Talk:Reform of the United Nations Security Council

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

This page could do with some work: there is already information available, as the Security Council page has more information than this. JDH Owens 12:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India and Muslims

When mentioning that 1.2 Billion muslims would not be included under the G4 plan, you have forgot about India. India has the second largest number of muslims after Indonesia. In this sense, India can be seen as a "compromise candidate" for the Security Council.

But India is predominantly Hindu country and has long been the only arch-rival of Pakistan,one of the largest Muslim identity country.So,it is unsuitable to represent India for the Muslim world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.72.251 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, arch-rivalry with a Muslim dominant country in no way inhibits the fact that India still has one of the largest Islamic representations in the world. Also India is a secular country, not a Hindu country. #offtopic- Proud to be an Indian

POV

However, questions still remain. How did such traditional UN stalwarts as Canada and the Nordic countries get left out of a plan that would leave them on the sidelines but elevate larger developing countries, some of which represent threats to international peace and security? Also these liberal democracies have wholeheartedly adopted Universal Human Rights while many of the proposed new members have a history of abuses towards their own populations.

I've removed this statement as it hardly seems NPOV. At the very least it's very poorly written since it's in the first person. However while it may have some valid points that are worth including, it also misses some other relevant points especially in comparison to current permanent member states. For example, German and Japan clearly have better domestic and international human rights records then China and Russia, and arguably so does Brazil and India. In fact Germany and Japan arguably have better human rights records then the USA. Also, it's highly arguable if any of these countries are worse threats to international peace and security then the USA, China and the UK. In fact, claiming a country is a threat to international peace and security is loaded IMHO and should be avoided whenever possible. In any case, if we're going to get into I'm better then you arguments, what about New Zealand or numerous other countries? For that matter, what about Canada's treatment of the native population? What about the issues between within Nordic countries (such as Denmark) regarding immigrants? What about the issues such as Norway's whaling and reported bribing of small countries to support their whaling? Also, I'm quite unsure about this but how do Nordic countries compare to others when it comes to their acceptance and treatement of refugees? All these apply to both human rights issues and international peace and security Nil Einne 13:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see the original poster of this comment said interesting question for debate. Sorry to burst your bubble but Wikipedia is an encylopedia not a forum for debate. As said above, I acknowledge there are some points in the above "questions" that may be worth including, they have to be rewritten so they're not in the first person, they need to be referenced and they need to be more balanced... P.S. In any case, the article mostly makes clearly it's more about size and representation of various sectors that are arguably underrepresented. AFAIK, these 'liberal democracies' have not even tried to bid and I don't think there is much support for a bid even between these 'liberal democracies' for each other. Nil Einne 14:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the UN seem to be dominated by influential countries rather then their interest in global order. also, what makes democracy automatically 'more stable'? imo, the stability depends on the government ability to enforce; eg is iraq more stable now or before? I also have issue seeing Universal Human Right as the absolute solution to all problems... it is useless to have civil right and a totally corrupt government, there would be no means of implementation. making law is 1 thing, enforcing is another, i rather not dream and help them fight the corruption as a 1st step. just my personal thought, a realist view. Akinkhoo 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what's up with the painfully obvious anti-Japanese POV in the Japan section? Is it even necessary to say that some countries that support Japan's SC application receive aid from Japan? Funny, the US, France, and the UK all don't receive any aid from Japan, and they support Japan's bid. For that matter, China has received large amounts of aid from Japan, yet they are just about the only country in the world that opposes Japan's bid. Should that be mentioned too?

This is supposed to be an impartial wiki, not a soapbox for the People's Republic of China and its supporters. I suggest that that section be looked at and revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.156.252 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese apology

Actually, Japan has made plenty of apologies -- it's just that it tends to cast doubt on the sincerity of its own apologies with Yosukuni shrine visits, textbook controversies, refusing to compensate "comfort women", etc. etc. I'm going to reword this. AnonMoos 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yup, the problem is they only say sorry for the war, they didn't excepted responsibility for the war, their history textbook somehow manage to claim US were the ones who started the war; despite the fact that Japaneses were already in china long before US battlefleet arrive at pearl harbour. they seem to think they were right in "liberating" chinese from chinese? or the rest of asia is just beating a dead dog and pacifist japan has nothing to do with imperial japan. =) honestly, if japanese leader make a personal trip to the memorial of those wrongfully killing and beg for forgiveness (like the german), it would go a long way in japanese image. i wouldn't care if they normalize their military after that, they are nice people. =) Akinkhoo 16:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I my mind, apology is not what you say, it is what you do. If you apologize to us today and go to the Yasukuni Shrine tomorrow, that is not apology; that is insulting.

Insulting is not the right word. Hypocrisy, insincerity and deception are. ktchong 17 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.74.226 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Links

The first off-site link: [1] is no longer an available web page. I was able to find a very detailed explanation of the Italian proposal, as well as an enumeration of various other proposals: [2] here. Notice that this is a Google cached page; the original is unavailable as the Italian embassy recently moved their website. There are several other instances where it is possible to find references to the Italian proposal, even references to the tenets of that proposal. However, I wasn’t able to find anything nearly as exhaustive as this. Maybe in a few weeks the Italian Embassy will have its website complete and will move the original of the Google cached page there, but for now this seemed like the best link. So that explains this edit.

Also, link #2, link #4 and link #6 on the main page [3] [4] and [5] are broken. It looks like Reuters.com only keeps stories on archive for a very limited time, so might not be a good choice for citing sources. After dredging the net for an alternate to the previous link, I didn’t have time to look for a fix here. If anyone has free time and is ambitious, these other links could use fixing. Shanecs 04:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Confusing statement

It is worth noting that the United Nations was formed in 1945, immediately following World War II, at a time when Germany was in a state of chaos and had been split into four sections under the control of the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

I removed the above statement. While the above is true, it appears to have entirely missed the point. The permanent members when the UN was formed were the victorous powers of WW2. Obviously, this did not include Germany. The fact that Germany was chaotic and under the control of the permanent members was kind of irrelevant. Also, why don't we mention the same thing applies to Japan (it was chaotic and under the control of the US)? For that matter, India was still under the control of the UK in 1945 although this had nothing to do with WW2. My point is that the reasons why these countries were not part of the original 5 permanent members is obvious and there's no need to mention it here, especially if it's unsourced. Nil Einne 08:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. simplify put, winners take all... sux to be loser! =P Akinkhoo 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldview boilerplate

Is the Worldview boilerplate in the Positions section really necessary? I would think the letter and spirit of the boilerplate would be to denote sections of U.S. worldview that try to pass themselves off as general worldview, and not bits that are denoted specifically as a U.S. position. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not given the title of that section. The section should be expanded though.


new? french? position

in the 63 general assamble, Sartozy support the expantion of Security Council, and G8 [6] i not logged in that language of wikipedia, i am fero in spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.34.237 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence does not belong in the article

It strikes me as editorialising.

"The veto power, however, is the most defining characteristic of a permanent member and in the eyes of the G4 countries, to be denied the veto power is just a way for the five current permanent members to retain their superiority."

I'll delete it on 20 January 2009 if no one has any objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.38.32.5 (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

India Military No.3??

Kidding or what, check this first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

India military is stronger than UK?France?Russia?Japan?China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not kidding. They mean by size of the armed forces. And yes, bigger than UK, France, Russia even: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops.

68.43.177.132 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)uribe.[reply]

I don't know how to answer such an absurd question but I will still do it. French( NATO influence that's most of it), UK goes where US goes, Russia still nursing its Soviet Union collapse wounds, Japan said goodbye to military might the day US nuked them and still under US influence. CHINA IS BETTER THAN INDIA( military and economy, not so sure about human rights though ), HAS LARGER MILITARY THAN USA AND INDIA, BETTER OPERATIONAL READINESS THAN INDIA BUT INDIA HAS STATE OF THE ART WEAPON PLATFORMS FROM ISRAEL, RUSSIA, U.S, FRANCE so in all India is a sleeping giant with lots of capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aze0098 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ODA?

From the article: "Japan has been one of the largest ODA donor countries." Now, what is that? I think not the Ontario Dental Association, but what do I know...Mátyás (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well its about Official Development Assistance or Development aid, i think Aid is the correct term though. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/ Actually its Official Development Assistance BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why permanent members?

What use has the whole of the UN of permanent UNSC members? Would it be not more democratic to have them all be elected periodically? Why should any one country be so distinguished in the UN, when it is based on equality, among other things?Mátyás (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to debate the United Nations, but we have to remember the UN was formed in the 1940s near the end of WW2 by the allies. There are many reasons why the UN simply would not work if all countries had an equal vote, because super powers (USSR in the past) and USA today would simply ignore such institutions. Theres certainly a legitimate case for Security Council expansion, but a UN that doesnt recognize major powers Russia, China and the USA is unacceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also can trace it roots to Roosevelt's Four Policemen concept. France's desire for parity with Britain lead to it's inclusion largely because of political pressure and the desire to keep the Allies united. Doyna Yar (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a procedure to throw out retired world powers like Britain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.79.144 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It’s ridiculously improbable that a SC member would not veto such a move. The closest thing that comes to mind would be the recognition of a future successor state as was the case with the PRC replacing Nationalist China and the Russian Federation with the Soviet Union. With respect to the UK, the only possible scenario I can imagine would be a future merging of their seat with that of France into an EU seat due to a deepening integration of European politics and foreign policy along with German aspiration for a place on the SC. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countries Backing India's candidature

It is not clear whether China backs India's candidature of UNSC, and hence that is being edited out by me, please provide a credible source and reinstate the statement if that is the case. United States however has backed India's candidature recently and will be updated so. Kniwor (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa is one of the richest and most developped African countries?

It is the richest and most developed African countries and that should be changed. It's under the African section.174.3.167.186 (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India's candidature

For the purpose of clarity and understandablity, a map alongside the list of countries supporting India's candidature would be very helpful.

I also suggest the countries' names to be given in bullets, even though it may, at the same time, compromise article length with clarity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.96.145 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear Introduction

The second part of the second paragraph of the article's introduction isn't clear: "The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC, enjoying the veto right." --Lacarids (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this reference sufficient enough to add Greek Position

The article says, "The Greek position is in favour of both expansion and improving the Security Council's working methods, supporting the so-called 'group of four' proposal put forward by Germany, Japan, India and Brazil. This calls for an increase of the Security Council's member-states to 25 with the addition of six new permanent members and four new non-permanent members". Reference http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/10/52709 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.160.123 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India's Rapidly Changing Economic Conditions and More Radical Political Leadership and its Implications on the UNSC

India, now one of nations witnessing rapid economic growth has strengthened its claim to a permanent UNSC seat. Also stronger, faster and more vociferous efforts under the new Narendra Modi led Government has given the Republic' claims much more weightage. Prime Minister, Narendra Modi's speeches on the subject and India recent efforts should be included in the article, soonest possible.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Reform of the United Nations Security Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Reform of the United Nations Security Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Reform of the United Nations Security Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reform of the United Nations Security Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

source #16 is a link to the "home" site of Reuters, not to the actual article + news agencies are not a scientific source. We can do better on this topic. Scarecrow0815 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link is already tagged as a dead link, I checked on internet archive, but no archived version exists. Reuters is considered a reliable source. I'm not sure why you think we need a scientific source for an article on the UN, but that is not a Wikipedia requirement. NiciVampireHeart 20:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of G4 and P5 Members table

Is it just me or is this table getting a little unreasonable?Doyna Yar (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what years India was not a non-permanent member

Says ten year gap from 2010 to 2011?

Saudi Arabia

What is this paragraph? It links to a german site with no explanation as to what relevance this site has, and it's not even properly marked as someone else's opinion, making it seem as though Wikipedia was pushing Saudi propaganda. I would suggest removing this section or adding credible and meaningful sources as well as reformulating. 2003:EE:CF34:B00:B01C:156:430B:985C (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. CMD (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it seems very opinionated and poorly backed up, not fitting well. WhirrSlorward (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council"