What's new

'Restricted UNSC prevents small nations' voice to be heard'

Hindustani78

BANNED
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
40,471
Reaction score
-47
Country
India
Location
India
Last Updated: Friday, July 31, 2015 - 12:50
'Restricted UNSC prevents small nations' voice to be heard' | Zee News


United Nations: The "restricted and undemocratic" nature of the UN Security Council is preventing developing nations from being heard in the UN body, India has said as it warned that such a situation cannot be sustained for much longer and the Council must be urgently reformed.


India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Asoke Mukerji said it is a "pity" that the "restricted and undemocratic nature" of the Security Council has so far prevented the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) from contributing their unique perspective, as developing countries, into the Council's deliberations.

Participating at the Security Council session on 'Peace and Security Challenges facing SIDS', he said the small island nations have instead participated effectively in the universal platform provided by the General Assembly to address their specific concerns.

"This situation cannot be sustained for much longer, especially if the Council has to ensure a stable and supportive international political environment for the successful implementation of the post-2015 Development Agenda."

"We therefore call on you to include in your proposed non-paper a strong endorsement of the call of a majority of UN member states for urgent and early reforms of the structure of the UN Security Council, expanding the membership in both categories in order to allow the voices of developing countries to be heard, and acted upon, more regularly in the Council Chamber," Mukerji said here yesterday.

He underscored that with a coastline of over 7,500 kms and several groups of islands located far away from the mainland, India is deeply conscious of the special challenges faced by the SIDS.

"Given their small size, remote location, vulnerability to sea-level rise, high costs for energy and transportation, not to mention small resource base and high dependence on external markets, SIDS face disproportionate challenges to their social and economic development, which in turn exacerbates challenges to their peace and security. The financial, energy and food crises of recent years have only served to accentuate these vulnerabilities," he said.

Mukerji noted that the issues of piracy, climate change and development, which are concerns for the small developing nations, have been better addressed in the forum provide by the General Assembly instead of the powerful 15-nation Council.

He said in all these areas, "clear effective" international cooperation on the concerns has been most viable outside the UN Security Council, enabling a democratic, inclusive and transparent approach to be formulated on each area.

"By allowing each member state, especially those belonging to the SIDS, to raise their specific concerns, and then agreeing on an agreed way or platform to deal with these concerns, the UN General Assembly has played the role in these areas given to it by the UN Charter, whose 70th anniversary we celebrate this year," he added.

Mukerji highlighted that while the issue of piracy was taken up in Security Council, it has been through a much wider grouping, the 60-member Contact Group on Piracy off the coast of Somalia, that the security and economic concerns related to piracy have actually been addressed.

"This democratic and transparent approach has given results, which would commend consideration of broadening effective international cooperation to tackle piracy in a wider context, under the framework of the General Assembly, taking into account the concerns expressed by the SIDS," he said.

The General Assembly has also devoted decades of discussion and negotiation to enable the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) in 1982, a major achievement of the Assembly, and UNCLOS today is the platform from which issues of concern to member states, including the SIDS, on the illicit exploitation of natural resources, including illicit fishing, is most effectively addressed.

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment of 1972 provided the impetus for the broad-ranging consideration of climate change issues by the universal membership of the General Assembly.

As the Framework Convention on this issue, the UNFCCC, is poised to conclude its current negotiations in Paris in December 2015, "we advocate that the concerns of the SIDS on climate change must be reflected in the outcome document which will be adopted at Paris", he said.

"The SIDS are at the frontline of the threat from climate change and sea level rise, the worst sufferers of a global problem they did not contribute to. Adaptation to climate change remains one of the highest priorities for SIDS, an imperative that must be supported through more meaningful support from the international community," he said.

Mukerji said that long promised financial support under UNFCCC from developed countries must reach the SIDS expeditiously. The Green Climate Fund must also prioritise disbursement of funds to SIDS for their urgent adaptation priorities, he said.

Mukerji termed development an "overarching issue", which has been in the General Assembly for more than four decades.

"My delegation would propose to the members of this Council to use this debate as a valuable input into each of the broader, more transparent processes or platforms that we have just mentioned, in order to assist the SIDS to tackle these challenges," he said.

PTI
 
UNSC is like a group of powerful Mafia families. It is very seclusion. they just don't let anybody in.

small countries just get the short end of the stick.

I personally don't care for the UN
 
Last edited:
To improve things ...maybe ?

How would that improve anything? It would still only take 1 veto to shut down ANY resolution in the UNSC.

Only 1 veto. To shut down ANY resolution, including any resolution that might change/reform how veto powers work, ironically enough.

twitter_cropped.jpg


-------------------------

In the article, Mukerji makes the claim that India is more conscious of the needs of small island nations compared to the rest of the P5, which seems to be a really strange argument:

He underscored that with a coastline of over 7,500 kms and several groups of islands located far away from the mainland, India is deeply conscious of the special challenges faced by the SIDS.

If they are worried about small island nations, then why not submit a resolution to the UNSC on that issue?
 
So you think the UNSC is unfair and excludes the smaller nations, yet India also officially said they want to join the UNSC?

What?

Problems best solved outside UN Security Council: India | Zee News

New York: Solutions to global problems are best found outside the Security Council in forums like the General Assembly that are democratic, inclusive and transparent, India declared on Thursday.

Speaking at a Council debate on peace and security challenges of small island developing states (SIDS), Permanent Representative Asoke Kumar Mukerji said that in dealing with their problems, "it is clear effective international cooperation on the concerns has been most viable outside the UN Security Council" where "a democratic, inclusive and transparent approach" can be taken.

Asserting that "we must look beyond the Security Council in redressing the concerns", Mukerji gave the example of international anti-piracy efforts. Although the Security Council tried address the piracy issue through two resolutions, "it has been through a much wider grouping, the 60-member Contact Group on Piracy off the coast of Somalia, that the security and economic concerns related to piracy have actually been addressed", he said.

This effective "democratic and transparent approach" could be the model for broader international cooperation to tackle piracy concerns of the SIDS under the framework of the General Assembly, he added.

Another example he cited was the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, which came about after decades of General Assembly negotiations, effectively deals with issues like illegal exploitation of natural resources and illicit fishing, he said.

India has long been critical of the functioning of the Security Council which is dominated by the five veto-wielding nations, China, Britain, France, Russia and the United States. Pushing for reforming and expanding it, New Delhi has faulted it for not being open or democratic and for not adequately consulting other members who are directly affected or who are helping deal with issues on which the Council mandates.

Mukerji said that India has been working with SIDS on development, infrastructure building and climate change adaptation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched the Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC) for dialogue with the Pacific SIDS and forum will be meeting next month in India, he said.

Turning to a matter of dire urgency to the SIDS, Mukerji said that they "are at the frontline of the threat from climate change and sea level rise, the worst sufferers of a global problem they did not contribute to".

Therefore, he said, the international community should support their climate change adaptation initiatives and give them priority in distributions from the Green Climate Fund.

IANS
 
India seems to be firing a lot of shots over how "unfair" the UNSC is, does that mean they will retract their official request to become a permanent member of the UNSC?

Or do they just want that "unfair" power for themselves too?
 
How would that improve anything? It would still only take 1 veto to shut down ANY resolution in the UNSC.

Only 1 veto. To shut down ANY resolution, including any resolution that might change/reform how veto powers work, ironically enough.

twitter_cropped.jpg


-------------------------

In the article, Mukerji makes the claim that India is more conscious of the needs of small island nations compared to the rest of the P5, which seems to be a really strange argument:



If they are worried about small island nations, then why not submit a resolution to the UNSC on that issue?

When it comes to the longest issue in United nations which is the Palestine issue , we can notice that the countries which voted for the creation of State of Israel on Palestine , even now agrees that East Jerusalem belongs to Palestine.

Here the Veto of United States in reality has built up more pressure on Israeli Establishment.

India seems to be firing a lot of shots over how "unfair" the UNSC is, does that mean they will retract their official request to become a permanent member of the UNSC?

Or do they just want that "unfair" power for themselves too?

Here India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Asoke Mukerji is talking about United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas which was a major achievement of the General Assembly, and UNCLOS today is the platform from which issues of concern to member states, including the SIDS, on the illicit exploitation of natural resources, including illicit fishing, is most effectively addressed.

The situation in South China sea is the real issue in South East Asia. Will China even use Veto ?
 
How would that improve anything? It would still only take 1 veto to shut down ANY resolution in the UNSC.

Only 1 veto. To shut down ANY resolution, including any resolution that might change/reform how veto powers work, ironically enough.

How about dismantling the whole '5 power' system in UNSC, who decide, based on their interests, that who is the bad guy and who is the good guy? Ironically, these 5 countries happen to have killed most number of civilians in the past century. They are not exactly qualified to decide for 'world peace and security' and all of these countries also happen to have nuclear weapons.

US vetoes any resolution condemning Israel and Russia vetoes any resolution that is against its interest, same as others.
Such decisions better to left for UN general assembly so all countries in the world can vote on major issues in the world, that's the fairest scenario. The current system is basically the rule of jungle, where those who have nuclear weapons and stronger economy, get to tell others what's wrong and what's not.
 
How about dismantling the whole '5 power' system in UNSC, who decide, based on their interests, that who is the bad guy and who is the good guy? Ironically, these 5 countries happen to have killed most number of civilians in the past century. They are not exactly qualified to decide for 'world peace and security' and all of these countries also happen to have nuclear weapons.

US vetoes any resolution condemning Israel and Russia vetoes any resolution that is against its interest, same as others.
Such decisions better to left for UN general assembly so all countries in the world can vote on major issues in the world, that's the fairest scenario. The current system is basically the rule of jungle, where those who have nuclear weapons and stronger economy, get to tell others what's wrong and what's not.

Dismantling UNSC means new world order , thats why there is process going on for the reforms and expansion of UNSC.
 
Dismantling UNSC means new world order , thats why there is process going on for the reforms and expansion of UNSC.

What's wrong with a new world order?

'expansion' of UNSC is wrong, just other countries with Veto power will come in, while still others who happen to be the majority will be singled out. ALL countries should be able to vote on world matters, not just 5 or 6 or 7 countries.
 
How about dismantling the whole '5 power' system in UNSC, who decide, based on their interests, that who is the bad guy and who is the good guy? Ironically, these 5 countries happen to have killed most number of civilians in the past century. They are not exactly qualified to decide for 'world peace and security' and all of these countries also happen to have nuclear weapons.

US vetoes any resolution condemning Israel and Russia vetoes any resolution that is against its interest, same as others.
Such decisions better to left for UN general assembly so all countries in the world can vote on major issues in the world, that's the fairest scenario. The current system is basically the rule of jungle, where those who have nuclear weapons and stronger economy, get to tell others what's wrong and what's not.

In order to change the "5 power" system, you need to reform the UN charter.

And guess what you need to reform the UN charter? You need the support of 2/3 of the General Assembly (easy), but more importantly, you need the support of EVERY SINGLE P5 member. This is how the UN charter was written.

From the official UN website:

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

Article 108:

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including ALL the permanent members of the Security Council.

----------------------------

So basically it is never going to change. Since the 5 permanent members will never ALL agree to give up their veto power. Even if 1 doesn't agree then it can't move forward (and you can bet there will be more than 1).

The only way around this is to create another organization to rival the United Nations. And no one currently has the clout to do that except America, who are interested in creating something called a "Concert of Democracies" or some such. If they leave the UN and get all their friends to leave the UN that might work.

China and Russia have created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but that is just a mutual cooperation organization, it's not meant to compete with the UNSC.
 
In order to change the "5 power" system, you need to reform the UN charter.

And guess what you need to reform the UN charter? You need the support of 2/3 of the General Assembly (easy), but more importantly, you need the support of EVERY SINGLE P5 member. This is how the UN charter was written.

From the official UN website:

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

Article 108:

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including ALL the permanent members of the Security Council.

----------------------------

So basically it is never going to change. Since the 5 permanent members will never ALL agree to give up their veto power. Even if 1 doesn't agree then it can't move forward (and you can bet there will be more than 1).

The only way around this is to create another organization to rival the United Nations. And no one currently has the clout to do that except America, who are interested in creating something called a "Concert of Democracies" or some such. If they leave the UN and get all their friends to leave the UN that might work.

China and Russia have created the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, but that is just a mutual cooperation organization, it's not meant to compete with the UNSC.

There are more than 185 countries who are not a part of UNSC. I think if there is the will for reform in them, they can push for change or even create a rival organization. The fact that current UNSC structure is the pure form of dictatorship and barbarism in form of modernity is undeniable. You see, it is ridiculous, for example, that a country like U.S has to decide when a country should be attacked or not, or denying Palestine its own country for 50 years and to Veto every single resolution condemning Israel.
 
Last edited:
The current system is basically the rule of jungle, where those who have nuclear weapons and stronger economy, get to tell others what's wrong and what's not.

Well yes, that is exactly how the world is right now.

It took us the past 200 years of suffering (our "Century of Humiliation") to realize this fact.

But at one point we finally said, enough is enough, it's time for us to become strong ourselves if we want to ensure our own safety and our own sovereignty.

The world isn't going to change for us. We need to change ourselves to have any chance.

There are more than 185 countries who are not a part of UNSC. I think if there is the will for reform in them, they ca push for change or even create a rival organization. The fact that current UNSC structure is the pure form of dictatorship and barbarism in form of modernity is undeniable. You see, it is ridiculous, for example, that a country like U.S has to decide when a country should b attacked or not, or denying Palestine its own country for 50 years and to Veto every single resolution condemning Israel.

And out of those 185 nations, how many reject the leadership of "America world police"?

Not many. Only a handful even.

As long as the vast majority of "hard power" (economic/military power) in the world lies with the P5 and their allies (NATO for example), the others will follow. Until they stop following, then nothing can change.
 

Back
Top Bottom