Posted on 09/21/2004 5:17:16 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Four countries that want permanent membership on an expanded U.N. Security Council - Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - vowed on Tuesday to support each other's bids and pledged to reform the United Nations.
"The Security Council must reflect the realities of the international community in the 21st century," the countries said in a statement that noted the U.N.'s membership has increased nearly four-fold since it was founded in 1945.
"It must be representative, legitimate and effective. It is essential that the Security Council includes, on a permanent basis, countries that have the will and the capacity to take on major responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security," the statement said.
It was issued after a meeting attended by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Indian Prime Minister Mammohan Singh, and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer.
The four countries said that Africa "must also be represented in the permanent membership of the Security Council." African leaders are debating which country from the vast continent might get a Security Council seat if one is made available.
In his address to the U.N. General Assembly, Brazil's Lula said the 15-member council "is the only source of legitimate action in the field of international peace and security."
"But its composition must reflect today's reality - not perpetuate the post-World War II era," he said. "Reform proposals that simply dress the current structure in new clothes and do not provide for an increase in the number of permanent members are manifestly insufficient."
The council's permanent members include the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France, the only countries with veto power on the decision-making body. The 10 other council members are chosen for two-year terms by regional groups.
Koizumi, whose country is the second-largest contributor to the United Nations after the United States, also was expected to make Japan's case for permanent membership in his General Assembly speech later Tuesday.
Japan has long campaigned for a permanent seat on the council. But Koizumi took the campaign to a new level when he adopted it as his pet project ahead of a U.N. report that will address ways to reform the United Nations.
The report, expected in December, will be the basis of a major report by the secretary-general to the 191 U.N. member states in the spring. Annan said Monday he wants world leaders to come to the General Assembly next year and be prepared to take action on its recommendations.
President Bush's administration has supported Japan in its drive for a permanent Security Council seat, and India got a boost for its efforts from British Prime Minister Tony Blair earlier this week.
"India is a country of 1.2 billion people. For India not to be represented on the Security Council is, I think, something that is not in tune with the modern times in which we live," Blair said Monday.
Critics, however, say Koizumi has been vague about what Japan would do with a permanent seat. Some say Japan would be unable to fulfill such responsibilities as authorizing a war because its pacifist constitution bars it from sending its own troops to battle.
Akira Chiba, a spokesman for the Japanese foreign ministry, said financial contributions were important but not the only reason his country deserved a permanent seat.
"It's about Japan's continued efforts to handle the issues that the international community has to face," he said, noting the problems facing the world have changed since the United Nations was created in the aftermath of World War II.
Chiba declined to say whether Japan would accept a permanent seat without veto power but said his country supported adding five new permanent members and four new non-permanent members.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan has supported enlarging the council to command greater respect, especially in the developing world, and to make it more effective.
Japan contributed about $263 million to the United Nations general budget in 2003. The sum accounts for nearly one-fifth of the budget, and Japan pays hundreds of millions more for peacekeeping, development and other U.N. programs.
The United States contributes more than $300 million yearly.
none of them will get on.
no to brazil and germany - maybe have japan and india get one half of a vote - france's vote, which will be removed from the security council. Because having france on the security council is a contradiction in terms.
Ya beat me to it! Agree totally with your assesment. Brazil is a basket case and Germany will need to be dealt with again.
Japan and India yes. Germany should be part of an EU seat with France and the UK dropping out. Brazil no.
It's nothing but a glorified debating society now, and this will strip it of any meaningful power.
The UN has no support in the US and we are just waiting for a Politician to run on the platform of de-funding them!
As long as the Security Council holds the real power in the UN and the USA remains a permanent member with a veto, the rest is OK. We (USA) will never get a better deal in another international organization than the one we have right now with the UN. Regardless of the anti-American rhetoric in that place, the USA has a permanent veto and when the chips are down, can stop the UN in its tracks.
Agreed. Let them all on, then pull the US out and kick the UN out of New York. Bortz this morning said we should send the UN to Haiti and let them run the island with their superior policies.
The UN is an impotent organization and can only hamper any future military actions that the United States might have to take to protect our own(and the worlds) security.
Great idea. As soon as we're out of the UN.
No room for the gutless.
In fact, we should replace France.
As long as we are a permanent, veto-wielding member of the UNSC, the UN can do nothing to hamper us. They have no authority over us unless we give it to them. As a standing organization, there are times when the UN can be useful to us, but the beauty of the current charter is that the USA can stop cold any action we don't like--we'll never get that type of power again in any new organization or if the UN is "reformed" by the internationalists.
If we were the only country with a veto I would agree with your assessment but we aren't.
I understand what you are saying, but other UNSC members with a veto can only stop the UN from taking action, they can't stop us from doing what needs doing outside the UN; e.g. Iraq and Kosovo (horrors! a Dem administration acting without UN consent! Doesn't seem to get brought up too often when Bush is castigated for doing the same!)
Let's say we have to go into Iran because there is firsthand intel that shows the mullahs to be just months from getting the bomb and we go to the UNSC for a vote and China and Russia veto. But our leaders, hopefully, decide that our national security is too important and attack/invade Iran anyhow to neutralize the threat. If we act contrary to the UNSC permanent veto holding members then who is to say they won't do the same sometime in the future when we try to use our veto?
Well, they can act on their own; our veto only applies to the UN taking collective action. Every country still can take whatever action it deems fit on its own as a sovereign entity.
Now Brazil is working on nukes. I worry we may be passing the point of no return on those things. Too late to stop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.