Australia backs Inda bid for UNSC seat

[hammer]

New Delhi, June 9. (PTI): Australia said on Wednesday it would like to see India as a permanent member of an expanded United Nations Security Council.

"I don't think it would be appropriate to exclude India as a permanent member of the Security Council," visiting Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told reporters here after holding wide-ranging talks with External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh here.

Observing that he saw a "reasonable chance" of expansion of the Security Council, Downer said Australia would also like Japan and Brazil as permanent members of UNSC.

"Finessing is required of the draft resolution mooted by the G-4 (comprising India, Brazil, Japan and Germany on expansion of the Security Council). If this is done, it will have a good chance of passage," he said.

Replying to questions on Indo-Australian relations, Downer said the outlook for Indian economy was "very promising" and that Australian businessmen were "greatly enthused".

He said Australia and India could become closer partners in information and communication technology as also in biotechnology.

"We would like to see scientific links with India developing more closely," he said.

Link

[hammer]

UNSC candidates to renounce veto for 15 years

Germany, Brazil, India and Japan will forgo their veto rights for at least 15 years if they become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, a draft proposal made public on Thursday said.

The countries are lobbying for a permanent position on the UN Security Council, and circulated a revised draft of their proposal, which includes expanding the council from the current 15 members to 25.

According to the text the new permanent members 'should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members'.

However 'the new permanent members shall not exercise the right of veto' until 15 years after the measure is approved, the text said.

The Security Council currently has five members with the right to veto -- China, the United States, France, Britain and Russia -- as well as 10 non-permanent members.

The four nations plan to put their motion to the General Assembly if they are certain they will get the support of two-thirds of the 191 UN members so that it will be passed.

link

[Karthik]

A plausible new draft, but renouncing the veto for 15 years means that we wont serve any other purpose than occupying a chair in the council during that period.

15 years is too long a period. :)

[indianguy4u]

15 years is too long a period

Kuch paane ke liye kuch khoona padta hai yaar !!!!!!!

[Leader]

The more countries with a veto the less likely that anything will get done. If these countries want a influential UN, which doesn't seem to be the direction it's going at the moment, they should seek to eliminate the veto. This will likely never happen, but if 9 counties have a veto, nothing at all controversial will even get through.

[indianguy4u]

I don't know why there is no candidate from africa esp south africa for the membership along with G-4

[Karthik]

That is right. There is a need to bring in a voice from the African continent.

They have a right to be represented in the council. South Africa is my candidate.

But when you see the the turmoil in DR Congo, Darfur, Sierra Leone and and many other strife-torn countries, this becomes really hard.

[Samudra]

Are Americans against the very democracy,for which they claim to be fighting world over , inside the UN ? ;)

[Asim Aquil]

The more countries with a veto the less likely that anything will get done. If these countries want a influential UN, which doesn't seem to be the direction it's going at the moment, they should seek to eliminate the veto. This will likely never happen, but if 9 counties have a veto, nothing at all controversial will even get through.

ditto.

Eliminate the damn security council, and make every nation vote!

[Karthik]

Huh?

Make every nation vote eh?

How about Sudan voting on a major decision concerning human rights? Or North Korea voting on anti-proliferation measures? ;)

Just not feasible.

[Leader]

ditto.

Eliminate the damn security council, and make every nation vote!

We have that it's called the General Assembly. I don't think the solution is to go in that direction. Any vote in such a body wouldn't be particularly realistic of the balance of power in the world. Let's face it if the US, China, and Russia could ever agree on something, it's unlikely a 3-170ish vote in the General Assembly is good to stop them.