Page 1 of 12 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 166

Thread: Do G4 have a case.

  1. #1
    An t-aimiréal chléthúil Senior Contributor crooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Oct 06
    Location
    Baile Átha Cliath/Dublin, again.
    Posts
    2,490

    Do G4 have a case.

    I'm just wondering what the general opinion is on a important issue fot the UN.

    For those unaware, G4 is an organisation of 4 nation's who wish for permenant seats on the UN security council.

    They are:

    Japan
    India
    Brazil
    Germany

    I firmly believe they have a valid case (japan and germany are the UN's two biggest contributors, Brazil would be a vital 3rd world ambassador and India is the world's largest democracy).

    Any thoughs?

  2. #2
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    I don't know about Brazil...

    Will these new permanant members have veto power? Or that's reserved for the founding 5 only?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  3. #3
    An t-aimiréal chléthúil Senior Contributor crooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Oct 06
    Location
    Baile Átha Cliath/Dublin, again.
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I don't know about Brazil...

    Will these new permanant members have veto power? Or that's reserved for the founding 5 only?
    Apparantly, they do want the veto.

    Considering nations like the UK and France both have a vetos, and less than half the populace of brazil, I think it makes sense.
    Last edited by crooks; 15 Dec 06, at 23:05. Reason: spelling error

  4. #4
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Brazil has other problems to worry about. Population doesn't a world power make.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor Amled's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 04
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    I don't know about Brazil...

    Will these new permanant members have veto power? Or that's reserved for the founding 5 only?
    Increasing the number of nations with veto powers, will only further hamstring the UNSC.
    The consensus needed to enact resolutions will be further watered down.
    When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

  6. #6
    An t-aimiréal chléthúil Senior Contributor crooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Oct 06
    Location
    Baile Átha Cliath/Dublin, again.
    Posts
    2,490
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Brazil has other problems to worry about. Population doesn't a world power make.
    Well what does good sir?

    Economy?
    Brazil's is rising, and profiting greatly.

    Military?
    The best military in SA, I believe.

    Society?
    Few cultures have a richer or more diverse one.

    And it's not so much a world power as regionl power.

    Seeing as SA's 370 mn inhabitants have very little representation in the SC, maybe they should be given a chance.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    11 Nov 06
    Location
    Delhi
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by crooks View Post
    I'm just wondering what the general opinion is on a important issue fot the UN.

    For those unaware, G4 is an organisation of 4 nation's who wish for permenant seats on the UN security council.

    They are:

    Japan
    India
    Brazil
    Germany

    I firmly believe they have a valid case (japan and germany are the UN's two biggest contributors, Brazil would be a vital 3rd world ambassador and India is the world's largest democracy).

    Any thoughs?

    They do have a case. It's plain stupid to consider the UN a representative organization of nations where India (1/6th of humanity) and the largest secular democracy in the world has the same vote as Burkina Faso. Why Maoist China that had before the 80's a lesser per capita income than India would be considered to have a veto in affairs and India not. The UN loses it's relevence without India. I consider it demeaning that a dictatorship like China sits in the security council and decides or veto's on resolutions on a truly democratic, representative and secular country like India. Makes no sense to me. In my opinion India should not have been in the UN at all.

  8. #8
    Regular
    Join Date
    08 Oct 06
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    111
    Germany or Japan in the security council? Never.

    The security council is made up of the victors of WWII. To allow these two defeated nations into the security council would be an outrage and insult to the Allies. The two nations who instigated the world war for which the UN was created to fight against shall never be included in the security council.

    India. Well, India might have large population, but it lacks the prestige and importance of the current security council members.

    Brazil is basically an unimportant state in the grand scheme of things.

    The security council should continue to consist of the victor states of WWII.

  9. #9
    Senior Contributor Amled's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 04
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by durtyburd View Post
    ...The security council should continue to consist of the victor states of WWII.
    The people who started WWII, are for the most part dead and buried.
    What you are advocating smacks of "...sins of the father!"
    When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    11 Nov 06
    Location
    Delhi
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by durtyburd View Post
    Germany or Japan in the security council? Never.

    The security council is made up of the victors of WWII.

    India. Well, India might have large population, but it lacks the prestige and importance of the current security council members.

    Brazil is basically an unimportant state in the grand scheme of things.
    Prestige and importance have ONLY to do with a UNSC veto. That was given to nations far more notorious than India. China. Why would a basketcase aggressive Maoist dictatorship, presumably worse than the North Korean one today have a veto over an India that was democratic, secular? Once the group was in place they made the cutoff period for the P5 (nuclear weapons states) before 1974..to include China in the scheme of things and exclude India by force.

    Its stupid to say that the worlds largest democracy, 4th largest economy, 4th most powerful military, 7th largest country will be subject to whims and machinations of nations in the UNSC that that don't make these grades.

    And as for you mentioning that grand scheme of things.. What is that grand scheme you envison without India, Brazil, Japan?

  11. #11
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    The veto was given to KMT China if anyone wanted to get their facts straight. 4th most powerful economy and military? You've got your facts off.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    11 Nov 06
    Location
    Delhi
    Posts
    54
    No i have them correct. According to PPP India comes after the US, China, Japan. So it is the 4th largest economy. Militarily it will be a little subjective. We could possible debate that in some other thread. It would'nt have much relevence either to India's case or to this thread.

  13. #13
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by northface View Post
    No i have them correct. According to PPP India comes after the US, China, Japan. So it is the 4th largest economy. Militarily it will be a little subjective. We could possible debate that in some other thread. It would'nt have much relevence either to India's case or to this thread.

    PPP! I'm so sick of PPP. Tell you what. You give me one real dollar. In exchange, I will give you one billion PPP dollars. Get it? It's a skewed yardstick that has absolute zero meaning in the real world. You can't buy a fridge with PPP dollars and its measurement ONLY have meaning within India. It certainly does NOT make India the 4th most powerful nor the 4th largest in the world because India does not trade as the 4th most powerful economy in the world. So, that measure doesn't mean squat in world power terms.

    2ndly, India has the 4th LARGEST military in the world according to the CIA. It certainly does not translate to the the 4th most powerful.

  14. #14
    Ex-Wabber Defense Professional
    Join Date
    10 Dec 04
    Posts
    7,029
    Quote Originally Posted by crooks View Post
    ...japan and germany are the UN's two biggest contributors
    The US is the biggest contributor, both to the operating budget (22%) and the peacekeeping budget (27%). Japan and Germany are second and third at about 19.5% and 9.5% (of the operating budget) each. The US is the only country that pays the cap (maximum) amount every year.

    The US Congress passed legislation limiting the peacekeeping contribution to 25% pending some reforms (that haven't happened), so there are arrears building up. IIRC Congress recently passed a bill that allows that to be payed down.

    Germany's addition would overtilt the SC towards Europe unless France decided to step down (not too likely...) But Russia, France, Britain, and Germany all at once would not be that great.

    Japan would be okay.

    Brazil would be okay, but explain that to Argentina.

    India would be okay, but the NPT is a sticky point.

    There will be no new vetos, wishing for that is like hoping Santa is real. No P5 country is going to dilute their own power, and it's impossible to get a resolution with any teeth passed as it is.

    Any expanded SC will only increase the deadlock, but it's so bad now, who cares?
    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

  15. #15
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    04 May 05
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    255
    Quote Originally Posted by highsea View Post
    Any expanded SC will only increase the deadlock, but it's so bad now, who cares?
    Exactly. Let them all join, if it makes them happy.
    The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
    Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
    - The Eagles

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Christians besieged in Pakistan
    By Tronic in forum International Politics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07 Jun 07,, 04:51
  2. My Opinion of Islam
    By Insomniac in forum International Politics
    Replies: 252
    Last Post: 22 May 07,, 12:30

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •