MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil calls for 'true reform' of Security Council and the 're-launching' of global economy
Following the opening remarks by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff was the first head of state to address the General Assembly on Wednesday. She called for a “re-launching of global economy” and a “true reform” of the UN Security Council. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesDilma has stuffed Brazil and now wants more power elsewhere?
Sep 25th, 2014 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps if Brazil started taking a stand on some issues and realising that not everyone will sit around and sing kumbiya to solve problems; then she might get more responsibility.
You can't sit under the security umbrella of countries like the US and expected to be taken seriously. The world isn't naturally orderly nor peaceful.
Brazil can't even keep Venezuela and Argentina in line and on the same page. How the feck would it do it with countries it doesn't consider it has “brotherly” links with?
The UN is not responsible for the economies of the world!
Sep 25th, 2014 - 07:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was set up to prevent another war on the scale of the two previous world wars and in that and that only, it has been a success.
It's not a place where people should run to to abrogate their own democratic responsibilities. Economies are the responsibility of the individual nation.
Yes, the UN can help, it can facilitate it can use its good offices to assist, but it is not its place to manage.
That is not what it was set up for, the more nations expect it to do, the more it becomes diluted from its original purpose.
She needs to work on her own legitimacy first.
Sep 25th, 2014 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Large audience was it? Somehow I doubt it - nobody is listening
Sep 25th, 2014 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0We Brazilians are doing our part.
Sep 25th, 2014 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are taking care of our forests (in the last 12 years deforestation has been reduced by 79%).
We are building dozens of hydroelectric power with minimal environmental impact that will provide clean and renewable energy to continue to grow.
We are building thousands of miles of highways and railways to facilitate the disposal of our products for modern and efficient ports and airports. Many of these works are ready and operational, significantly reducing the “Brazil cost” and strengthening the competitiveness of our products.
We live in conditions of full employment and continue to attract foreign investment to help us leverage our technology and production.
We have an external foreign currency debt of U$ 323 billion, since our foreign reserves are U$ 386 billion. If we add our deposits in international organizations like the IMF and World Bank, this value would exceed U$ 500 billion. Therefore, we are international creditors.
Our inflation is one of the lowest (6.52% pa) of the story. Never formed so many qualified professionals as now. Never had so many students in our schools. Never had as much freedom as now.
We are turning this country! For much much better!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HFy6ynWCew&list=PLZjQqfWydl6TtrhRa3rXmeuycx9Z01Mtb&index=1
And cant the 193 countries vote if they want to make a change or not???
Sep 25th, 2014 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good that in the ONU you can hear to all voices, all oppinnions. And all are important.
There won't be any changes in our lifetimes as there is too much disagreement about what the changes should be and no will to change on the part of the voices that actually matter.
Sep 25th, 2014 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is a posssibbbilittty if the 193 countries vote.
Sep 25th, 2014 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All these other countries need to realise that in order to play with the 'big boys' you need to be able to put your money where your mouth is.
Sep 25th, 2014 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 5 permanent members of the security council have a VETO for a reason. It's to stop a 3rd world war. The precursor to the UN was the League of Nations, but so many had a VETO that NOTHING EVER GOT DONE, and it did more to harm diplomatic relations than to solve them.
Another reason the USA, UK, France, Russia and China have a VETO is because they are the ONLY countries in the world that have enough military and political clout to actually do anything.
What could Brazil bring to the table? How many of it's young men and women are Brazil willing to send into harms way to police the world? And I don't mean peace-keeping, I mean peace-enforcement.
There has been talk about increasing the number of permanent members of the security council, but so far no other country has been able, or willing to step up. India was mentioned once, but they're unsuitable for 2 reasons. 1stly they in a permanent state of war with Pakistan and this is where ALL their focus is. They're not really interested in anywhere else. 2ndly Pakistan would insist that they also have a seat at the big table so they could counter any decision India made, and would probably cause trouble if not also chosen.
Then there is Brazil. They don't have the military might (like India does), and they are also quite politically naive in many ways. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions, and those decisions can put you in conflict with your friends as well as your enemies. In the future who knows.
So who else is there? Japan? Maybe, but they've never appeared too interested in taking a seat, plus there's that whole China-Japan conflict at present. Germany? A possibility, but I doubt whether Russia and China would allow another Western country at the table. Same for Australia, Russia and China would VETO.
So there it is. There is no one else ready to take a seat.
@5, 6. Dumb cow. When was the last time that Brazil did anything meaningful? At the moment, the Islamic State threatens humanity. Where are the Brazilian combat aircraft, naval vessels, ground forces? Sitting indoors watching tv?
Sep 25th, 2014 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are FIVE countries in the UN that are important. It's long past time that two of them were eliminated. No-one needs members that support criminals and terrorists. I give China and Russia ten years.
There is an old, old saying: hold your friends close but your enemies closer.
Sep 25th, 2014 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still true today, probably more so, than it ever was.
Notice how these bunch of coconuts want one vote one call,
Sep 25th, 2014 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0from the worlds nutters,
CFK and Dilma Rousseff would happily rule the UN and the world.
Who the heck do these monkeys think they are? If they don't like the way the IMF, IDB, WB, UN, OAS is set up they can leave.
Sep 25th, 2014 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody would care
Nobody would notice
I am sick to death of these nobodies thinking they are relevant.
@13
Sep 25th, 2014 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comon, you know and I know it is for the illiterate masses at home that they spout all this rheteric, the UN just look and sigh, Christ these Latam countries have not a clue in diplomacy. And in the next breath they will be asking for money. Too bad Argentina has taught the western world how honest these Latam countries are. One thing to say to these corrupt Governments, If you don't like the heat don't come into the kitchen.
Take a lesson Dilma.
Sep 25th, 2014 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Respect is earned. Not demanded.
2. That should be enough to keep you busy.
3. Jog on! The serious players have serious issues to deal with.
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/09/25/brazil-calls-for-true-reform-of-security-council-and-the-re-launching-of-global-economy#comment353961: From a political point of view the Rio Treaty is dead. Since Mexico withdrew because of the Malvinas another 5 or 6 American countries have left.
Sep 26th, 2014 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think we would have to go back to the Junta years to find a Brazil that considered itself “under the security umbrella of countries like the US” - not even then, I think. Brazil sees its defense alignment more in context of UNASUR than any US led treaty organization.
The view from Brasilia is the BA is “in line and on the same page”. Contrast this view with the view from London of Moscow. In the latter case we have a situation in which one country has invaded another and has even shot down civil aircraft. So, what has London done to pull Moscow “in line and on the same page”? Has it deployed military force to impose its will on the RF? No. In fact it was the Europeans that triggered the Ukraine fiasco and the UK has shown itself to be completely impotent to affect the situation. So what is the UK's justification for its seat on the Security Council? The fact is that it has none.
The UK was a founding member of the UN and one of the first Allies to become engaged in the fight against the greatest evil the world had ever seen. Those allies form the core of the UN body, the SC.
Sep 26th, 2014 - 06:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0You were the last and what's more you only declared for the allies, in order to join that organisation.
Had Russia had its way and America not supported you, it would have taken you at least another decade to be accepted as a member.
Not surprisingly, with your penchant for alternate realities, you now consider yourself to be a paragon and the concious of the UN.
Your not and you never will be. Like most things in your democracy, if it does serve your personal agenda, you seek to change it until it does.
The UN is does not exist for your personal benefit, it exist for the benefit of all. If you are unhappy with its format, the answer is simple. Leave, you contribute nothing, you will not be missed, no one, not even Brazil, will emulate you.
16
Sep 26th, 2014 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0enjoying the magic-realism still I see...
@17, “You were the last and what's more you only declared for the allies, in order to join that organisation.”
Sep 26th, 2014 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which “you” are you referring to? Argentina sat on the sidelines and only joined in once the real fighting was over but Brazil had a corps of troops involved in the fighting in Europe from 1943 onwards.
@5, 6 and the “British bomber” AKA Hepatitis. Here are a few more thoughts for you.
Sep 26th, 2014 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 01. China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA have nuclear weapons. Brazil doesn't. It's one reason they get listened to. Because they have the clout. Apart from Putin, they also have the responsibility not to use them. Conventionally, the Brazilian Air Force is smaller than the RAF, the Brazilian Navy has slightly more vessels but less aircraft than the Royal Navy, two thirds of the Brazilian Army are conscripts. So they'll be useless. The British Army is all-volunteer. Personnel levels are similar, but British equipment is much better. The Brazilian Army fields 60s-era main battle tanks. The British Army's MBT is from the late 90s and is undefeated in any engagement.
2. Has Brazil ever actually investigated the matter of the Falkland Islands? If it had, it would know that argieland lies. So the deal is that either it hasn't and just follows the argie/latam line. Or it has and isn't honest.
3. Curiously, the 5 permanent members have put their countries on the line. In the case of the UK and USA, for others. When has Brazil had the courage to do that? To be fair, I'd rather see China and Russia replaced by Germany and Japan. Brazil couldn't make it as an 'also-ran'.
4. “In line with Unasur”. A little latam clique. In fact, it is most similar to the USSR. I wonder how many times a latam permanent member of the UNSC would go against its latam 'brothers'. But the UK goes against France and the USA, France does much the same, and so does the USA. Brazil has neither the credibility nor the integrity to take such a post.
Is this not like the children in a family deciding whom gets to babysit for them? Really Brazil.......get real. You need to get serious. The world will never take any country from SA serious until they start acting serious.
Sep 26th, 2014 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am referring to Argentina. Who else?
Sep 26th, 2014 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know the Brazilian Corp fought bravely in the Italian Campaign and their Airforce did the same in the Pacific.
Security Council
Sep 26th, 2014 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0the 5 have been their from the start,
some say they should be removed but cannot come up with an alternative other than allowing the likes of Argentina brazil Somalia or Uganda to fill its boots,
this is not a platform for idiots , and the 5 carry responsibilities, even if Russia and china seem not to care,
besides its a well know fact that if others like south America or African nations or in fact middle eastern nations took over the 5 seats or even expanded it to 10 or 20, the likes of the UK USA Aust , Can and probably most of Europe would withdraw, so what would this new argentine CFK influenced UN look like ??
Can you imagine Syria, Iran, Libya, UAE and Saudi Arabi controlling the SC?
Sep 26th, 2014 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ha ha,
Sep 26th, 2014 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0or Ethiopia Angola Zimbabwe Afghan and outer Mongolia...lol
Please excuse her, she is retarded and lately has opened her mouth only to speak bullshit. She and Maduro defend dilogue with IS to begin with...
Sep 26th, 2014 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maduro's the lucky one.
Sep 26th, 2014 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He won't be required to wear a bag over his head for the talks.
The SCouncil is full of power countries that makes business selling arms. Where do you think they sell them to?? Some “rebels” of Middle East. They dont manage to get peace, although they much talk about.
Sep 26th, 2014 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See Colombia, and check what new things they do to get peace. Not the military, it failed, with the military more violence.
New members to the SC, with others point of view are necessary.
Colombia?
Sep 26th, 2014 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you holding up a country, that has been at war with itself since 1964, as an example of how these “others” would run the UN?
28 malen
Sep 26th, 2014 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0are you suggesting that south America does not buy arms.
or are you suggesting its ok for UN arms suppliers to sell to you lot, but not to anyone else..
What a ridiculous twat Dilma is....before she goes demanding that the global economy be re-launched, why doesn't she get her own backyard in order ???
Sep 26th, 2014 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But that's what it's like with these idiots....making smoke screens just to cover up their own mess and incompetence....And Brazil didn't even sign the agreement to cut down deforestation - pardon the pun - alleging they weren't consulted ....shouldn't the fat-ass have known what was going to be discussed at the UN....wasn't she prepared ? obviously not.
@5 Brazzo
According to official stats (probably manipulated) , in 2011, 6,400 sq km of Amazon rain forest were destroyed....in 2012, “only” 4,600 .....Only 4,600....I suppose, you think that's a number to be proud of....
Yr claim that ...
“We are building dozens of hydroelectric power with minimal environmental impact that will provide clean and renewable energy to continue to grow. We are building thousands of miles of highways and railways to facilitate the disposal of our products for modern and efficient ports and airports. Many of these works are ready and operational, significantly reducing the “Brazil cost” and strengthening the competitiveness of our products”, ....
This is just government propaganda. Looks like you fell for it, hook, line and sinker. The truth is that the 2 PAC's (Programmes for Acceleration of Growth), for which the PT government earmarked about USD 350 billion, have so far attained only 11 % of their objective, and most of the money seems to have disappeared in to thin air.....the fact is the ports, both sea and air, are in a shambles, the “cost” of Brazil is still thriving, and not even the PT's lies will change reality.
Your conditions of 'full-employment' do not take into account the 30 million people on the dole (bolsa familia).....real unemployment is at 25%..
A few weeks ago you claimed Brazil had no foreign debt ....now which is it ??
You are too naive to realize you are being ripped-off....
So, I take it from the various evasive replies that none here expect the UK to confront the RF any time soon. Makes me wonder what benefit we receive from out 'alliance' with the UK.
Sep 30th, 2014 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who the fuck is “we” Hep C.....Argentina? Fuck Argentina.....Argentina is dead....why do you thinks vultures attack it.
Sep 30th, 2014 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!