Talk:G4 nations

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)

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"
 * I found rather fewer references to that, and removing the word "enlarged" from the search terms results in a lot of largely irrelevant articles. Asking for citations there does seem to be in order.  --Jonadab

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!

It states in the article G8 (formerly G7) that is not accurate G7 and G8 are two different entities, one is economic and the other political. This hsould be changed or removed.

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)

Removed China's opposition to India's UNSC bid, since they are now supporting India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.3.123 (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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) Maybe this will be helpful._RicHARD Brazil, India declare G4 dead Posted Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:47am AEST

India and Brazil say there is no chance of a grouping of four key World Trade Organisation (WTO) players breaking the deadlock in multilateral trade talks, a day after their representatives walked out of negotiations in Potsdam, Germany.

The so-called G4 - the US, the European Union, India and Brazil acting as representatives of major industrialised and emerging economies - hoped to spearhead negotiations on a global trade deal by hammering out differences on key issues.

But Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath and Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim walked out of the crucial talks yesterday after facing fresh demands to open their markets to industrial goods and services.

"It's the end of the day for G4," Mr Nath said.

"Now, it's for the full [WTO] membership to take the Doha round forward."

India has argued that any lowering of its trade barriers needs to be matched by lower farm subsidies in the west that it argues prices its agricultural sector out of the global market.

"Where agriculture is concerned, India has always maintained there can be no compromise with our subsistence farmers," Mr Nath said.

"Developed countries are looking at promoting and protecting the prosperity of their farmers, whereas in India, we are talking about protecting the livelihood of our farmers."

He has ruled out any future compromise, saying there "cannot be a trade-off between prosperity and livelihood".

Mr Nath says bowing to western demands would have "seriously jeopardised the livelihoods of the farmers of the developing and least developed countries and threatened the food security of many poorer nations".

Mr Amorim agrees the collapse of the talks spells the end of G4 but says a global trade deal is still possible.

"I don't think that the Doha round is dead, even that it is agonising," he said.

The Brazilian Foreign Minister has blamed the EU and US for the collapse, saying the two developed powers had arrived at Potsdam with their minds already made up on how much they were prepared to offer and what they expected from the other two parties.

"What they agreed, they considered to be the agreement," he said.

But he says it is "difficult but not impossible" for all 150 WTO members to arrive at a comprehensive global trade deal.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on G4 nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051227142848/http://www.un.org/av/radio/unandafrica/transcript57.htm to http://www.un.org/av/radio/unandafrica/transcript57.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G4 nations. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070221044357/http://www.centralchronicle.com/20070111/1101194.htm to http://www.centralchronicle.com/20070111/1101194.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on G4 nations. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100706231352/http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp to http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Year of comparison
Maybe I have overseen it, but the very nice comparison lacks the year of the numbers. Pankratz (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove Global Firepower Index
What gives this site the credibility to be in the comparison table? I am unable to find their methodology, and take a look at their naval strength section. Colombia 4th, and Finland 11th, while the UK is 42nd? It's complete nonsense --TimmyIsCuddly (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

there is a formatting issue that causes the japanese translation to not show up. removing the parantheses will fix this but causes other format issues.
there is a formatting issue that causes the japanese translation to not show up. removing the parantheses will fix this but causes other format issues. --77.190.109.98 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)