West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Don Rizzle on September 22, 2004, 01:29:47 AM
-
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.
PERMANENT MEMBERS
China
France
Russia
United Kingdom
United States
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.
ELECTED MEMBERS FOR 2004
Algeria - until end of 2005
Angola - until end of 2004
Benin - until end of 2005
Brazil - until end of 2005
Chile - until end of 2004
Germany - until end of 2004
Pakistan - until end of 2004
Philippines - until end of 2005
Romania - until end of 2005
Spain - until end of 2004
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.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/3678736.stm
-
Japan and Germany play in a totally different league than Brazil and India.
-
I have no problem with India and brazil as they don't have regional representation, but do we really need a 3rd european perminant member? and do really need another asain member? although would rather switch china for japan
-
Japan and Germany pay the most so... bottom line I'm tired of Germany always paying the most and getting the least..
-
well with that logic, i'll agree on germany.. altho it does leave it open to accusations of western influence.. bah..
and japan i def have no problem with..
tbh.. who else really counts?
-
oh and i see the problem with this being... theres a greater chance of veto's for every action.. therefore... more things will get held up by red tape...
the US should just recruit allies and take over the world..
-
There needs to be a Muslim country on that council to make it even some what legitimate
-
and a mormon one? lmao.. please..
it aint about religion
if a muslim country participated and contributed like others did they would be too..
fact is they dont..
-
I only have a problem with india. Everyone else is cool.
You don't see Canada giving a shit!
-
Brazil....Ha!
-
Germany and Japan... Yes. The others... No. The UN doesn't do shit anyway so I guess in retrospect I really don't give a shit.
-
and a mormon one? lmao.. please..
it aint about religion
if a muslim country participated and contributed like others did they would be too..
fact is they dont..
So what you are sayin is:
1- The Mormons are comparable in terms of numbers, and influence to Muslims
2- 1.3 Billion people, 20% of the worlds population deserve no say in the Security council on a permanent basis
3- Muslims dont participate in the UN
How does a 30 year old think like a 12 year old?
-
god your so anal...
listen faghan.
1.. no my point was about religion, i spellt it out for you.
2.. can't deny that.
3.. none at all? well dont you think they should apply?
i'm not 30 :P
-
There needs to be a Muslim country on that council to make it even some what legitimate
how about this for a reason....they can't even run their own countries well, so why should they have a say in how other countries go about their business?
-
how about they know they wouldnt get onboard due to all the human rights treaties they gotta sign up to?
-
listen faghan.
LMFAO...That was great.
-
8)
-
There needs to be a Muslim country on that council to make it even some what legitimate
how about this for a reason....they can't even run their own countries well, so why should they have a say in how other countries go about their business?
This comment is retarded on so many levels.
-
how about they know they wouldnt get onboard due to all the human rights treaties they gotta sign up to?
This comment is retarded on so many levels.
And your fuckin response to me, was in direct confict with your original statement. WCC, we have our own Kerry here.
-
show me a muslim country with a good human rights record, that is signed up the same kinda treaties as the rest of the so called civilised world..
btw.. are why you defending something you arent? you aint from there, you know shit about there..
-
There needs to be a Muslim country on that council to make it even some what legitimate
how about this for a reason....they can't even run their own countries well, so why should they have a say in how other countries go about their business?
This comment is retarded on so many levels.
you must have understood it on so many levels then
-
show me a muslim country with a good human rights record, that is signed up the same kinda treaties as the rest of the so called civilised world..
btw.. are why you defending something you arent? you aint from there, you know shit about there..
Seer out of respect for the fact that this is ya board, you will actually get a proper explanation from me, though Lord knows you dont deserve one, making dumb statements like the above.
1. There does not exist in this earth not even ONE muslim country run according to genuine Islamic principles and laws. These govts and their policies and actions are not representative of the faith that the majority of the populace belongs to. Furthermore, the VAST MAJORITY of these countries are either directly or indirectly aided, abetted, assisted, armed and influenced by Washington, and/or have witnessed interference in their internal affairs:
Morrocco
Algeria
Egypt
Sudan
Turkey
Jordan
Iraq
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Indonesia
Iran
Gulf Emirates
Pakistan
Uzbekistan
Need I go on? Thus, the conclusion of point one, is that in this context, there exists no correlation between the policies of Muslim countries and policies dictated by Islamic faith.
2. The second point is regarding your mention of human rights records and treaties, and the insinuation that these are representative of the countrys inability to function in a civilized manner on the international forum.
i- The VAST MAJORITY of human rights abuses have been commited by American allies, to directly repress the voice of the populace clamouring for either democracy or the right to freedom of religion. The vast majority of these human rights abuses are targeting Muslims. Hussein gassing the Kurds? Under Americas watch!!! Sukarno wiping out thousands of democratic opposition members and students? Under Americas watch!!
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia treating women like shit? Under Americas watch!! Algeria cancelling elections and clamping down on Muslims? Under Amercias watch. Do you see the trend here or not?
ii- These treaties are worthless because America has violated every treaty in existence through its policies. But yet, you want to shed light on American supported anti Islamic dictatorships that violate human rights treaties and then use this as proof that Muslims are the A.D.D student of the class unwilling to co operate. Genuis!!!
Thus, conclusion of point 2, is based on the premise that these govts are illegitimate, and more reflective of American society and ideals then Muslim ones, any mention of human rights abuses that are the result of the polcies of these unrepresentative govts is ridicolous and lacks legitimacy. And thats how, my friend, your point crumbles before your eyes,.
As for that last remark, I would suggest that you re-read what the hell you wrote and seriously ask yourself whether any measure of good will towards you on my behalf is enough to respond to that nonsense.
-
There needs to be a Muslim country on that council to make it even some what legitimate
how about this for a reason....they can't even run their own countries well, so why should they have a say in how other countries go about their business?
This comment is retarded on so many levels.
you must have understood it on so many levels then
Yes, I understood that it was retarded. Unlike you, I dont talk about things I dont understand.
-
There needs to be a Muslim country on that council to make it even some what legitimate
how about this for a reason....they can't even run their own countries well, so why should they have a say in how other countries go about their business?
This comment is retarded on so many levels.
you must have understood it on so many levels then
Yes, I understood that it was retarded. Unlike you, I dont talk about things I dont understand.
you just did, moron....how's your foot taste?
-
I just told you I understand that your comment is retarded. Understanding the retardedness of your comment does not equal recognizing the legitimacy of your comment.
-
no but you are talking about it...damn you're dumb