Talk:Reform of the United Nations Security Council

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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