UN calls for full-scale talks on expanding Security Council

[Marshal]

UN calls for full-scale talks on expanding Security Council - International Herald Tribune
UNITED NATIONS, New York: The UN General Assembly has opened the door to expanding the Security Council by calling for full-scale negotiations on adding new members to the United Nations' most powerful body.

Several diplomats who were involved said that after hours of talks that nearly collapsed, the assembly unanimously passed a resolution on Monday approving "intergovernmental negotiations" on expanding the council to begin by Feb. 28, 2009.

Several UN diplomats described the breakthrough as "historic," saying it greatly increased the likelihood that the council will become larger and more representative of the world of the 21st century.

The process of expanding the council began in 1993, when a UN working group was given the task of drawing up a plan for enlarging the 15-nation body. But the committee worked on the basis of consensus, something it could never achieve because of disagreements among key members like Italy and Germany.

Even if the intergovernmental negotiations strike a deal on enlarging the council, which has the power to authorize sanctions, trade embargoes and military action, the process of ratification by UN member states is likely to take years and there is no guarantee it will succeed.
But diplomats said that moving the discussion out of the deadlocked committee early next year and putting it into the hands of the 192 UN member states will capitalize on the widely held view that an enlargement is long overdue.

"It means that we are now moving from discussion of procedure into discussion of substance," Britain's UN ambassador, John Sawers, said in an interview.

UN diplomats said that it would not be difficult to get the support of two-thirds of the UN member states needed for approval, provided they can agree on how many seats to add.

One recent proposal that UN diplomats said enjoyed broad support among member states called for adding approximately seven new members to the council.

Japan's ambassador, Yukio Takasu, called the assembly's decision "historic." Japan is one of the top candidates for a permanent seat on an expanded council, along with Germany, India, Brazil and an undetermined African nation.

The council has five permanent veto-wielding members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, considered the victors of World War II. Ten nonpermanent members are elected for two-year terms on a regional basis.

The size of the council has increased only once since the United Nations was created in 1945. In 1965, the number of elected members rose from 6 to 10.

The main reason for the slow progress in the working group, which was established in 1993, was that regional rivalries created an impasse that was difficult to break. Italy opposed Germany's aspirations for a permanent seat, just as Pakistan opposed India and Argentina countered Brazil.

Diplomats said the departing president of the General Assembly, Ambassador Sergjan Kerim of Macedonia, played a key role in convincing the working group that the time had come to let go of the issue and allow governments to take over.

 

[nitesh]

that's really good news. Hope this also goes through. these will be a major diplomatic victory like nuclear deal.

 

[Marshal]

that's really good news. Hope this also goes through. these will be a major diplomatic victory like nuclear deal.

well right now India is enjoying the full support from 4 heavy waights, Russia, France, UK and US........I belive we should make it to the UNSC if this expansion talk is seriously consider by the the members of UN.

 

[nitesh]

well right now India is enjoying the full support from 4 heavy waights, Russia, France, UK and US........I belive we should make it to the UNSC if this expansion talk is seriously consider by the the members of UN.

But the expanded council should not have veto powers. otherwise it will further complicate the situation. Only power it should have that it can reverse the decision taken by general members only if majority agrees. Or something like google shares. In which there management guys having 10 voting power per share as compared to general shares were having one voting power per share.

 

[Marshal]

But the expanded council should not have veto powers. otherwise it will further complicate the situation. Only power it should have that it can reverse the decision taken by general members only if majority agrees. Or something like google shares. In which there management guys having 10 voting power per share as compared to general shares were having one voting power per share.

1)well G4 which include the germany, Japan, Brazil, and India all have made it clear that If the Veto is to stay then new permanent members must possess a veto power.......otherwise they wont accept the membership.
2) the other proposal from G4 is to democratisation of UNSC i.e. veto must be abolished.

 

[nitesh]

1)well G4 which include the germany, Japan, Brazil, and India all have made it clear that If the Veto is to stay then new permanent members must possess a veto power.......otherwise they wont accept the membership.
2) the other proposal from G4 is to democratisation of UNSC i.e. veto must be abolished.

No marshal I think the veto must be abolished, otherwise nothing will change except members.

 

[Marshal]

No marshal I think the veto must be abolished, otherwise nothing will change except members.

If India is inducted in the UNSC with one of the above two proposal then India has still got nothing to loose. India's policy is absolutely clear that if we are going to sign any international treaty than India must be treated as equal. e.g NPT ...we did not sign it becouse India belive that NPT is discreminatory to member nation. It has maintained that If all nuclear and non nuclear weapon states agrees to total n-disarmament then only it will sign the NPT. India will follow the same here if all p5 member agrees to abolish veto then it will accept it without veto and if veto stays then India must get it.

 

[nitesh]

If India is inducted in the UNSC with one of the above two proposal then India has still got nothing to loose. India's policy is absolutely clear that if we are going to sign any international treaty than India must be treated as equal. e.g NPT ...we did not sign it becouse India belive that NPT is discreminatory to member nation. It has maintained that If all nuclear and non nuclear weapon states agrees to total n-disarmament then only it will sign the NPT. India will follow the same here if all p5 member agrees to abolish veto then it will accept it without veto and if veto stays then India must get it.

Your point is correct but I am talking about changing the world order. Means in current situation any of the P5 can stop any resolution. I am saying when we are making the new council change the rule so at least a little bit of flexibility can come. but if P5 are not willing to give there power then other members also should get the veto power.

 

[Marshal]

Your point is correct but I am talking about changing the world order. Means in current situation any of the P5 can stop any resolution. I am saying when we are making the new council change the rule so at least a little bit of flexibility can come. but if P5 are not willing to give there power then other members also should get the veto power.

You are right.....and thats the real issue here............

 

[blain2]

No marshal I think the veto must be abolished, otherwise nothing will change except members.

I agree. The biggest problem with UNSC is the right of the few overriding the wishes of many. All decisions should be put to vote and the vote should be binding and without the ability of 5 or however many more to veto anything. Veto is the biggest farce in this entity created by all of those who now have such powers. This setup make the UNSC selectively potent but on aggregate a failure.

 

[Flintlock]

No marshal I think the veto must be abolished, otherwise nothing will change except members.

I don't agree. India should be part of an expanded security council with Veto Powers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Just creating a slightly larger group of elites with a completely 'undemocratic' power is not the answer.

 

[Flintlock]

Just creating a slightly larger group of elites with a completely 'undemocratic' power is not the answer.

The UN is not a democracy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The UN is not a democracy.

That it isn't is clear from the Veto powers enjoyed by some.

Its purpose isn't to only watch out for the interests of 5 or perhaps 9 members either.

 

[blain2]

I don't agree. India should be part of an expanded security council with Veto Powers.

The whole UNSC needs to be discarded in the dustbin of history. The veto powers have been nothing but a useless instrument to bully and derail progress.

Doubt the others would allow any further expansion to the group of hegemons.