Talk:G4 nations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wording
"Note that nearby countries with less chance of a Security Council seat for themselves often oppose the efforts of the G-4 .... South Korea opposes a seat for Japan," This should be changed. Korea opposes a seat for Japan because of historical issues such as Japan not admitting to crimes committed in WW2. Also, Korea never expressed that they wanted to be a permanent member in the UN Security Council. --DandanxD 11:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other
Hi User:70.23.161.113,
I could not find sources to confirm the following assertions you made in your edits to this article:
- "During several converences during the summer of 2005 the African Union was unable to aggree on 2 nominees: Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa all claim for a permanent African UNSC seat."
- A quite garden-variety Google search easily turns up numerous references to this in the press. Here are three, and there are more where those came from. I'm all for citing sources, but, really, threatening to remove contributions without first doing a basic search for common knowledge, isn't that just a little harsh? Perhaps a more constructive approach, of adding citations where they are easily found, would be more helpful. If references to the information in question are difficult to locate, then that's another matter, but that does not appear to be the case here. --Jonadab, 2006 Feb 05.
- "A UN General Assembly in September 2005 marked the 60th anniverery of the UN and the members were to decide on a number of necessary reforms - including the enlarged SC. However the unwillingness to find a negotiable position stopped even the most urgent reforms (credit to US Ambassador to the UN: John R. Bolton); the September 2005 General Assembly was a setback for the UN"
Could you please cite your sources, or I will have to remove the assertions in question in 7 days, in order to avoid having false statements on Wikipedia.--Carabinieri 10:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The final two paragraphs of this article are heavily biased, so I have added a neutral point of view disclaimer to the page.DougOfDoom 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
On a side note, I find it difficult to imagine that any of these nations would be given UN veto power in the near future. Brasil and Germany do not have the kind of long-term political stability that would be wanted in candidates for receiving such power, and giving it to either of the other two would cause too much political strife in their respective regions, and China would never allow either of them (unless perhaps if it were tied in with a deal that offered major concessions of the sort the rest of the world is generally unwilling to make, and it seems unlikely such concessions would be offered to the PROC over this issue). This is neither here nor there as far as the factual accuracy of the article is concerned, since their vying for the thing is what the group is about, but it just seems unlikely to me that any of these four contries will obtain what they are seeking in this regard. -- Jonadab
-
- Brazil and Germany are politicaly unstable? Not really. I have no idea where you got that info, but both countries are strong-based democracies and neither have any kind of tensions with neighbours or any other country, unlike the members of the current UNSC (RPC is not a democracy and has unsettled issues with taiwan, Russia is a politicaly ustable country going through a rough war in chechnia and lets not even start talking about the US and the whole fiasco of the banana-republic-style elections in 2000 and the disrespect with the UNSC in 2003)
- I agree about the political instability of the PROC, but China was given the seat because of their very large population and the perception that their military power was very significant. (How much _actual_ military power they have in practice is... well, it's another topic for another time and place. But Russia was actually more afraid of China than of the US, during the cold war.) The PROC inherited the seat when they became the recognised government. The US and USSR obviously had to both be given seats because excluding both of them would make the UN irrelevant, and including either of them without the other would have made it redundant. Further, neither has had an unpeaceful change of government (discounting the _brief_ attempted hardliner coup in the USSR, which came to nothing) in the time since my grandparents were born, while Germany, for instance, has had several. Anyway, it's neither here nor there: the article describes what the group members are seeking, and it's neither necessary nor desirable for the article to editorialize about whether they're likely to get it. -- Jonadab
- agreed!
- I agree about the political instability of the PROC, but China was given the seat because of their very large population and the perception that their military power was very significant. (How much _actual_ military power they have in practice is... well, it's another topic for another time and place. But Russia was actually more afraid of China than of the US, during the cold war.) The PROC inherited the seat when they became the recognised government. The US and USSR obviously had to both be given seats because excluding both of them would make the UN irrelevant, and including either of them without the other would have made it redundant. Further, neither has had an unpeaceful change of government (discounting the _brief_ attempted hardliner coup in the USSR, which came to nothing) in the time since my grandparents were born, while Germany, for instance, has had several. Anyway, it's neither here nor there: the article describes what the group members are seeking, and it's neither necessary nor desirable for the article to editorialize about whether they're likely to get it. -- Jonadab
- Brazil and Germany are politicaly unstable? Not really. I have no idea where you got that info, but both countries are strong-based democracies and neither have any kind of tensions with neighbours or any other country, unlike the members of the current UNSC (RPC is not a democracy and has unsettled issues with taiwan, Russia is a politicaly ustable country going through a rough war in chechnia and lets not even start talking about the US and the whole fiasco of the banana-republic-style elections in 2000 and the disrespect with the UNSC in 2003)
Past Tense
Why is the opening paragraph in the past tense? It seems to me that the G4 does still exist, even if Japan has withdrawn its support of the G4 proposal. Specifically, I'm referencing these sentences:
"The G4 (Group of Four) was an alliance among India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for the purpose of supporting each other’s bid for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council..."
And
"The G4 member states were..."
In addition, other parts of the article are still in the present tense, such as this sentence in the opening paragraph:
"...the G4's primary aim is the coveted permanent member seats on the UN Security Council." 24.227.2.106 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed reference
Have removed the following from the text:
Referenced in Massive Attack song "Group Four" from their Mezzanine album.
Didn't know where to put it. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] G4 seems to have a different meaning July 2007?
I have seen in the news 2x today (July 6, 2007) the term G4 referring to The United States, the European Union, Brasil and India as major WTO players. I could be wrong, and I am a newbie. I didn't want to post any weblinks. Randomplanck 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
