated before, Canada would like to see that instead of increasing the amount of non-permanent seats on the council, that we simply keep the current number of non-permanent seats on the Council, while adding additional permanent seats to the Council for Brazil, Germany, Japan and India. Edited by KnightConcorde, May 27 2015, 02:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Vonar Roberts | May 27 2015, 08:22 PM Post #39 |
|
Rosemary A. DiCarlo United States Ambassador to the United Nations While the United States is supportive of expanding the Security Council the United States does not support the removal of the VETO as there are tools like the Uniting for Peace resolution that can be used to get around the implementation of a veto in certain circumstances.
This would result in a 9-member Security Council, with 5 permanent members who have veto powers. For simplicity's sake we could have the European veto be condensed into a single veto, and have said veto rotated between Germany, France and the United Kingdom so that way the number of veto-wielding does not increase beyond its current number. We would be willing to include a second "rotating veto" that would switch between Brazil, Japan, and India. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | May 28 2015, 02:09 AM Post #40 |
![]()
|
Liu Jieyi | 刘结 Permanent Representative to the United Nations | 常驻联合国 I support the American proposal of condensing the veto of the European countries into a single vote, but rather than reallocating yet another veto, are four vetoes not sufficient? I foresee few instances where any potential resolution that might require a veto from Brazil, India or Japan would not be covered either by the United States or by Europe. |
![]() |
|
| 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
