Security Council seat for Germany

"Germany on Monday endorsed UN secretary general Kofi Annan's reform package, particularly his proposed reform of the Security Council. The other three contenders for new permanent seats on the council, Japan, India, and Brazil, also supported the proposal."

Source: Expatica
This would be awesome! well, if its USA´s politicians opinion they would like to be alone the "Security Council" part

I do not understand: Why Brazil and India support Germany?

I do understand: Japan and Germany have a kind of alliance for years..thats no question, but the two country above?

What you think about that, if Germany gets a seat in the security council in the UN?

best wishes

dacruz

[edit on 22-3-2005 by dacruz]

If germany can get a security councl seat then It means india and brazil are not ruled out....I think its a good idea germany on the council...adds a non-violent country to the table (Oh and before the replies about WW1 +2 come up please read about them before commenting)

If anyone should get it it should be a contest between Japan and Germany.

Although Germany is a controversial pick isn't it? Still Japan is also a controversial pick.

It's odd the the losers of WW2 are getting more and more powerful. Is this America's true colors shining through?

Originally posted by devilwasp
If germany can get a security councl seat then It means india and brazil are not ruled out....I think its a good idea germany on the council...adds a non-violent country to the table (Oh and before the replies about WW1 +2 come up please read about them before commenting)

yeah, you mean India and Brazil hope, that Germany help them to get more respected in various issues..

Yes, I think a lot of the great ATS members knows the Japan/Germany history..if bad or good

Originally posted by 00PS
If anyone should get it it should be a contest between Japan and Germany.

Although Germany is a controversial pick isn't it? Still Japan is also a controversial pick.

It's odd the the losers of WW2 are getting more and more powerful. Is this America's true colors shining through?

True Colors shining through?

I think it has nothing to do with that.. You mean, its a kindly move of the US?

Originally posted by dacruz
yeah, you mean India and Brazil hope, that Germany help them to get more respected in various issues..

No it means that if the most "evil" people on the planet get in why shouldnt they?
Yes people do think like that..

Yes, I think a lot of the great ATS members knows the Japan/Germany history..if bad or good

A lot do...but some know just one side of it and there some who dont even have a clue....

Originally posed by 00PS
It's odd the the losers of WW2 are getting more and more powerful. Is this America's true colors shining through?

Obviously 00PS, it shows when we crush our enemies and rebuild them as democracies, they end up flourishing.

BTW, there's an ATSNN news article I posted regarding this here: www.abovetopsecret.com....

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posed by 00PS
It's odd the the losers of WW2 are getting more and more powerful. Is this America's true colors shining through?

Obviously 00PS, it shows when we crush our enemies and rebuild them as democracies, they end up flourishing.

BTW, there's an ATSNN news article I posted regarding this here: www.abovetopsecret.com....

The thread does not mention the security council seat for Germany

Originally posted by dacruz
The thread does not mention the security council seat for Germany

Well it mentions expanding the Security Council and Germany is a top contender for one.

[edit on 3/22/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Obviously 00PS, it shows when we crush our enemies and rebuild them as democracies, they end up flourishing.

Btw he means the allies as a whole not just the US.

Duh!!!

Kofi's plan is to move on from the post-WW2 Security Council to one reflecting the new Global Map. The 4 countries would be among 6 new permanent members (from 5 to 11) and have a veto. 13 other members would rotate on & off as before.

A good move in my opinion - WW2 was over 60 years ago and it's time to change.

Not sure it's what George had in mind though

Actually from what I've read, no new permanent members would have the veto power of the current 5 permanent members. They'd just be permanent.

No offence to our German friends and posters here:
If it is a choice between those four countries shouldn't they be from Non Western nations? It is the United Nations after all. India is a no brainer, they fit the bill as huge in population and one of the leaders of the NonAligned Movement. Japan and Germany are about equal and I don't honestly know enough about Brazil to see if the pass the test to be a permanent member.

Originally posted by pavil
No offence to our German friends and posters here:
If it is a choice between those four countries shouldn't they be from Non Western nations? It is the United Nations after all. India is a no brainer, they fit the bill as huge in population and one of the leaders of the NonAligned Movement. Japan and Germany are about equal and I don't honestly know enough about Brazil to see if the pass the test to be a permanent member.

I am German btw...nonetheless good point in here but bear this in mind:

The non-Western countrys must adopt some of the culturally superior characteristics of Europe and United States. In the process, not only will greater human-rights protections be produced - name only one now - but greater wealth as well. Liberty is a necessary ingredient for wealth and other issues.

I am not against this.

Dacruz,
My post was not meant as a slam on any nation just that it should reflect the Global situation and I am glad you took in that vein. It just seems that the UN Security Council would be comprised of too many (US, UK, France, Germany, Japan) Western powers which might be considered by the rest of the world to be too "colonial" for them to stomach if you know what I mean. Your point about respecting human rights is well taken but with China and Russia there have had steps forward and then steps taken backwards with both of them in regards to human rights/ Democracy.

The non-Western countrys must adopt some of the culturally superior characteristics of Europe and United States.

.
That is some dangerous talk when you start talking about being culturally superior. If you were an American, the posters on this board would let you have it for being insensitive to the rest of the world. You might want to clarify what you mean by that.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Actually from what I've read, no new permanent members would have the veto power of the current 5 permanent members. They'd just be permanent.

Quite right. My mistake. So three tiers of members:

5 permanent (Russia, UK, France, China. and USA) with veto powers

6 permanent (Japan, Brazil, Germany, India + 2 African nations) with no veto

13 rotating members

In these terms the change actually isn't that radical at all

yeah, right..lets change that "superior"

The non-Western countrys must adopt some of the culturally affirmatory characteristics of Europe and United States. .. better?

dont wanted to be ignorant to the rest of the world

dacruz