The G4 Movement

日本の国の代表団が公に党員集会での議論に導入されるトピックを発表するためにここにある。問題は、日本がそれの注意は、の状態の統合のものです専用の意志に日本 の、ブラジル連邦共和国、ドイツ連邦共和国、および安全保障理事会の常任理事国として、インド共和国。日本の代表団は、本当にこの解決方法はパスをしないこと、およびすべてのアジア諸国が承認し、決議に賛成票を投じることを願っています。

乾杯。

For those of you that do not for any instance, dominate the Japanese language, here goes the translation:

The delegation of the State of Japan is here to publically announce the topic that will be introduced to the debate in caucus. The issue to which Japan will dedicate it's attention is that of the integration of the State of Japan, Federative Republic of Brazil, Federal Republic of Germany, and the Republic of India as permanent members of the security council. The delegation of Japan truly hopes that this resolution does pass and that all Asian countries approve and vote in favor of the resolution.

Cheers.

雹

The delegate of Japan comes here with the mission to encourage the appointed delegates from the Republic of India, Brazil and Germany to come show support to this resolution, which, as a matter of facts, nothing but benefits this three other countries, giving each of these nations, together with th State of Japan, the power of having a booming voice under the United Nations. The power of being a country that can issue a change in the world, that can take leadership roles in major improvements for our planet. The delegate of Japan would also encourage other countries to leave explict their position in relation to this topic, which, according to the credibility of the Japanese delegate, is of major importance at the present moment.

the delegate of mexico supports the delegates of japan, and is thankful for their support on the war on drugs.

Germany supports its inclusion as a permanent member of the security council for it demonstrates the importance of the country in realtion to the world.

Chinese delegate: I don't believe that Japan intends to remove the permanent five of the security council. These countries, including yours, have such a big importance in world's economy and politics, and mantain a council without their support would be impossible, and Japan's delegates probably know that.
Vietnam agrees with China in this question. Nine countries with veto power in the SC would jeopardize its efficiency. Although we believe that some chances in Security Council may happen, but this have to be debated a lot.

Chinese delegate and Japan Delegates,
The delegation of Cambodia fully supports what the Vietam delegates stated. Japan is here trying to implement the integration of the State of Japan, Federative Republic of Brazil, Federal Republic of Germany, and the Republic of India as permanent members of the security council, it is not trying to bring international repercussion because they understand what might happen if they try to. We would also like to state is approval to the fact that the more countries with veto power, the less resolution passing and therefore less issues resolved.

The delegation of Japan would like to know from the other delegates of the Asian caucus their positions in relation to the G4 Movement. The delegate of Japan would also enjoy to be informed of students who are doing their position papers on the issue of the G4 Movement. The delegation of Japan thanks all other countries and appeals for a post of position.

PS: A simple post with either "In favor" or "Against" will do, if there is nothing more for the delegate to talk about, that is.

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

The delegation of Japan is here to remind that, along with the nations of Brazil, India, Germany and obviously Japan, an African country will also have part in the UN security council, as states our resolution. The African Union will be set to decide which of the African countries will represent the continent in the UNSC, but the strongest candidates (countries that are being considered as candidates) are Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa.

Thank you, for the attention, and please remember to post either in favor (I hope you do, in fact, vote in favor) or against this resolution.

Cheers

Delegates,

The delegation of Israel supports the idea of the G4, since it would help global economy and help another countries to rise their economy!

The delegation of Brazil strongly supports this resolution since it would allow more countries to grow economically and also have a voice on important issues of the world. The global scenario has changed and the five permanent aren't the only countries that have capability to "rule" the world, countries like Japan , Brazil, India and Germany have shown their potential to also lead the world economically and diplomatically. It's about time we end our subordination to the 5 almighty countries and show them what we are capable of.

israel_victor wrote:

Delegates,

The delegation of Israel supports the idea of the G4, since it would help global economy and help another countries to rise their economy!

Dear delegate,

The delegate of China would like to know why the delegate thinks the G4 would help
the global economy and help other countries in their economic issues.

With heart,
The delegate of China.

If the delegate of China is not aware, the GDP of the emerging economies like Brazil, India, South Africa and China as well, is increasing on an average of 6,4 % while the already "powerful" countries are only at 2,2%. This statistic shows how the G4 can help boost the world's economy, since we are the countries that currently can contribute more to the world than the founding members of the UN. By 2014, the emerging economies should compose 51% of the world's economy, taking over the economic power of the nations we now refer to as powerful.

Even though the Delegate of Afghanistan has not read the resolution on this topic, he would like to clarify some things for the delegates of China and Cambodia (based on what the G4 movement is in the "real world")

1. No nations would be taken out of the SC. These 4 new permanent members would be added to a new, enlargeged 19-state Security Council.

2. The new permanent members would not have veto power, only a simple vote.

3. Reform is necessary for the Security Council, as even the UN Charter itself is contradictory when it comes to the SC. For example: According to Chapter V, Article 23, Part 1 of the Charter the P5 are "THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA, France, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America".

Yes, this is the updated version of the Charter, and yes, it still cites the USSR and The Republic of China (Taiwan) as permanent members. Should we, at any given time just switch Russia for any former soviet nation? Should Afghanistan be a permanent member? Why is China, and not Taiwan in the SC?


Hope this gives you something to think about.


Best Regards,

Hugo

As to the supporters of the G4 movement, how would you feel about a G4-Arab League cooperation, as proposed by former Secretary General Kofi Annan's Advisory, where the G4 would join efforts and push for the acceptance of all four nations plus a member of the Arab League as permanent members of the UNSC? In his proposal, Mr. Annan even suggested a rotating seat for the Arabs (not the cool chair that spins, but a seat that would be taken by a different member of the Arab League over a fixed period of time). Would this be viable in the eyes of the delegates of Japan?

The delegation of Japan would like to thank the support of all other nations in relation to our topic. We would like to motivate other countries to join us in this struggle to end once and for all with the "domination" of the UNSC from the powers of the world after World War II and the Cold War. The powers of the world are changes, and with these changes, changes have to occur as well in the United Nations' Security Council.

Let's do it!

The delegation of Mexico would like to restate its support of the fine efforts of the Japanese delegation in its conquest to moral objectives.

Delegate of Japan, I would suggest that Egypt be chosen as the 5th member for acceptance in the UNSC, as it is a member of both the Arab League and the African Union. This way, both sides would be more likely to agree to the resolution, and it would be up for UNSC acceptance for the changes to actually occur.

The UN have 5PM (China, Russia, US, UK, and FR) who have not only priviledge but and immense pressure to ensure, above all, safety and peace to the entire world. Its a hard position to be with, most countries in the world rely on this 5 member is ALL single issue! Plus, this priviledges were not awarded to the 5PM it was decided this should have due to their situation of time. Being a permanent member is not an award, its a duty! Germany has proven to be the most capable European country in recent times, its economy is huge! But there are 2 representatives of the EU in the SC... why add Germany when the vote the same as FR and UK?!? India's bid is perhaps a good idea since India is one of, what critics call, super power (US, EU, CH, RU, BR, and INDIA), 11th largest economy, and is set to be the top 4 economies in 2050 together with BRIC (BR, RUS, INDIA, CH). Though China decided to support India recently, it supports it with trust! Japan's bid is not to be discussed! Japan haven't been condenmed, yet, for the its WW2 crimes! The 5PM holds a huge international respoect which Japan, right now, doesn't hold! Even South Korea, and Japanese ally, recognized this and doesn't support a permanent seat! Delegates, wasn't the enlargment of the SC enough?! Lets wait a while, see how it will affect the Security Council. The G4 is to precipitated! Besides the priviledge assigned to the 5PM, like veto, should NEVER be awarded to anyone else! As China stated a permanent seat and veto are not AWARDS, they are a HUGE RESPONSIBILITY!

Delegate of Afghanistan,

The G4 Movement gave the power to the AU (African Union) to choose which of the countries should be added to the UNSC, however, the AU did not come to a consensus, and we decided to change the resolution so that the African country chosen to represent the continent of Africa in the UNSC, is chosen through a vote in the General Assembly, being the candidates Egypt, Nigeria or South Africa (countries that had more influence and that were exceeding among others in the AU's decision. This was just to clarify a bit and for the delegate to know about exactly what will be in our resolution.

Thanks, and we are counting with your support,
The delegation of Japan.

Delegate of China,

The delegation of Japan understands the responsabilty of being a permanent member of the Security Council. The delegation of Japan believes that the permanent members in action today represent those countries that were in power after WWII and the Cold War (more than 50 years ago) and has recognized that the world powers are changing, with countries like India, Japan, Brazil, and Germany taking more and more roles of world powers. According to the way of thinking of the delegation of Japan, the world has to be quote to quote "controlled" or "moderated" by it's principal economic and influential powers, and since these powers are changing, so must the Security Council. In relation to the veto power, one of the clauses of our resolution will have as its goal to erradicate the veto power from each of the UNSC members, and instead, to give the UNSC the veto power as a whole. Meaning that, for a resolution to be vetoed, there would have to be a vote among the (future) 10 Security Council members, and only when there is a majority of votes, may a resolution be vetoed. And the reason for the delegation of Japan to wish to change this deal is more than simple: the fact that it should not be for just one country to decide wether a resolution is capable of being discussed/reached or not. I hope the delegates of China, both in the caucus and in the Security Council decide to take the right actions for the benefit of the world and it's nations, and votes in favor of this resolution.

Cheers; Japan.

Really Japan? Well, China bet is easy to sleep at night when it wasn't your country who was invaded, when it wasn't your people that were murder, tortured, raped, abuse and killed! Japan invaded China, Japan invaded what was the Korea, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, etc, etc, etc! 50 years ago isn't too long ago?! Well, there are husbands wifeless, children(now adults) parentless in China and whoever destroyed their families are not being condemned! And no, Japan doesn't understand the responsibility of being a permanent member because it doesn't even understand the responsibility of their own acts. China wasn't in power in the WW2, neither the US, they were attacked and invaded by JAPAN! That's why they entered the war. Get you're facts straight! US has attacked in Pearl Harbor by Japan, China wasn't "involved" in WW2 it was involved in the 1931 invasion of Manchuria and had to rely on the Allies to save their innocent people from the undescribel Japanese horrors. Take away the veto power?! HAHAHA, we'll veto it! Because the US, UK, FR, RU and China weren't "awarded" the veto power because they "were in power after WW2 and the Cold War (first because Russia didn't exist yet and it actually lost the Cold War and became then Russia, second because NOBODY WON, loosing citizens is never a win, in the WW2 especially, and as said before China and the US were dragged into the war)" Plus after the Cold War Kazakhstan had the nuclear capability of destroy countries, yet it didn't use its capabilities to buy himself a permanent seat, it gave away it weapons in order to provide a "more-perfect world". And more unreasonable than taking away the veto power is awarding it to all UNSC member, does Japan actually expect every country to agree among every solution. How will military base in Colombia be discussed when Venezuela is strictly against and USA in favor? How will a real Palestine state be created with full autonomy when Israel is against it and the Arab League in favor? And plus the UNSC seats alternate every two years so the veto power will be just passes along like a five-year old game?!? How can Japan bid on a permanent seat when it doesn't even seem to understand the concept of it at all!

"the (futurre) 10 Security Council member" ---- China is confused since their are 15.
"the fact that it shoudl not be for just one country to decided wether a resolution is capable..." ---- there are 192 Member States!!! O.O

And regarding the second quote: we are mature enough to realize we are not going to agree in everything, mature enough to realize that every Member State has a vote, and that the 5PM veto power is well distributed.
And don't worry about China's decision and dont worry about anyone else's, in fact, worry only on yours Japan and learn to take responsibility for your acts. The present is never going to be fair if the past is forgotten. And for thart, China congratulates both South and North Korea that have taken the same noble side in the Japanese G4 bid. And since I mentioned SK and NK, China would like to remember the first country to invade the Korea was Japan, because of its invasion USSR and the US took action and now look at where we are today. (of course Japan is not the one responsible to the tension between the Korea, in fact the NK nukes have made a Japan a victim... but the beginning of the issue is, in fact, the Japanese invasion! THE INVASION IT DOESN'T WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR)

I'm sorry delegate of China, but I have to comment on your poor interpretation and understanding skills regarding the reading of my posts.

First of all, what I mean with powers after the WWII and Cold Wars, in the big picture, was that the permanent SC members DO NOT REPRESENT what the world powers and influential nations are today. Meaning that countries that are growing and becoming more and more powerful as Brazil, Japan India, and China should be awarded with a permanent membership of the SC. My quote had NOTHING to do with the wars, but it refers to the time period in which they were occuring, and the time period after it;

Next, again due to your poor analysis of the text, the proposal in the resolution is to erradicate the veto power from the 5 nations as individuals, and then award it as a whole to the 10 new permanent members and not to all of the countries! (Let me draw it so you can understand)

Each of the countries (USA, France, UK, China, Russia) have veto power. They are not going to have it any more. From now on, for the veto to occur at all a majority of votes has to occur for the resolution to be vetoed meaning: USA, France, UK, China, Russia, India, Japan, China, Brazil + African Nation the PERMANENT MEMBERS will vote and oooooonly then will it be vetoed.

What seems to be occuring is that the delegate of China is only bringing up the fact of the invasion of Japan towards your country, and forgetting that the intention of Japan is only to enrichen and improve the, according to Japan's point of view, unfair Security Council, by adding more permanent members, and making veto power a democratic decision.

The delegate of Japan is seeing that China wants the veto power and wants to be an individualist nation, according to the delegate, and not work in favor of the system, of the world, of the UN.

I hope I clarified the confusion that you, delegate of China, made of this topic, on the next time read more carefully because you were commenting on things that I did not propose, I hope this made you understand that what our resolution proposes, and as a wise decision, decide to vote in favor of it, for a better, fair and democratic UNSC.

Cheers, Japan.

FATALITY!


The Japanese Delegate would kindly ask to Delegate Wal to go back to it's ICC topic.

Nothing more to be said.