Hi,

Source:A.F.P

UN Security Council candidates to renounce veto privileges for 15 years

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Germany, Brazil, India and Japan would forgo their veto rights for at least 15 years if they are accepted as permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council, according to a draft proposal.

The countries -- nicknamed the G4 -- are lobbying for a permanent position on the UN Security Council, and circulated a revised draft of their proposal, which includes expanding the Council from the current 15 members to 25.

The revised draft, distributed to journalists on Wednesday, is almost identical to an earlier proposal circulated on May 16 calling for six new permanent seats -- four for the G4 and two for unnamed African nations -- along with four non-permanent seats.

According to the text the new permanent members "should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members."

However "the new permanent members shall not exercise the right of veto" until a review 15 years after the measure is approved, the text read.

The Security Council currently has five members with the right to veto -- China, the United States, France, Britain and Russia -- as well as 10 non-permanent members.

German ambassador to the United Nations Gunter Pleuger said the four "have tried to seek a formula that takes care of differing interests, of the interests of the P-5, not to be touched in their status, the interests of the new permanent members not to be discriminated against ... and we also take care of the opinion of more than 100 delegations that the veto is undemocratic and outdated ... "

One of the P-5 (permanent Security Council members), France, has co-sponsored the resolution after the amendment about a 15-year abstention from veto. British ambassador Adam Thomson said "not yet," when asked if London would also be a co-sponsor.

Indian ambassador to the United Nations, Nirupam Sen, said the G-4 was "confident that we have at present well above the two-thirds of the vote" from the 191 UN members required for it to pass.

The G4 nations plan to put their motion to the General Assembly if they are certain they will get that two-thirds support.

Peace
-=SF_13=-

I'd like to hear something from you Swordfish.

The point of posting in the Political Discussion is to share opinions, criticisms, and ideas. We need a jump start to start discussing this issue.

Hi,

Since past 12 years or So there is this talk about UN reforms ....... and G4 ( Germany, Brazil, India and Japan) as they call themself ......... have been trying to gather Support for it .......... UN needs Reforms that's for sure ........... This Post World WAr 2 relic is becoming Insignificant in the 21 st century.

Just because A Few Countries Won the World war Dosen't mean they have the right to Control the UN for Iternity ........... Sooner or later they will have to Nudge and Allow more Countries in...... so that UN can repersent the Current World Order...... and be more meaning ful in the current Context.

Today Almost every Body Agrees on the Reforms but the regional problems are hindering them ......... Germany Has Italy ...... Japan has China ...... India has Pakistan to cope With and ........ these Three have formed a Group that is Trying to Block the Reforms....... UK, France, Russia Are not Adverse to the Reforms and have Shown support for the G4....... America Have given Indications that it Supports the Japans Inclusion ......... that in Turn means teh G4 as they are Jointly Bidding for the Seats.

Of all Pakistan, Italy , China and NK which are against the resolution....... China is the Biggest Problem as it is the only one that has Veto .... G4 Currently Claims that they have the 2/3 rd majority ...... than the only Problem is the VETO ..... that's the Primary reason that the G4 has Budged down on the Veto Issue ........... Earlier India and Japan Were Adamant that they Want UNSC Seat with the Veto not soem Second grade member .......... But China made it clear it take whatever it takes to Stop this resolution .

France is Sponsering this resolution ...... it's Expected that Britain will Co-Sponser it we will have to wait and see.

If this Resolution passes and G4 gets Perm Seats then they will have to Abstain form Using Veto for At least 15 years ....... after 15 years Veto can be debated.

Right now as i see it ........... Small Regional Issues is Hindering it ........ Otherwoise i don't see much Opposition for it.

Peace
-=SF_13=-

Right now as i see it ........... Small Regional Issues is Hindering it ........ Otherwoise i don't see much Opposition for it.

As for Germany, Brazil, and India yes, there are mostly small regional issues hindering the Resolution. The Kashmir Area dispute between Pakistan and India is being resolved sooner or later. But I rather think you overlooked a larger dispute in East Asia where the situation between China and Japan is becoming dangerous. It is not China who shows concern over Japan's bid for seating in the Security Council. Countries who fallen under Japan's Agression during World War II are still unhappy of Japan's intentions and I think you inappropriatly stated that the World War 2 relic is not suitable for the 21st Century. World War 2 should not be ignored. While Representing the United State of America, former State Secretary Colin Powell shows concern over one particular article in Japan's New Constitution which allow deployments of so-called Non-combatant troops. Now of course if Japan will not revise this while in the Security Council, surely relations in East Asia would destabilize tremendously.

This proposel may actualy hold some water. If this was to pass it would actualy make alot more sense then just giving new permanent nations almighty power without at first getting to know how they would vote on the Grand High Counsil which is the UNSC.

I really dont see the point in extending the UNSC without giving all its members the same rights, this just creates a third subclass to the UN (SC, nonvetoSC and GA) two of which will be basically useless, with all the power remaining effectively with the original veto holders.

I am sorry but I believe extending the SC to reflect modern world dynamics is a good idea but not to give them a equal standing is just plain pointless.

Would you just give 3 nations power over the UN decisions?

Question: Did the old version envision veto power also for the two african seats? Like veto power for Nigeria? Cause then I would understand all the opposition against it. Who knows who will run that country in 15 years.

The Old Version of the UNSC had the job to protected freedoma nd democracy yet had the USSR has one of the original members. However I think the old UNSC vetow was ment to be for the old powers, after all when France got the seat they were not in the best of shape. They had just been held captive my Germany for like 4 years.