It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: U.S. Backs Japan for UN Security Council Seat

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
The United States announced today that it will back Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council but stopped short of endorsing the other three nations seeking permanent status on the Council -- Germany, India and Brazil. Secretary of State Rice said "The United States does not oppose the candidacy of any state, but we are concerned that there will not be enough time for discussions on the Security Council reform, and this very important issue must be given due consideration." The Security Council is currently composed of five permanent members and ten rotating temporary members. Discussions of expanding the Council have been going on for years.
 



today.reu ters.com
TOKYO (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday it supports Japan's bid for a U.N. Security Council seat but stopped short of endorsing a U.N. reform proposal made by the Group of Four -- Japan, Germany, India and Brazil.

"I reaffirmed to the foreign minister our support for a Japanese seat on the United Nations Security Council," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters after holding talks with Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura in Tokyo.

Brazil formally introduced a resolution on Security Council enlargement on Monday in what could lead to a radical change in the prestigious 15-member body after a decade-long discussion.

The draft U.N. General Assembly resolution from Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, aspirants to permanent council seats, once had the most traction of any proposal.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Japan certainly deserves a seat as the second-largest economy in the world.

I have no problem with any of these states getting permanent seats as long as they don't have veto power, although I view Germany as the most troublesome. The EU already has two permanent seats with veto power, so it seems that Europe will be overrepresented on the Council if Germany is added.




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
i would have to agree with you there

Japan definately deserves a seat

I think Brazil and India deserve a shot at it too

But ill have to agree that Germany probably shouldnt have a seat; due to the reasons u pointed out already
Europe doesnt need 3 seats

good find



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
in my opinion Japan deserves a seat, for the reason the previous poster said, i think India also deserves one, i'm not sure about brazil, but i agree with the others and must say Germany shouldn't get one



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Why should Germany not?

They are one of the largest economys in the World, they are a key in international politics and it is doubtful that the three European Nations would vote together on any issue - about as likely as China and Japan voting together on something.

If anything there are several other Nations which should have more say in World Politics, India is a must just because of sheer numbers - 1billion people and all.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
On the plus side, there is little doubt that a now reunited Germany is the dominant country in Europe. Imagine what it will look like once Germany recovers from the massive drain of reabsorbing and rehabilitating East Germany.

On the negative side, the concerns about Europe being 'overrepresented' on the Security Council seem quite valid. Adding another European member to the SC is simply not a good idea.

The obvious solution is to remove France as a permanent member, and especially stripping them of their veto power. The French no longer really merit such a position of prestige and responsiblity in world affairs, do they?


(As aside, did you hear that during the London bombings the French raised their terror alert from 'Run' to 'Hide'!)



Japan - A permanent SC seat is long overdue.
Brazil - Regional representation would also mandate their membership.
India - Absolutely deserve it, but if you look at geopolitics of the
subcontinent (Pakistan!). What to do?

The thing to keep in mind is on paper these additions sound good, but in terms of actually trying to transact SC business...

Because of the political realities, it is already SO difficult to get the SC to respond in a timely fashion to issues brought before them. How does introducing so many more (dissenting) voices advance the UNs agenda?

No more veto powers.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I think that all veto power should be removed personally, i think permanent status is a good idea but veto power is too much, it gives each country way too much control



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I'm all for Japan as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. No question there.

I'm in favor of India and Brazil for the UNSC but Germany is a big question mark but most likely get it sometimes in the near future.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Japan is only being endorsed because they are a close American ally. India should be the very next permenant country on the SC. They represent nearly 20% of the Worlds population. They also provide the most troops for UN peace keeping missions. Japan doesnt get involved all that much with peace keeping (soldiers), but usually resorts to technical involvement (repairs, reconstruction etc).

With regards to veto's, remove them all. The whole notion of veto negates the idea of a security council. No nation should wield a veto, the council's majority vote should be the be all and end all.

[edit on 12/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Why not germany?
I think they deserve it, they where before WW1 one of our greatest ally's.
Hell might have even joined thier side in WW1 if it wasnt for the boer war.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Veto:

But once we remove the veto do you think those nations which use it all the time will still remain a member? If America can't veto this, that and the other what is the point in them staying there?

Really the U.N. is used as a diplomatic relations platform, for the Security Council. We'll veto this for cheap oil, etc.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
The obvious solution is to remove France as a permanent member, and especially stripping them of their veto power. The French no longer really merit such a position of prestige and responsiblity in world affairs, do they?


(


Agreed - did they ever deserve it though?

Deleted as we're not allowed to criticise France, at all

Only reason they're there is to counter the UK (in US's interests to do so), they don't deserve it.

[edit on 12/7/05 by CTID56092]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Can you take your French bashing some place else, I do not want to read it. Can you please stick to the topic?

Edit: You do realise youre criticising France for their WW2 behaviour and how it affects their merrits for SC membership whilst endorsing Germany and Japan


[edit on 12/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Well if the EU ever does adapt a federal constitution, I think the European seats on the Security Council will have to be reworked no matter what. It certainly wouldn't be fair for the EU to have multiple seats while the U.S., China and Russia have one each.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well if the EU ever does adapt a federal constitution, I think the European seats on the Security Council will have to be reworked no matter what. It certainly wouldn't be fair for the EU to have multiple seats while the U.S., China and Russia have one each.

What?
Why would it make a federal consitution?
Why are you makeing it sound like a european government?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
What?
Why would it make a federal consitution?
Why are you makeing it sound like a european government?


It certainly seems like that's the long-term goal of the EU proponents, to make a central European government along the lines of a "United States of Europe"



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It certainly seems like that's the long-term goal of the EU proponents, to make acentral European government along the lines of a "United States of Europe"


But that was shot down by the French and the Dutch people. Its not going to happen.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It certainly seems like that's the long-term goal of the EU proponents, to make a central European government along the lines of a "United States of Europe"

Then you are paranoid.
The EU consitution is in no way like the US one.
Think outside the box.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
But that was shot down by the French and the Dutch people. Its not going to happen.


Yeah, for the time being. But I think it'll probably happen someday, with a different document under better terms with a less ambiguous document. It will take time to re-educate and properly condition the population to it though.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Yeah, for the time being. But I think it'll probably happen someday, with a different document under better terms with a less ambiguous document. It will take time to re-educate and properly condition the population to it though.

Jesus man this aint the NWO, its a bloody union about mainly economic things, its not about setting up a european government!



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Then you are paranoid.
The EU consitution is in no way like the US one.


I'm not paranoid, I'm not even really against it.

I'd rather see a united Europe with a clear concise constitution and strong but democratic central government along the lines of the American Consitution rather than that atrocity the bureaucrats tried to get passed.



new topics




 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join