Talk:Uniting for Consensus

Udpdate needed

In 2009 started new negotiations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.117.48 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation!!

I would really appreciate a citation on the bit about which countries oppose each G4 nation. --Puck85 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Source, please? Doidimais Brasil 03:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC).

Some are there. Skinnyweed 22:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Would be fgood if there will be also written waht the different countries tried so they reach their goals. --134.147.29.139 12:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

SCO Relevance?

I'm just curious as to why the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is listed as a see also. There isn't and direct mention of it in the article and there isn't any implied connection that I can glean from the article. Mystache 18:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance either. --Bjarki 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of their nature

The article lists the countries bidding for UNSC permanent membership and then lists some facts (or are they facts?) about the nature of their payments to the UN and their population, etc. I am on the opinion that, in a fair world, this should not be of any importance. Normally, Wikipedia is not about opinions, but as there is no mention of the relevance of these facts in the eyes of the concerned parties, one must guess. So, if this info is not put here in a way that leaves no questions as to its relevance, it should be removed.Mátyás (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole reason why the Uniting for Consensus even exists in the first place is that certain "third-tier" powers oppose the idea that a "second-tier" power in their own region should gain a UNSC permanent seat (while they don't). Uniting for Consensus is a log-rolling alliance of such third-tier powers in various different regions. If you can think of better language to explain this, then that would be welcome... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They were backed by another coalition of countries -- including Argentina, Italy, and Pakistan -- that feared the initiative might accelerate a Security Council reform process that could potential end with their regional rivals, Brazil, India, and Germany -- securing permanent seats in the Security Council. -- "The Brobdingnagians win again" by Colum Lynch, Foreign Policy, Wednesday, May 16, 2012.

That's pretty much the basic rationale of Uniting for Consensus... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

While I see your point, I would rather say that now first-tier powers have the lion share of the cake. Second-tier powers now want the same cake slices as first tier powers, leaving nothing for the remaining powers. Third-tier powers want first-tier power to have a first-tier slice of the cake, second-tier power a second tier slice, third tier power a third tier slice, and so on, down to crumbs. It is a more representative and proportional system, and avoids veto powers to go from 5 to 9. 93.144.65.51 (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

July 2011 conference in Mexico

I am trying to find some information to add to this article about the conference in Mexico referenced in this UN News Centre article. All I could really find was this Associated Press of Pakistan article which says that 29 states attended the conference in Mexico, but I couldn't find a list of the states attending, or anything about the conference at all for that matter, on the Government of Mexico site. Mathew5000 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why the nickname?

Called the 'Coffee Club', but why? Do the like coffee? Perhaps, but I'm sure the Pakistanis prefer tea. Do they produce coffee? Not something Italy is really known for. Maybe its a disparaging nickname, e.g. All the do is talk and drink coffee. It would be nice to know. The only place I could find that claimed to 'explain' it was centerforunreform.org , they said: 'They are known as the Coffee Club because it is reminiscent of the powerful lobby opposing the expansion of permanent membership in the early 1990s.' but that doesn't really explain anything does it? What powerful lobby and what did it have to do with coffee? Some anon ip (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be an internal informal nickname, which it's probably not worth trying to understand in detail... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uniting for Consensus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120329104301/http://www.centerforunreform.org/system/files/19+Feb+2009.pdf to http://www.centerforunreform.org/system/files/19+Feb+2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)