Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
world

Brazil calls for U.N. overhaul at meeting of G20 ministers in Rio

45 Comments
By DIANE JEANTET and ELEONORE HUGHES

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2024.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


45 Comments
Login to comment

The last reform of global institutions took place after WW2. Let that sink in a minute.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Current system is not fit for purpose. 1 country can veto the will of the majority.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Yup. The US has used its United Nations Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel, out of a total 83 times in which its veto has ever been used. Its time for a change!

6 ( +11 / -5 )

KumagaijinToday  08:33 am JST

Yup. The US has used its United Nations Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel, out of a total 83 times in which its veto has ever been used. Its time for a change!

And how many of those were anti-Israel resolutions? 42? Also these are the real numbers:

As of August 2023, Russia/USSR has used its veto 125 times, the US 82 times, the UK 29 times, China 17 times, and France 16 times.[

1 ( +6 / -5 )

a useless organization as history has revealed

9 ( +11 / -2 )

ThubanToday  08:38 am JST

U.N. Security Council has been unable to prevent or halt conflicts such as those playing out in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip

How about UN sanctions on any country that fuels these conflicts by sending in more weapons.

There should be an immediate halt of all weapons being sent into these war zones, for both sides.

If that included sanctions on countries doing illegal invasions, sure. Sanctions all around.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The US has used its United Nations Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel, out of a total 83 times in which its veto has ever been used. Its time for a change!

As the US well should. Other countries should also do their best to counter antisemitism at the UN.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Kick Russia off the UNSC. It makes zero sense to have a country that invades other countries and vetoes any resolutions against itself.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I guess Brazil and its friends will have a chance to make their case in September. September 22, 2024 through September 23, 2024, to be precise. When the UN is set to hold it’s Summit of the Future. Towards which the UN explains the aim to be twofold: accelerate efforts to meet our existing international commitments and take concrete steps to respond to emerging challenges and opportunities.

How?

This will be achieved through an action-oriented outcome document called the Pact for the Future. The Pact will be negotiated, and endorsed by countries in the lead-up to and during the Summit in September 2024.

And then?

The result will be a world, and an international system, that is better prepared to manage the challenges we face now, through Multilateral governance [generally understood in the past to be coordinating and mandating relations among three or more nations / states in accordance with certain agreed-upon principles].

More details to follow. And Brazil must wait its turn.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Much like their article on 'Putin preferring Biden over Trump' threw in the detail about the 2020 Senate Intelligence committee's Russia collusion findings while omitting to mention the 2023 Durham report showing it to be an FBI fabrication... Reuters can only be described as being deliberately obtuse when explaining the shortcomings of the UN in keeping global peace while neglecting to include the fact that it was the United States veto preventing the resolution for a cease fire in Gaza being passed. Twice.

These changes have been a long time coming. Certainly, at least since 2014, when Russia brought it up to the UN and Security Council that they would like to enter eastern Ukraine to protect the ethnic Russians being bombed and were summarily ignored by the US and UK who claimed there was no credible threat. 

Of course, by this time the Brits and Yanks had already started training the Ukrainian military and gave assurances they'd provide material support in the event of a conflict with Russia, so 8 years of foment later, it's easy to understand why Boris Johnson would refuse to allow Ukraine to sign the peace treaty in the 2022 negotiations.

Difficult to follow the so-called rules based order of international law when it's designed to protect interests more than innocents. And now, here we are.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

""Mauro Vieira told fellow foreign ministers during opening remarks for a G20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro that the U.N. Security Council has been unable to prevent or halt conflicts such as those playing out in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip.""

Not only Brazil, but many other nations wants the UNSC power monopoly to END.

The world had suffered enough of the LIES, MONOPOLIES, and power sharing games this UNSC has imposed on them, the so called "Security Council" is actually nothing but a TOOL used by the super powers to implement their Agendas.

For the past 50 years or so the UNSC permanent members have cemented their grip on power by using their VETO power to block or approve their OWN Agendas while leaving the rest of the world struggling to solve their conflicts.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The continuous Occupation of Palestine, The colonization of many African, South America, and South East Asia nations, The destruction of Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria, the Invasion of Ukraine, The Genocide in Gaza, all took and are still taking place at the SC watch.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Lula reiterated on Feb. 18 his interest in expanding the U.N.’s Security Council, contemplating the entry of more countries from Africa, Latin America, as well as India, Germany or Japan.

"We need to add more people and end the right of veto in the U.N., because it is not possible for a country alone to be able to veto the approval of something approved by all members,” 

Well said, the world needs more leaders like Lula.

Kick Russia off the UNSC. It makes zero sense to have a country that invades other countries and vetoes any resolutions against itself.

In that case US should also be kicked off for repeatedly and single handedly blocking ceasefire resolutions in Gaza ( despite the other members repeatedly voting for peace ) and hence enabling the continuing massacre of Gaza civilians. Fair enough.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

""Other countries should also do their best to counter antisemitism at the UN.""

Yes indeed , we should do all we can to end Antisemitism ( Anti Arabs, Anti Jews, and Anti Middle East ).

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Kick Russia off the UNSC. It makes zero sense to have a country that invades other countries and vetoes any resolutions against itself.

in all fairness to Russia, Ossian, W and the NeoCons set this precedent back in 2003…can’t say the Axis of Weasel didn’t try to warn them…

now where did I put my freedom fries?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

UN is a big joke!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Current system is not fit for purpose. 1 country can veto the will of the majority.

Exactly! The answer is very simple. Get rid of the UN Security Council and the veto. All countries and all votes should be equal. The UN is undemocratic due to the veto and we all know that 1 country with a veto can cancel a resolution the whole world wants. This makes the UN, as Seigi said, a big joke. Get rid of the veto and security council and allow equality among nation states with ALL UN resolutions to be binding.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

We need to add more people and end the right of veto in the U.N., because it is not possible for a country alone to be able to veto the approval of something approved by all members,” 

Well said, the world needs more leaders like Lula.

I'll second that!!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The UN needs to end the veto vote and the five-permanent member security council.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

He who provides the gold, makes the rules.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There should be an immediate halt of all weapons being sent into these war zones, for both sides.

Does this include Russia too?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

7thPatriarchToday 09:51 am JST

These changes have been a long time coming. Certainly, at least since 2014, when Russia brought it up to the UN and Security Council that they would like to enter eastern Ukraine to protect the ethnic Russians being bombed and were summarily ignored by the US and UK who claimed there was no credible threat. 

Did Russia present evidence that wasn't a complete joke? Does Russia have any independent journalists at all to cover the matter?

Of course, by this time the Brits and Yanks had already started training the Ukrainian military and gave assurances they'd provide material support in the event of a conflict with Russia,

Training and javelins are not a threat to Russia, pathetic though its armed forces may be.

so 8 years of foment later, it's easy to understand why Boris Johnson would refuse to allow Ukraine to sign the peace treaty in the 2022 negotiations.

Glad you brought up this point to identify yourself as a Kremlin talking point promoter. Was Russia within spitting distance of Kyiv during this "peace negotiation"? Why yes, yes it was. And withdrawal was not on the table.

Difficult to follow the so-called rules based order of international law when it's designed to protect interests more than innocents. And now, here we are.

Difficult when it protects the right of Russia to annex whomever it pleases.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Kurumazaka 2Today 11:40 am JST

Kick Russia off the UNSC. It makes zero sense to have a country that invades other countries and vetoes any resolutions against itself.

in all fairness to Russia, Ossian, W and the NeoCons set this precedent back in 2003…can’t say the Axis of Weasel didn’t try to warn them…

now where did I put my freedom fries?

I guarantee you that France and Germany were not warning that Putin had an invasion lined up, with annexation this time!!!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

theFuToday 12:13 pm JST

He who provides the gold, makes the rules.

This unironically is the problem: who is going to fight the UN's wars if not the US?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I guarantee you that France and Germany were not warning that Putin had an invasion lined up, with annexation this time!!!

no, I guess they weren’t that specific. They were very much warning that it set a precedent for others to do the same. That they very much were doing.

and they were right. Putin’s UN ambassador went to great lengths to use Iraq as precedent. If I remember his words correctly he said The US is in no position to lecture Russia on invasions.

the problem with wrecking precedent is that you don’t get to decide how others choose to use that wrecked precedent.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

After the USA's and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003 the UN claimed it was illegal, it also said, many years that Israeli settlements in Palestine were illegal........and there are many more, but nothing was ever done to these countries. But of course all these were vetoed by the USA and the the UK. The current permanent members of the security council, 5 nations, 2 of which are the USA and the UK can veto any thing, the other 3 are Russia, China, and France. Over the years the UN has become a bloated, almost corporate body, its huge size is a contradiction to what it actually contributes to the world, but its over paid members will never complain, it is only there to serve them and their protected jobs. The whole thing is a disgrace and debacle.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

US needs to withdraw from this joke of a council.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

All of the international organisations are useless and their existence is only serving those who are for these organisations and getting paid. There is not a slightest benefit for the world.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

zibalaToday 02:05 pm JST

US needs to withdraw from this joke of a council.

So are you saying the US needs to withdraw from the Security Council, thereby losing its veto, or saying it should withdraw from the G20 where it can literally shame Russia and China by isolating them from their scummy allies? Trying to determine what brand of appeasement we are dealing with here.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Kurumazaka 2Today 12:51 pm JST

and they were right. Putin’s UN ambassador went to great lengths to use Iraq as precedent. If I remember his words correctly he said The US is in no position to lecture Russia on invasions.

Yes, that would called making excuses for criminal actions it decided to take for its own benefit.

the problem with wrecking precedent is that you don’t get to decide how others choose to use that wrecked precedent.

If it wasn't the Iraq War they would use the NATO Kosovo intervention. No need to try to gaslight that the US started everything wrong in the world.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

opheliajadefeldtToday 01:28 pm JST

After the USA's and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003 the UN claimed it was illegal, it also said, many years that Israeli settlements in Palestine were illegal........and there are many more, but nothing was ever done to these countries. But of course all these were vetoed by the USA and the the UK. The current permanent members of the security council, 5 nations, 2 of which are the USA and the UK can veto any thing, the other 3 are Russia, China, and France. Over the years the UN has become a bloated, almost corporate body, its huge size is a contradiction to what it actually contributes to the world, but its over paid members will never complain, it is only there to serve them and their protected jobs. The whole thing is a disgrace and debacle.

I guess that is why Russia leads in vetos. And you can literally see the melting away of sanctions on bestest buddies NK and Iran thanks to the dirty pair.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So are you saying the US needs to withdraw from the Security Council, thereby losing its veto, or saying it should withdraw from the G20 where it can literally shame Russia and China by isolating them from their scummy allies?

¨US can go it alone.

Trying to determine what brand of appeasement we are dealing with here.

I don't know--which kind of appeasement are you in favor of?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

zibalaToday 03:07 pm JST

So are you saying the US needs to withdraw from the Security Council, thereby losing its veto, or saying it should withdraw from the G20 where it can literally shame Russia and China by isolating them from their scummy allies?

¨US can go it alone.

Not forever: China is 4x our population.

Trying to determine what brand of appeasement we are dealing with here.

I don't know--which kind of appeasement are you in favor of?

None: not to China and not to China's ally Russia.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Call it like it is Brazil!!!

Israel if you know your history at all was born of a terrorist action...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is any country (or any people) ready to agree to "losing sovereignty under certain circumstances"? In 1979, by its resolution #452, UN Security Council "called upon the Government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem." The resolution was not vetoed but adopted by 14 to zero with 1 abstention (US). Since then, Israel kept on expanding the settlements. That is, the veto power is not much of an issue, but the point is that there is no mechanism to enforce UN resolutions and decisions, obviously, as sovereignty of any nation is sacred. No?? If Security Council's above resolution of 1979 was accepted by Israel and development of settlements stopped, the numerous conflicts including the on-going tragedy could have been avoided. I hope the leaders realize it's not a crisis of UN, but that of nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There should be an immediate halt of all weapons being sent into these war zones, for both sides.

Any nation flouting the UN constitution they all signed on to adhere to, should be banned from the UN until full compliance is achieved. So Russia and Israel who use force to alter borders should both be removed from the UN. In Russia's case they would also be stripped of their place and veto on the UNSC and when readmitted to the UN after complying with the requirements regarding borders, would not get their place in the UNSC back.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is so important to understand the political role of the UN Charter.

Then to accept it conditional role and the tools the UN manages for conflict resolution and management, especially in the area of peacekeeping.

All in accordance with Chapter VI of the UN Charter, authorizing the Security Council to call on conflicting countries to solutions through negotiation, arbitration.

Those calling for reform fail to offer or suggest any alternative means to ensure the UN charter members can only use force in self-defence or when they have obtained authorization from the Security Council.

However, the danger is that the UN security council members will simply ignore the all resolutions completely, regardless of whether the use military force is outside of these contexts.

One inescapable fact is simply stated, any prospect of substantial reform are remote, amending the UN Charter will require a vote, also member domestic ratification by two-thirds of UN member states.

Crucially, this includes all of the Security Council’s permanent members, seriously, are any likely to take measures that would curb their own influence?

NO they aren't

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No need to try to gaslight that the US started everything wrong in the world.

gaslight? No dude, you’re not being gaslit…

i don’t know where to begin…

ok, try this. At what point in history did the UN stop mattering? Sure mattered during Desert Storm! . Mattered before then too, straight back to 1947.

when did the world learn that the powerful have no need for UN legitimacy because they can do what they want and those Turtle Bay pencilnecks can piss off? They learned that in the lead up to Iraq part 2 from W.

the rest of the world knows this very well, Taiwan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saying something that close to the truth about Israel shouldn't be considered controversial. Saying something far from the truth about Russia or Iran should be, and yet isn't called out by JT as they endlessly repeat the lies about them not being democracies. That puts it in the same category as the media that considers saying things close to the truth about Trump controversial, and far from the truth about Biden not controversial.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Kick out all the permanent members of the UN-SC from serving for at least a decade. When that happens, access to their military will disappear too, so now the UN has no real teeth to enforce anything.

When every country provides the same number and expensive equipment for UN use, then they can make the security rules. People without a real military seem to all be experts on what should be done. I just don't see the Russian military taking orders from the UN in any deployment.

Good luck with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

endlessly repeat the lies about them not being democracies

"Russia is categorized as a Consolidated Authoritarian regime in the Nations in Transit 2023, Freedom House's annual study on the state of democracy in the region stretching from Central Europe to Central Asia."

I like this definition of Russia:

"call it "democratic with applied partial autocracy". In some regions people sometimes elect someone from opposition and it works good. In some places it is strictly not democratic. It highly depends on local mentality since it's very different in different parts."

Killing and jailing all opposition to Putin is the real problem with Russia's, cough, "democracy" - well that and fixing elections, but vote tampering is a different issue.

Russia is the land where 26% of the polled citizens back Putin and his party, but at the poll boxes, 49% of his party get elected. https://www.voanews.com/a/putin-s-united-russia-claims-victory-amid-allegations-of-vote-rigging/6235579.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RichardPearceFeb. 22 11:18 pm JST

Saying something that close to the truth about Israel shouldn't be considered controversial. Saying something far from the truth about Russia or Iran should be, and yet isn't called out by JT as they endlessly repeat the lies about them not being democracies. That puts it in the same category as the media that considers saying things close to the truth about Trump controversial, and far from the truth about Biden not controversial.

Russia and Iran are 164 and 177 in press freedom rankings. Their level of democracy is quite clear. Also quite clear is the attempt Russia is making to wipe Ukraine off of the map.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Kurumazaka 2Feb. 22 11:09 pm JST

No need to try to gaslight that the US started everything wrong in the world.

gaslight? No dude, you’re not being gaslit…

i don’t know where to begin…

ok, try this. At what point in history did the UN stop mattering? Sure mattered during Desert Storm! . Mattered before then too, straight back to 1947.

I'd say when Russia started launching invasions again in 2008. If you want to say 2003, that is fine, but the US didn't shamelessly run off with Iraq's territory.

when did the world learn that the powerful have no need for UN legitimacy because they can do what they want and those Turtle Bay pencilnecks can piss off? They learned that in the lead up to Iraq part 2 from W.

the rest of the world knows this very well, Taiwan.

So then why do we here the Kosovo intervention brought up by the dictatorship fanboys? There are any number of excuses they will make to cover for Russia's horde behavior.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The UN Security Council does not need more members, 15 is more than enough. We need the veto right to be abolished or make it possible for the General Assembly to overturn it. Also Chinese seat should be returned to Taiwan who is the only legal and rightful representative of all China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites