The Student Room Group

Security Council - non permanent member elections - Sep 2013 - Voting

This poll is closed

Whom do you want to elect to the Security Council as non-permanent representatives?

Luxembourg 50%
Re-open Nominations (RON)50%
Total votes: 12
Here is your candidate - voting has begun! This will last for 5 days - continue to question our candidate as you wish. The schedule has again been updated.


LuxembourgLuxembourg - the best choice for the security council

Why should Luxembourg, a very small country, be a member of the Security Council? Well :-
- as an international financial centre, it is ideally placed to aid organisation of financial quandaries.
- geographically, it is well placed within Europe and can decide unbiasedly in European issues.
- economically, it has the lowest unemployment rate in all of Europe and has enjoyed prosperity since time immemorial.
- it controls RTL, the largest media conglomerate in Europe, so can distribute information quickly and easily.


Why choose me?
- I don't have any exams and little coursework until June, so have plenty of free time to deal with MUN stuff.
-I have an interest and good working knowledge of world issues.

Luxembourg - the best choice for the security council


RON


NEWFriday 13th September - Election announced

Tuesday 24th September - Manifestos posted and a 2 day Q&A period begins

Monday 30th September - Voting begins, Q&A continues

Saturday 5th October - Results announced. If there is a tie between the top candidates, then a run off shall occur otherwise the top two candidates shall be elected to the Security Council.


Good luck to our candidate - any questions please ask.

RoryS
Deputy Secretary General
(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Don't we need two?
Reply 2
Original post by Qwertish
Don't we need two?


Don't think we have two, plus R.O.N counts.
Why does Luxembourg's geographic position make it a suitable choice for the Security Council?
Reply 4
Original post by Superunknown17
Why does Luxembourg's geographic position make it a suitable choice for the Security Council?


It sits serenely in amidst the great powers of Europe, providing a handy place for unbiased conferences.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Qwertish
Don't we need two?


Serbia were already elected, Syria received less votes than RON hence this election so the candidate is perfectly legitimate to be singular.
Reply 6
Original post by Cheese_Monster
Serbia were already elected, Syria received less votes than RON hence this election so the candidate is perfectly legitimate to be singular.


Ah, okay then :smile:.
Is there not already a European Bias within the security council, with the UK and France. Would Luxembourg's appointment only further this bias?
Reply 8
I think Luxembourg is a valid addition to the security council with all the elements necessary to be on the SC
Reply 9
Original post by Moist Penguin
Is there not already a European Bias within the security council, with the UK and France. Would Luxembourg's appointment only further this bias?


I don't think so - aside from geography Luxembourg is not terribly aligned with any particular European country, and so there would be little chance of a security council bloc forming.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Krollo
I don't think so - aside from geography Luxembourg is not terribly aligned with any particular European country, and so there would be little chance of a security council bloc forming.


Posted from TSR Mobile


But in general, Luxembourgian ideology is much more in line with France and the UK than China or Russia. And a shared border always leads to shared interests. There is very little way of avoiding this, so does a third Western European country on the SC not lead to bias?
Reply 11
Original post by St. Brynjar
But in general, Luxembourgian ideology is much more in line with France and the UK than China or Russia. And a shared border always leads to shared interests. There is very little way of avoiding this, so does a third Western European country on the SC not lead to bias?


No - while some bias may be elicited, the majority of issues in the UK and France are essentially untransferable to Luxembourg. For example, it was relatively unaffected by the recession, allowing Luxembourg to make decisions on lessening the effects that were not biased towards itself. Clearly in this way Luxembourg would not have these self interests and would be able to provide a more balanced viewpoint within the Security Council.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Soil
I think Luxembourg is a valid addition to the security council with all the elements necessary to be on the SC


And what elements might these be?
Reply 13
:bump:

Voting has begun!
Have the votes been counted?
Reply 15
We've had another tie! :frown:

I'm consulting with Toronto about the next steps with this as its getting quite tedious...
Original post by RoryS
We've had another tie! :frown:

I'm consulting with Toronto about the next steps with this as its getting quite tedious...


Constitutionally you have to hold another election.
Reply 17
Original post by Cheese_Monster
Constitutionally you have to hold another election.


Seeing as toronto hasn't replied, that's what I'm going to do. :wink:
Reply 18
Please see this thread for next round of voting.
I like how the results create a Luxembourg flag :tongue:

Quick Reply

Latest