NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm surprised this hasn't received wider coverage. UN Secretary General Ban Kin-mun has spoken up in favour of adding new members to the UN Security Council, during an interview with France 24.

While he was at it, he's also clarified his / the UN's position on the death penalty, after recent ambiguity on that issue.


Ban Ki Moon
Considering the dramatic changes that the international community has seen in the political scene, it is necessary to enlarge the Security Council at this time. The questions are how many, when and how. United Nations Member States have been intensively discussing this issue but have not yet agreed on a specific formula. As Secretary General, I will be helping Member States to find the most representative, transparent and democratic option.

Ulysse Gosset
Are you going to add permanent members to the Security Council? Would you like to do so? We are thinking of India, Brazil, Germany, Japan…

Ban Ki Moon
That depends on what Member States want and decide. The Secretary General’s job, as I see it, is to smoothen consultation between Member States.

Philippe Bolopion
Mr Secretary General, your position on capital punishment got ample coverage and was perhaps misinterpreted. Could you clarify your position on this issue? Was your statement a beginner’s faux-pas? Is it difficult to voice your views on those issues when you’re Secretary General of the United Nations?

Ulysse Gosset
Also, a few associations were shocked and spoke of the United Nations backtracking. So could you tell them and us whether you have actually backtracked?

Ban Ki Moon
I think my 2 January statement was misunderstood. I believe that life is precious, that every human being has the right to live in dignity, and that human life should be respected and protected. At the same time, there is a trend towards phasing out the death penalty both in the international community at large and in domestic policies in particular. I would encourage that trend. Member States are debating this highly sensitive and critical issue, and I believe it is in order to urge them to honour human rights.

Philippe Bolopion
Former Secretary General Kofi Annan had very clear views on human rights, capital punishment and other such issues. Is your style different or are you going to have clear-cut views on those issues as well?

Ban Ki Moon
I don’t think there is much of a difference between what my predecessor said and what I said publicly on this matter. And I would like to remind you that, while Member States are moving ahead with consultations on this matter, United Nations tribunals established by Security Council resolutions do not hand down death penalties.


Full transcript of the interview here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/talk/2007/January/20070127-Ban-Ki-MOON--transcripts). See the video itself here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/talk/Talk-of-Paris-FRANCE-24.html).

It doesn't really matter how many members the UN security council have until they take away the stupid veto right.

The Council almost certainly needs some form of expansion, and the veto removed, and perhaps replaced with a 2/3 supermajority.

My Council would go along the lines of:
1 UK
2 USA
3 France
4 PRC
5 Russia
6 India (If the Kashmir dispute is peacefully resolved)
7 Pakistan (If the Kashmir dispute is peacefully resolved)
8 Japan
9 Brazil
10 Germany
11 South Africa
12 Possibly Mexico

Resolutions would require a Council majority and 2/3 of the permanent members.

I would also double the size of the Assembly and distribute one half as one seat per member and the other half in proportion to population. All delegates would be elected by the Legislature, not appointed by the executive of each state.

I would also double the size of the Assembly and distribute one half as one seat per member and the other half in proportion to population.

Interesting idea, but... mathematically, that doesn't work, unless you want a large amount of countries to get no seat at all in that second half.

Interesting idea, but... mathematically, that doesn't work, unless you want a large amount of countries to get no seat at all in that second half.
I know, but smaller countries would still be over represented when compared to larger countries. Representation would be more proportional, but not fully so.

I think that that veto power is rather unfair, but I think that its result turned the UNSC into a lame-duck body or into an organ that refrained from plunging the entire UN organization and the world into war (depends on what you think).

That veto thing also had its historical roots, but I didn't see the reason why the US, UK, France, USSR, and China were the ones given that special right. They were the victors in WWII, that's why Japan and Germany didn't get it. But what makes these five countries more special than, let's say Norway, the Philippines, Australia, Greece, or Poland? Many of these countries were victors too in a sense and have suffered a lot more.

Which lead me to what basis do we have in selecting Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India to be the new permanent members? Why them and not New Zealand, Indonesia, Canada, or Argentina?

Which lead me to what basis do we have in selecting Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India to be the new permanent members? Why them and not New Zealand, Indonesia, Canada, or Argentina?
Haven't shown much interest in doing so.

I also think, the biggest problem is the veto. If every new permanent Member would get a Veto-right, the council will be totally useless.

But it would be just fair to give more representation to the poorer countries in the council. At the moment, all permanent members are from the northern hemnisphere. This should change.

I would prefere perhaps 10 permanent members. Every proposal must have the majority of all members, and the majority of all permanent members. So the council could work much more efficient. But I'm sure the current government of the USA will stop every proposal to strengthen the UN...

It doesn't really matter how many members the UN security council have until they take away the stupid veto right.

Correct.

I agree with the Secretary-General that there should be more members.

I especially think that Germany and Japan belong there. Probably a rising power like India ought to be included as well.

It doesn't really matter how many members the UN security council have until they take away the stupid veto right.

At which point all nations involved say "screw this shit" and leave.

At which point all nations involved say "screw this shit" and leave.
Exactly, the only reason that both the US and the USSR stayed in the UN during the Cold War (and why the US remains in it now) was so that they could veto any resolution that might cause them too much trouble.

The Council almost certainly needs some form of expansion, and the veto removed, and perhaps replaced with a 2/3 supermajority.

My Council would go along the lines of:
1 UK
2 USA
3 France
4 PRC
5 Russia
6 India (If the Kashmir dispute is peacefully resolved)
7 Pakistan (If the Kashmir dispute is peacefully resolved)
8 Japan
9 Brazil
10 Germany
11 South Africa
12 Possibly Mexico

Do you intend all these as permanent members?

I know, but smaller countries would still be over represented when compared to larger countries. Representation would be more proportional, but not fully so.

Specifically, if your system were implemented, these would be the seats per nation in the "second half" of the GA:


China : 39
India : 33
USA : 9
Indonesia: 7
Brazil: 5
Pakistan: 5
Bangladesh: 4
Russia: 4
Nigeria: 4
Japan: 4
Mexico: 3
Philippines: 3
Vietnam: 2
Germany: 2
Ethiopia: 2
Egypt: 2
Turkey: 2
Iran: 2
Thailand: 2
France: 2
United Kingdom: 2
Italy: 2
D.R. Congo: 2
Myanmar: 1
South Korea: 1
South Africa: 1
Ukraine: 1
Colombia: 1
Spain: 1
Argentina: 1
Poland: 1
Tanzania: 1
Sudan: 1
Kenya: 1
Algeria: 1
Canada: 1
Morocco: 1
Afghanistan: 1
Uganda: 1
Iraq: 1
Nepal: 1
Peru: 1
Uzbekistan: 1
Malysia: 1
Venezuela: 1
Saudi Arabia: 1
North Korea: 1
Ghana: 1
Yemen: 1
Romania: 1
Sri Lanka: 1
Australia: 1
Mozambique: 1
Madagascar: 1
Syria: 1
Côte d’Ivoire: 1
Netherlands: 1
Cameroon: 1
Chile: 1
Kazakhstan: 1
Burkina Faso: 1
Cambodia: 1
Niger: 1
Ecuador: 1
Mali: 1
Malawi: 1
Zimbabwe: 1
Guatemala: 1
Angola: 1
Zambia: 1
Senegal: 1
Cuba: 1
Greece: 1
Portugal: 0
Belgium: 0
Czech Republic: 0
Tunisia: 0
Chad: 0
Hungary: 0
Guinea: 0
Belarus: 0
Serbia: 0
Bolivia: 0
Sweden: 0
Rwanda: 0
Dominican Republic: 0
Haiti: 0
Benin: 0
Azerbaijan: 0
Austria: 0
Somalia: 0
Burundi: 0
Bulgaria: 0
Switzerland: 0
Honduras: 0
El Salvador: 0
Israel: 0
Tajikistan: 0
Paraguay: 0
Togo: 0
Laos: 0
Papua New Guinea: 0
Libya: 0
Jordan: 0
Nicaragua: 0
Sierra Leone: 0
Slovakia: 0
Denmark: 0
Finland: 0
Kyrgyzstan: 0
Turkmenistan: 0
Norway: 0
Croatia: 0
U.A.E: 0
Singapore: 0
Georgia: 0
Eritrea: 0
Costa Rica: 0
Ireland: 0
New Zealand: 0
Moldova: 0
C.A.R.: 0
Rep. Congo: 0
Lebanon: 0
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 0
Albania: 0
Uruguay: 0
Lithuania: 0
Liberia: 0
Panama: 0
Armenia: 0
Mauritania: 0
Kuweit: 0
Jamaica: 0
Mongolia: 0
Oman: 0
Bhutan: 0
Latvia: 0
Namibia: 0
Macedonia: 0
Slovenia: 0
Lesotho: 0
Botswana: 0
Guinea-Bissau: 0
Gambia: 0
Gabon: 0
Estonia: 0
Trindad & Tobago: 0
Mauritius: 0
Swaziland: 0
East Timor: 0
Fiji: 0
Cyprus: 0
Qatar: 0
Comoros: 0
Djibouti: 0
Guyana: 0
Bahrain: 0
Montenegro: 0
Cape Verde: 0
Equatorial Guinea: 0
Solomon Islands: 0
Luxembourg: 0
Suriname: 0
Malta: 0
Brunei: 0
Maldives: 0
Bahamas: 0
Iceland: 0
Belize: 0
Barbados: 0
Vanuatu: 0
Samoa: 0
Saint Lucia: 0
Sao Tome & Principe: 0
St Vincent & the Grenadines: 0
Micronesia: 0
Grenada: 0
Tonga: 0
Kiribati: 0
Antigua & Barbuda: 0
Seychelles: 0
Andorra: 0
Dominica: 0
Marshall Islands: 0
St Kitts & Nevis: 0
Monaco: 0
Liechtenstein: 0
San Marino: 0
Palau: 0
Nauru: 0
Tuvalu: 0

Hmmm... here's my 'idea-that-took-thirty-seconds-to come-up-with'.

Security Council: Unanimity required - except, perhaps, if a resolution explicity regards one member of the SC.
Members:
USA
Russia
China
India
Japan
2-3 rotating seats/GA nominations
EU
AU (?)
ASEAN

I include the EU, AU and ASEAN as they represent significant chunks of humanity that would otherwise be considerablely under represented.

General assembly:
Any resolution passed must
a) have an absolute majority of all member nations voting in favour.
b) that the combined population of all members states voting in favour must be greater than half the combined population of all the members states of the UN.

Perhaps this reduced the ability of the UN to pass resolutions, but any resolutions that do get passed have an overwhelming mandate.

Hmmm... here's my 'idea-that-took-thirty-seconds-to come-up-with'.


You're kidding, right? You want Russia to have a permanent seat on the SC, but remove France and the UK? Not happening.

And having a "EU seat" makes absolutely no sense. It should be fairly clear to all that different EU members have very different foreign policies and views on international issues. The EU is not a monolithic bloc. It contains 27 fully sovereign countries with their own independent foreign policies.

Can you imagine the reaction of the British government if it were asked to be represented by the French ambassador on the UNSC?