G-4 nations put joint bid for Security Council expansion

[sivadreams]

G-4 nations put joint bid for Security Council expansion
Indrani Bagchi, TNN | Jan 27, 2012, 01.00AM IST


NEW DELHI: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany chose the Indian Republic Day to launch a fresh offensive in the UN for expansion of the Security Council. The G-4, as they are better known, for the first time, put a joint bid for the UN Security Council during a closed plenary session at the UN General Assembly on Thursday, which is headed by Zahir Tanin, the UN ambassador from Afghanistan.

In a strongly worded statement, the G-4 countries said, "This Council should be expanded in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, taking into consideration the contributions made by countries to the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as the need for increased representation of developing countries in both categories. On numerous occasions, we have reconfirmed our view that Africa should be represented in the permanent membership in an enlarged Council."

The plenary, which began with the G-4 statement, faced instant opposition from China. China, which has opposed the G-4 bid, and is the guardian angel for the opposers, United for Consensus (earlier known as the Coffee Club). The Chinese delegate called the resolution "divisive" while opposing it.

The G-4 initiative had lately seemed to have run out of steam, with other considerations triumphing over Security Council reform. But the joint offensive, said sources, is a sign that the energy is back.

While refusing to talk about the most touchy of subjects, veto power, the G-4 statement focuses on changing the "working methods" of the UN Security Council, as well as the membership. "Our proposal is straightforward. It focuses on two aspects of Security Council reform, on which, according to our outreach, large majorities exist among member states: firstly, that expansion in membership should be in both categories, permanent and non-permanent, and secondly, that the working methods of the Council should be improved. Nothing more, nothing less."

The four countries observed that there had been limited success to the process till date. Taking the bull by the horns, the G-4 said their initiative was short and realistic. Defending their initiative, the G-4 said, "We believe that our proposal can generate the momentum needed to kick-start real negotiations. Some call this 'piecemeal' or 'cherry-picking'. We call it a realistic and results-driven approach. Let us agree on what most member states agree on and let us then tackle the other issues."

In the coming weeks, there will be four other resolutions that will be put on the table. A vote is not expected for several days and a lot of heated discussions are about the liven up UN debates.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The plenary, which began with the G-4 statement, faced instant opposition from China. China, which has opposed the G-4 bid, and is the guardian angel for the opposers, United for Consensus (earlier known as the Coffee Club). The Chinese delegate called the resolution "divisive" while opposing it.

Without the unanimous approval of ALL the P5 members, the UN charter cannot be amended. Which would make it impossible to allow new permanent members in the UNSC.

No veto is required. If even one member of the P5 decides to abstain, then the reform will fail.

From the United Nations website:

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

 

[sivadreams]

Without the unanimous approval of ALL the P5 members, the UN charter cannot be amended. Which would make it impossible to allow new permanent members in the UNSC.

No veto is required. If even one member of the P5 decides to abstain, then the reform will fail.

From the United Nations website:

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

Yes whats new in this? But that does not abstain G4 to press for reform. The very reason why UN requires reform is that the Security Council is being out dated.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It is unfortunate that India decided to throw in a "joint-bid" with the entire G4.

Both China and Russia are opposed to the entry of Japan into the UNSC as a permanent member, because they will simply vote for America every time. Also, both China and Russia have territorial disputes with Japan.

When you have got two permanent members opposing your bid (and several non-permanent members like Korea), then there is almost no chance of getting in.

And by vetoing one, the entire G4 will get vetoed as well, due to the joint-bid.

 

[Roybot]

India's relationship with Japan is more important than security council seat. We can't just ditch them.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

India's relationship with Japan is more important than security council seat. We can't just ditch them.

I'm not complaining, I said it was unfortunate from the point of view of the Indians who want their country to become a permanent member of the UNSC.

 

[Kazhugu]

India's relationship with Japan is more important than security council seat. We can't just ditch them.

agreed.....in fact i would go with a strategic partnership covering defence and technology with japan over a un seat..

 

[pmukherjee]

I'm not complaining, I said it was unfortunate from the point of view of the Indians who want their country to become a permanent member of the UNSC.

You are absolutely right. Japan simply carries too much baggage and being grouped with Japan will reduce our chances for entering the UNSC. Likewise, I think the US may oppose the membership of Brazil. However, the stage is not yet set for a vote on the issue.These are pressure tactics to force the issue of the UNSC expansion on the agenda for the UNGA. When the time comes, I am sure India will go it alone without the G4.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Also, it will be difficult for Germany to get in, because there are already 2 seats for Europe. Britain and France.

They might end up sharing a seat with France to represent the Eurozone.

 

[canadian icehole]

I say India and Brazil should be given a seat at the UNSC. The unfortunate part is the territorial dispute between India and China which needs to be resolved first. However, I think the UN needs to be reformed or disbanded as I see it as a useless organization.

---------- Post added at 07:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:57 PM ----------

Also, it will be difficult for Germany to get in, because there are already 2 seats for Europe. Britain and France.

They might end up sharing a seat with France to represent the Eurozone.

I wonder if Britain will lose it's place in the UNSC if Scotland decides to separate from the UK.

 

[lilaspr]

India should stop pushing for UN security expansion plan without an exclusive china understanding, its not possible.
India as a permanent member is in China future interest, if you take a look at any international crisis weather its Iran tension or something else.
India is more or less always stand with Russia and china. It is absolutely insane to think Japan, Brazil and Germany will ever say no to any of American request. India is safest bet, i believe after few years china will come to realize this....

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I wonder if Britain will lose it's place in the UNSC if Scotland decides to separate from the UK.

I don't think Britain will lose a seat even if Scotland separates.

The seat goes to the successor nation. Like the seat for the Soviet Union went to the Russian federation, and the seat for the RoC went to the PRC.

According to the UN charter, only 5 countries have permanent seats, and the UK is one of them. If they want to change the charter they'll need unanimous approval from all the P5 representatives, and a supermajority in the general assembly.

 

[Holmes]

i think both India and Brazil deserve the UN seat.
Brazil because there's no other country best suited to represent Latin America than Brazil.

 

[Raje amar]

It is unfortunate that India decided to throw in a "joint-bid" with the entire G4.

Both China and Russia are opposed to the entry of Japan into the UNSC as a permanent member, because they will simply vote for America every time. Also, both China and Russia have territorial disputes with Japan.

When you have got two permanent members opposing your bid (and several non-permanent members like Korea), then there is almost no chance of getting in.

And by vetoing one, the entire G4 will get vetoed as well, due to the joint-bid.

dont wory there wont be any voting for the group, the voting will be for the individual countries.
so the joint bid is just for pushing the reforms, and not the common voting.

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

There is in one poster here, @gotterdung a german who always supports china .

now wonder, germany wants a permanent seat while China vehemently opposes G4, so who gotterrdamen would support his own nation or china.

@topic: I think UN is useless organization which could not prevent iraq, afghanistan libya or nigeria violence.
India should spend diplomatic energies in bilateral and multilateral organisations than on UN