General Assembly of the United Nations

The German ambassador to the UN rose when it was his turn to speak, and said, "Honorable delegates, I would like to turn the topic of conversation to the new vote on expanding the permanent UN Security Council.

Friends, Germany has endured quite a bit of turmoil in the last few years. We have seen governments rise and fall, foreign policy change back and forth, and tensions rise in the Balkans, the Near East, and even with Sweden.

It is now time for Germany to return to being the dependable center of Europe that we were during the turn of the millennium. Germany is a member of the European Union and NATO [OOC: Retconned that madness :P], but also has friendly relationships with Russia and other GSO members. We look forward to reintegrating into the European Space Agency, and fostering cooperation with any and all nations that are willing to play a positive role in the international community.

The reformation of the Security Council is a step long overdue. Germany has been paying for the terrible and unconscionable world wars for decades, and we continue to pay for them morally, by teaching to never forget. But we have regained, and seek to continue regaining, our position on the international stage, this time as a champion of international rights and law and an honest broker between competing factions. Germany is also the third largest economy in the world, a significant military power, one of the largest donors to international aid, and a contributor to peacekeeping efforts the world over. But more importantly than simply having that influence, we seek to use it for the aim of bridging global divides and helping the less fortunate.

We must reform the outdated systems of 70 years ago to meet the reality of the second decade of the 21st century. For all these reasons, it is my firm belief that it is time for Germany to assume a permanent position on the Security Council."

Zdravko and his Kosovar counterpart discussed this controversial move in quiet Slavic tones, before an aide dropped a note on their desk, concerning this latest revelation. Germany wanted on the Security Council, and in an effort to rebuild good relations with Germany, and the West, Serbia & Kosovo would support the Germans. Germany was, indeed, a stable democracy and international powerhouse, in both military and economic respects.

Germany had Serbia & Kosovo's support.

South Africa condemns the selfish move by the Federal Republic of Germany. It has been a dedication by several nations to work together to join the United Nations Security Council. For Germany to brush aside their former 'team mates' in the UN.

Also, as the United States has stated in the past, South Africa does not support Germany either, but instead agrees with the consensus to back Japan in its rise to the UNSC.

Ambassador Malmierca Díaz the Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations rose to speak on this matter.

"Fellow Ambassadors and peoples of the world. The German Ambassador raises a issue critical to international politics and world relations. The United Nations Security Council has for decades been a forum for debate and meditation while unfortunately its five permanent members hold the world hostage with internal debates and self interest. Where is the voice of the developing world? The people who the United Nations are most relevant to in their day to day lives?

A United States Citizen will never meet a uniformed peacekeeper on the streets of New York, while a citizen of Haiti will almost certainly bear the consequences of any deployment by this council. To elect the fine nations of Germany,Japan or any other world power would not be in the interests of the world. All nations rise in support of Japanese and German contributions to the United nations however they are no different from France or the United Kingdom. Their membership will merely cause more bureaucracy without fresh insight or perspectives.

Cuba proposes a member of the Non-Aligned Movement is elected to the United Nations Security Council to help establish durable peace and security at international level. Those nations not blessed with a white skin, European standard of living and great power status has no voice in the United Nations Security Council. To provide a veto to a nation which would represent not just the richest in our international community but the people who the United Nations inspires the most.

Of course I am sure this suggestion will be laughed out of the assembly, what can a developing nation bring to the Security Council? A new perspective. For too long the United Nations Security Council has been a great power club, which only adheres to their personal interests. To become a relevant and effective body in international affairs we need the voice of the billions of people who live in poverty heard in the United Nations Security Council.

To elect another great power either economic or military is a waste of the ideas this body was founded upon. American President Harry Truman addressing the first meeting of this body said, “At no time in history has there been a more necessary meeting that this one…you members of this conference are to be architects of the better world. In your hands rests our future."

To this day the United Nations Security Council represents a minority of the worlds population. That ladies and gentlemen is a crime. It is against the spirit in which this body was founded 70 years ago.

Thank you. ”


The Cuban Delegation with Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque

"Perhaps two new members, one including Germany, and another member from the Non-Aligned Movement?" Zdravko suggested.

Tears were seen on the US Ambassador's face. He wicked them away with a hanky and spoke:
"Cuba has made an excellent point. We propose a rotating PSC seat for developing nations. Each year, a new developing nation will take the seat. The succession will be planned out years in advance and added on as each country takes and leaves the seat. A country may pass and the seat will go to the next.

In any regard, we wish to express our conditional support for Germany."

Australia is intrigued by the American concept...

OOC: Rotating Permanent Securcity Council seat is definitely Oxymoronic.

lol

The German delegate looked rather ruffled, but calmed himself before answering, "I am not quite sure why my call for updating a decidedly out of date institution with a great deal of sway in world politics is looked on badly by my honorable colleague from South Africa. Clearly we agree on the need for this reform.

Germany is likewise confused as to why our desire to be represented in the Security Council is 'selfish.' Quite the contrary; the Federal Republic has, since its inception in 1991, been committed to helping our fellow man and as a consequence has one of the highest rates of contribution to international aid agencies. But of course the ills of the world cannot just be solved by money alone; that is why we've also played an active role in peacekeeping and international mediation efforts as well.

Our desire to join the Security Council is simply an outgrowth of this. While we do feel that our economic and military capabilities render us equal to many of the nations on the Security Council, the true reason for admittance is that we wish to apply Germany's knack for reconciling opposing views- as we reconciled our own views, in the tumultuous reunification after the Berlin Wall fell- to deal with the growing gap between East and West.

The admission of Germany to the Security Council would prove once and for all that past wrongs can be forgiven, that once-pariah nations can change to be paragons of responsibility. This is a lesson probably useful for none as much as both South Africa and Germany, who both have unfortunate pasts.

Finally, Germany's wish to reform the Security Council to deal with the realities of the 21st century does not end with ourselves, of course; it should not be taken as an attempt to 'brush aside' any others. I opened the floor to this discussion not only for Germany; however, I do think that nations should not work in private to become members, but instead make their case publicly to the United Nations.

Oh, and regarding Cuba's moving speech... Germany wholeheartedly supports a developing voice on the Security Council, with at least Observer status."

Lol yes inded...
Err...but I think the intent is more like the veto power...
What if it rotated every say...10 years? something longer than the short-termers...

OOC/IC:

Believes both Germany and India are neutral enough to be on the PSC

Russia supports a German seat.

Armenia supports a German Seat on the Security Council.

the UK supports a German seat.

We thank Singapore for putting our name into the running for a seat. We would like to remind the world of our country's efforts to gain a seat on the security council. We are overall a neutral power and a founder of the Non-aligned Movement. We hold the second largest population in the world and have a one of its largest economies. We are one of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions. India also is one of the founding members of the Security Council. Through these facts, I believe that India should also join the Securtiy Council.

I support a newly defined Security Council, with a voice for Africa and a new voice for Asia. I feel Germany's inclusion at this time is not a nessecary one, though we still support our friends aim for the future. Asia is showing itself to be a continent looking for change, from the Third Way party group the SCO to the East Asian Community, which Japan founded looking for closer economic co-operation. We have been one of the most political active nations in the past few years especially - we have smoothed over relations with China showing we can own up to our mistakes, we have doubled our international aid, we have formed the EAC with the aim of closer relations. I fail to see what Germany has done to show itself as a true global reformer.

So, with that, I fail to understand what Germany can bring to the table currently. We already have the UK, and the strongly pro-Europe France, who the Germans would just follow no doubt. Germany would just be another European nation who would truly not offer anything new. Japan is one of the most peaceful nations of earth, and are the UN's second largest funder and one of its largest contributers to peacekeeping missions. We have the worlds second largest economy and rely on global trade to stay afloat, showing ourselves as true global citizens. We have not been at war since WWII. We are also more of a neutral voice, we are the only member presented to not be a member of a military alliance and not to have vested interests in war. We have strong relations with every single other member of the UNSC.

I propose that we have a rotating VETO power seat representing the developing world, first to be occupied by India and voted on to change every five years, and Japan as new permanent members.

The UK proposes this:

3 new seats - 1 for Africa and Middle East, 1 for Europe or South America and 1 for Asia

These would rotate every 4-5 years, i.e. South Africa starts in Africa, Brazil in South America and India in Asia. After 4 years then it would be perhaps Saudi Arabia for Africa and Middle East, Germany for Europe and South America and then Japan for Asia. Next time round it might be South Africa, Argentina and Italy?

Italy does not support neither German nor Indian seats on the council.

It must be an odd number. Also, we say no. This scheme would be just far too confusing - one rotating seat specifically aimed and giving voice to the non-aligned movement and developing nations, and one Asian seat (personally in my belief for Japan) makes significantly more sense. With no offence meant to South America, they could easily take the non-aligned movement seat and probably do not need their own individual seat.

"Serbia & Kosovo wish to point out the irony in South Africa's denunciation of the German move, and then failing to criticize the other three nations who immediately put themselves forth as candidates for the potential seat on the Security Council.


"Shame on you."

[OOC: Edited for clarity.]

OOC: Yes, I think it's ironic too :P. But I still support him on the Security Council, because I'm so unbiased ICly... now THAT's irony for you ;)

IC: "Germany believes that Japan certainly has the qualifications to be a member of the Security Council. However, we believe they are mistaken when they say Germany does not qualify. I will deal with each of their assertions in turn-

1. Germany is not a true global reformer.
We greatly respect Japan's commitment to the development of Asia and the East Asian Community, but Japan fails to realize that Germany has taken these same steps in Europe, even earlier! Germany was the founder of the European Coal and Steel Community, establishing a mutual economic zone in Central Europe. This was the forerunner of the European Economic Community and later the European Union, both of which we have played a major role in as well. In large part due to Germany's actions, Western Europe is now a region that has not seen a war in decades, in sharp contrast to every century before without such leadership.

2. Germany is simply a clone of the other Europeans on the Security Council.
This is likewise simply a falsehood. Germany has the largest economy in Europe (the third largest in the world), and has the blessing and the curse of being in the center of this continent. Our position leads us to a unique and very different perspective from our friends in France, and even more so from the UK. While we support France and the UK on being in the Security Council, they do not bring the same things that Germany brings. Germany has good relations with both NATO and GSO members, and have a biased interest in being unbiased- if a war were to occur, it would be fought through our territory, between our friends.

Japan claims to be the only nation not to have a vested interest in war? Japan was not divided between two hostile superpowers for much of the 20th century. Germany not only has the absolute inclination to mediate and prevent conflict, but the experience to do so- we have reconciled the divisions in our own country after its reunification, which is an experience few others have, and no others on or likely to be on the Security Council. Indeed, we have already used this unique experience to pacify a long and unfortunate feud- that between Germany and Serbia. This is mediation and war prevention in action, not just as a vague ideal. If Germany becomes a member, we promise to listen to all sides equally, and vote based on the merits, not the ideologies, of issues that arise.

If there are still issues with a German seat, we are happy to hear them- particularly from those that oppose our seat but have not stated their reasons."

The German ambassador paused after that lengthy speech. He sincerely hoped the other delegates had paid attention; this was Germany's chance to gain the influence needed to help stop the concerning divides threatening the world.

"Oh, and finally- why must the Permanent Security Council be an odd number? We must remind the Japanese that it is not majority rules, but consensus, that decides the vote."

Japan again reaffirms that Germany is a respected nation and would be a good member though not at this time. We need to change the balance, introduce someone new from Asia, and someone new to give the developing world a voice. You may have reformed in the past but you have done little recently. Japan is also an observer to both alliances so the position to mediate cannot be fully developed as a member of one of the two major alliances. You can sell yourself to go onto the UNSC as a proper diplomat but this would only work if you were in a position where you were not heavily in favour of one alliance due to membership. Japan, on the other hand, has committed to relations with both alliances though still only remains on the outside. That is why Japan, as a neutral state, and another member from the non-aligned movement, will offer a new voice to those who don't want to be divided by petty East vs. West conflicts which Germany, merely by being placed so centrally and a member of a military alliance focused on protecting Westernized nations, is a part of.

Ambassador Malmierca Díaz rose dismayed at the conduct of his fellow ambassadors,

"This is the problem ladies and Gentlemen with the highest body of our world community. Self interest and waste. The Security Council is the most powerful arena in the world community and of course many nations wish to enter the council and establish their own view of the world upon the wider United Nations. Yet instead of conducting its vital business we have the Honorable ambassadors from Germany and Japan battling over who deserves a seat on the Council more. It’s this self-interest is what is destroying this United Nations. Reputations and self-importance add nothing to this body.

What does Japan and Germany have in Common? A high standard of living, a developed economy and perhaps must crucially to their bid status as major donors to the United Nations. A developed country can afford to lavish money upon the United Nations to ease a conscience however the citizens of the developing world and by developing world I do not mean a nation such as India in which has a bright economic future. Do not.

For a new perspective, a new insight we should elect a nation of the developing world. The German ambassador offered the developing world an ‘observer’ Security Council seat. I don’t know what that means aside from been a temporary member of the council which many nations already are.

Let’s rise above narrow self-interest and geopolitical grandstanding. We are not talking about another trophy for the German Chancellor or the Japanese Prime Minister to show off to a visiting dignitary to impress upon them their nations international supremacy. The Security Council should not and cannot become a place in which you buy your way into the club. A rotating council position perhaps is the most viable option however India hardly deserves the name of a ‘developing country’ with a booming economy. I believe the Security Council should consist of.

United States
France
United Kingdom
China
Russia
<Latin American Nation> The Republic of Chile.
<African Nation> The Republic of Botswana.
<Developing Nation> each year the seat rotates between different members.

I don’t believe a seat on the United Nations Security Council should be the exclusive provision of the most powerful nation in the region. We should choose nations, which perhaps may not have the largest economy but will remain effective and not wield their veto for geopolitical concerns. I would like a provision written into any future deal that if unrest occurs and undemocratic actions are taken the nations seat is suspended and temporally provided to another nation within the region. However both choices Chile and Botswana have shown strong stability and would be fine candidates."

"Botswana, Chile? The African Union nations will only support a permanent member from out continent that has global pull. Ghana, South Africa, and Egypt. And a seat should be given to an Arab nation, as Egypt has been the primary contributor to the Arab League we feel that we are in a prime position to represent the interests of the Arab world."

"This talk of placing the puppets of Imperialism and Factionalism on the council is silly."

Austrian Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter

Austria opposes the admission of Germany as permanent member of the UN Security Council, although the German Ambassador makes several true points we feel they have nothing to offer to the UN Security Council that isn't already offered. Furthermore, Austria feels the Federal Republic of Germany and its previous states do not have the UN Peacekeeping Military experience to aid in making educated wise decisions. There are many other countries in Europe like Austria and Ireland that have this experience that far outways any the Federal Republic of Germany can offer. That is not to say though, that Austria thinks its membership in the permanent members would be much more helpful, if admitted.

The UN Security Council has for many years been filled with the members of three continents, North America and Asia and Europe. We feel it would be more beneficial to admit two more permanent members. One from Africa and the other from South America. Although we are unsure of who would be a decent addition from South America, from Africa, we feel that South Africa would make a much better addition to the UN Security Council. There experience as a democracy in a post-colonial world with the ending of apartheid, and the integration of white and blacks, combined with their wide range of peacekeeping experience makes them a fine canidate for UN Security Council Permanent Membership.

"How noble of the Egyptian Ambassador to nominate his own country, such selflessness is exactly what the United Nations requires. The Republic of Botswana has records of economic growth, stability and corruption reforms, which put your nation to shame. A Security Council seat should be reserved for those nations who are capable of using it effectively and are an inspiration to their regions.

Ghana, Egypt, South Africa and Cuba have not shown the long-term stability, which Botswana has. Its vote can far fuller represent the whole of the African Union then pamper your nations self-importance. Both Chile and Botswana today are far freer, stable and prosperous then many others in the developing world including Egypt.

In picking a Security Council member we should look for records of good governance and an example for others to lead not pandering to the Regions biggest economy. We should look for nations, which can represent their region, not a narrow self-interest. Lets make our choice Apolitical and reward the nations, which have shown their commitment to a free and fair world not those who want to use the Veto to score political points."

The US agrees with Cuban sentiments, but disagrees with the choice of nations. However, we do see what Cuba is trying to imply: less important nations, even in Africa, should hold the seats.

Azerbaijan agrees.

"Nations with levels of influence and weight on the world stage would be given new seats: not nations that are liable to be influenced by Western Imperialism. It saddens us that Cuba, a nation that has always been on the cutting edge of the fight against Despotism has sunk to the level where has become simply another cog in the machine of Western Globalism."

"Cuba will not dictate to the African Union what representation the African Union needs. The Africa requires a stronghand to represent her interests and to do so a strong nation and a strong people with a proven track record of strength must be chosen."

"Egypt is simply nominating itself ! There are more suited nations within Africa that could take the position. Azerbaijan would support Botswana, which has been suggested."

Austria believes that possibly the UN Security Council should be completely redesigned. A new UN Security Council could be made up of 12 members selected for 5 year terms by their regions to serve. Furthermore that all decisions be passed on 2/3 majority vote without veto power. The 12 regions would be as follows.

1. Western Europe

2. Eastern Europe

3. Southern Europe

4. Central Asia

5. South West Asia

6. Eastern Asia and Oceana

7. North Africa

8. Central Africa

9. Southern Africa

10. North America

11. Latin America

12. South America

"I am not speaking to a representative of the African Union. Merely a representative of the Egyptian Government. Strength? Why don’t we return to apartheid South Africa? Didn’t they have a record of Strength? In which not Egyptian but Cuban Forces helped destroy. Diplomatic Strength is required not a record of political oppression and violence.

To have a corruption free, stable and progressive government is not bowing to Western interests. Cuba fights corruption, terrorism and ignorance. Globalisation is not a factor we can avoid these days. It is neither a fact nor a piece of fiction or a term without meaning. The power of multinational corporations is growing and no nation can halt it.

To be the best you can be should not be reserved for Western Capitalists. It is up to the Developing World to improve itself and not rely on Western Aid or corruption. Egypt frankly cannot lecture Cuba a nation that has led the fight against injustice these past 60 years. However nations, which do fight, may not be the ideal choice for this post.

It is to choose the most stable and progressive governments. For example Bostwana is leading the charge against HIV within its borders. Some African nations have ignored the effects of HIV. We need to provide examples to the developing world onto the Security Council."

Azerbaijan supports Austria's proposal.

May I ask the Austrian Ambassador why the Caribbean region does not get an seat under his system?

OOC: Ah, someone has to go against Cuba... let the Norwegian bashing begin :P

“Perhaps we should all take a bit of time to remember that one of the main objectives of the United Nations Security Council is to help enforce the resolutions made in both the General Assembly and in the Security Council. This is usually done through either political, economical or if need be, military means. I mean no offense, but nations such as Chile or Botswana do not have the means to help enforce the resolutions produced by the United Nations.

While the Norwegian people do sympathize with your position, and while we do also agree with you that the Security Council is often "hijacked" by a country's own national agenda, we do not believe that adding a seat for a developing nation will make ends meet. Who is to say that these developing nations won't simply abuses their own seat, using it to fulfill their own needs as opposed to representing the developing world? Should I remind this assembly that most of the developing countries are also the most corrupt?”

Russia would support no such proposition.

"Egypt carries the weight of the African Union: this was ignored by certain nations in regards to the situation in Sudan to disastrous effect for them, we have consulted with our AU friends and the AU as a whole is not in favor of granting a Security Council seat to an African nation that cannot stand on its on two feet without international aid. South Africa is known quantity in the international community and the AU fully supports a South African seat on the Security Council."

"While Cuba was merely a Soviet puppet, Egypt led the fight to ensure the Non-Aligned Movement and the Arab League remained bastions of freedom. What did Cuba do? Spark civil war in Angola and support Stalinism throughout the world! The record does speak for itself and sadly there is nothing for forward thinking Africans to learn from the backwards and fawning attitude that Cuba has assumed with its relations with Imperialist powers."

"As Cuba clearly has abandoned any sense of Idealism, it is clear that it would foolish from African nations to listen to this nonsense that fighting HIV/AIDS makes a country 'special'. It is more Globalist propaganda to paint African nations as irresponsible and in need of 'babysitting' by the West and the East."

The US has no opinion on the Austrian proposal.

“Mr Ambassador. The United Nations mission to Haiti has none of the five Permanent members represented. It’s Cuban and Brazilian forces that assist the people not United States Marines both in security and resources.

It seems that my choices are most astute. Botswana is the most corruption free nation in Africa and leads the rankings in business freedoms. There has never been an unconstitutional take over of the government during its 50-year history something I believe is uncommon in Africa. Chile is a leader in South America for Freedom of the Press and a strong judiciary.

Developing nations can give a new perspective not something that for example Germany can. If your nation has had UN forces deployed within it you will have a far better experience of the United Nations then lets say a citizen of Tokyo. It’s always the same when it comes to developing nations. If one is corrupt then the others must be too we just haven’t found it yet. The Developing world has no voice on the United Nations Security Council and that Mr Ambassador is unacceptable. If a developing nation has made steps in the right direction we should not discriminate against it because it is poor."