It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply the United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.
- 1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
- 1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
- 1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
- 1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
- 1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
- 1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
The G4 is an alliance among Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan for the purpose of supporting each other’s bids for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council.
There has been discontent among the present permanent members regarding the inclusion of controversial nations or countries not supported by them
Uniting for Consensus (UfC) is a movement (nicknamed the Coffee Club) that developed in the 1990s in opposition to the possible expansion of the United Nations Security Council. Recently revived by Italy, it now has about 40 members aiming to counter the G4 nations' bids for permanent seats. The leaders are Italy, Pakistan, Mexico, Argentina and South Korea.
A UN General Assembly in September 2005 marked the 60th anniversary of the UN and the members were to decide on a number of necessary reforms—including the enlarged SC. However the unwillingness to find a negotiable position stopped even the most urgent reforms meant the September 2005 General Assembly was a setback for the UN
Expressing ‘bahut dhanyavaad’ to the people of India for their warm reception, US President Barack Obama announced his country’s support to India for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council but added that it will come with conditions like speaking out against Myanmar and imposing sanctions on Iran
I see that you left out your response to my first Socratic question as to how you would suggest the charter be reformed to allow India to be a permanent member. [sic[ India is Insisting, actually demanding that not only themselves be made permanent members but three other countries, two of them quite controversial. (Japan and Germany)
I believe that America must remain a permanent member if for no other reason than the instability and unrest it would cause were they to be removed... [sic] ... I know that the US has led many reforms and agreements that have had worldwide impacts ... [sic] ... They are seen as a leader for peace in the UN, whereas India recently has caused segregation.
When the great powers do utilize the council for collective action, it is usually with regard to a relatively narrow set of issues. A cynic might call them "wastebasket issues." (Banerjee, 2007)
Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N.
Do you think it was appropriate for President Obama to publicly support India as a permanent member of the UNSC, and why or why not?
How do you feel about the members of the G4? Since India is demanding that all or none be admitted as permanent members and is insisting on 11 permanent members and 13 temporary, than why do feel the other G4 countries should or should not be accepted?
The G4 is ultimately made irrelevant to this debate since its creation was out of the frustration of the United Nations inability to agree on reform.
The G-4 Brazil, Germany, India and Japan hold the view that the new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent. However, the new permanent members will hold off wielding the Veto power for fifteen years after the reforms come into place…Speaking at the ongoing discussion on the reforms this week, Puri said that this compromise would "ensure that the veto does not veto Council reform."
India, Brazil, Germany and Japan (collectively known as G4 nations) have reiterated the need for urgent reform of the Security Council, including expansion of permanent and non-permanent membership, to make it more responsive to 21st century realities.
With India having got the US's coveted backing for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, two major aspirants to the high table are fuming. Both Germany and Japan went public with their annoyance at their claims being overlooked and made their displeasure known to the US....With Obamas announcement on Monday, the US has shifted its own stance to accommodate India. But that doesn't mean the G4 to which India has tacked its own aspirations is in the clear yet....Security Council reform is not only about putting India into the body. The issues at stake are what should be the ideal size of a new UNSC; whether the new members would have veto rights, the number of permanent and non-permanent members, its relations with the UN General Assembly, whether there should be regional representation.
Many of these oppositions are based on old rivalries from back in World War II, and very few of the opposing nations have anything in common but their opposition.
Simply members a rag tag group protecting their own interest and show no threat to the United Nations as a group.
The powers that be are unwilling to make changes that might make the Security Council more effective in favor of their own selfish interests.The opposition of expansion is in favor of keeping up old rivalries. This is not part of a democratic process ...
What type of democratic process allows a handful of members to prevent the progress of many?
"It is a tragic irony to think in India, a country now wealthy enough that roughly half of the people own phones," so many people "cannot afford the basic necessity and dignity of a toilet," said U.N. University director Zafar Adeel.
Decision to: westcoast
Comments: I felt westcoast argued with logical-passion backed by relevant research (except for the Wiki links, my personal bias disclosure) and provided not only a snapshot of the global eccentricities surrounding this topic, but also remained on target while doing so by keeping an eye towards and the debate centered primarily on India, itself, with less venture into placing the focus on other member nations and their issues. I felt westcoast
addressed socratic questions directly and was consistently on point with those answers while also defending the stance assigned in this debate.
I felt pinke also argued with passion backed by relevant research, but was less strong in the area of topical application of that research. Reading the debate, I felt confused at times as to the direction and argument pinke was presenting for India as it seemed that India was lost in the discussion which seemed more centered on
other nations and their activities. While I felt I came away with a good concept of the global/member issues of the inner-workings of the UNSC, I did not have a better understanding of the why's or the how's India's inclusion as a perm. member would be of benefit or ultimately, why India should be included.
This one goes to Pinke -- excellent research.
(personal opinion: the contrarian position really is difficult to achieve. Props to Westcoast for attempting it and making a strong-ish rally in spite of personal beliefs.)
Judgment is for westcoast.
Both debaters opened strongly, and the debate started out very promising. However, Pinke's missed posts guaranteed the win for westcoast. The debate was fairly even up through the third posts from each debater, with a slight edge to Pinke. But westcoast did a good job of answering Pinke's points in his third post, and the fact that this post and his fourth post went unanswered leaves his argument clearly the stronger.