What's new

UN calls for full-scale talks on expanding Security Council

It will reach consensus as it does now (I.E. through wheeling and dealing). The veto power has no part to play in reaching consensus. On the contrary, it actually destroys the consensus by singular votes. You could have 60 nations wanting something and then one Veto and its all over. This is the problem with this retarded and biased system. The failure of UN ever since its inception is due to this flawed system of granting veto powers.

Agreed Sir. It was claimed that the body was founded for gaurding smaller nations against the agression of bigger powers and utlimatly blocking wars that harm humanity. But by giving Veto power to 5 big powers that had been the party rather the main players in both the world wars leading to killing of thousands of innocent people, UN had become a policing system to mane the intrests of the same big powers.

It had been failed to protect humanity from agonies brought and are being brough by proxy wars of these nations.

Why not to do away with veto power and take decisons on merit based on consensus.
 
Agreed Sir. It was claimed that the body was founded for gaurding smaller nations against the agression of bigger powers and utlimatly blocking wars that harm humanity. .

thats not correct....actually It was founded by the victors of world war2 to avoid confrontation between the two large nation so that the world war type of situation can be avoided through proper negotiation and that too by following the guide line(UN Charter).
 
thats not correct....actually It was founded by the victors of world war2 to avoid confrontation between the two large nation so that the world war type of situation can be avoided through proper negotiation and that too by following the guide line(UN Charter).

:) But wasnt it a ploy to buly the world by few.
 
"So that the weak can be protected by the new member nations!"

I just wanted to know how it sounded! :D
 
So do we exactly need any expansion in a bulying organisation.

:disagree:

From the moral point of view a full scale reform of UNSC is require in which every single country should have a voice....but you know that its not going to happen ......The news report I have posted on first page says everything.....UN is only talking about expansion..that means the so called P5 is not ready to give up their power yet. so its not a question of what we want but its a question of how much the P5 is ready to give up at the moment and you know the answer...
 
India joins Japan in renewed push for UNSC Membership
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) — India joined Japan on Friday in calling for more determined efforts to reform the United Nations as the two Asian powers pitched for permanent seats in the Security Council.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh criticized scant progress made since world leaders decided three years ago to forge an "agenda for early and meaningful reform" of the world body.

"The composition of the Security Council needs to change to reflect contemporary realities of the 21st century," he said.

"We must acknowledge frankly that there has been little progress on the core elements of the reform agenda," Singh said.

He then called for "more determined efforts to revitalize the General Assembly to enable it to fulfill its rightful role as the principal deliberative organ of the United Nations," he said.

On Thursday, Japan's new prime minister Taro Aso emphasized "the absolute imperative" of council reform, in his address to the General Assembly.

"We must bring about the early reform of the Security Council through an expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent memberships," he said.

Aso, who replaced Yasuo Fukuda, was the first Japanese prime minister to speak at the General Assembly since Koizumi came in 2005 to pitch for a Security Council seat as part of a push for global reform.

The UN General Assembly decided last week to begin inter-governmental talks on expanding the powerful Security Council by February 28.

Japan and India joined Germany and Brazil in 2005 in a strong push to be in the council as permanent members, along with two African countries, but without veto rights.

But their bid failed after it ran into strong opposition from China and the United States as well as from regional rivals such as Italy, Pakistan and Argentina.

Japan is bidding for a non-permanent seat in the council next month.

The thorny issue of how to enlarge the 15-member Security Council to make it more representative and reflective of today's global realities has for years divided the UN membership.

The council currently has 10 rotating, non-permanent members and five veto-wielding permanent ones (China, United States, France, Britain and Russia).

Its makeup has remained largely unchanged since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945.AFP: India joins Japan in renewed push for UN reform
 
If the expansion does not happen now, it does not affect India much, but it will affect Japan. Japan has passed the peak of its strength and is in a decline in terms of influence and economy as others are overtaking it. Its now or never for Japan(now means a decade in diplomatic terms!), India, Brazil etc are only just beginning their upward climb, there would be oppurtunities later on as well.
 
If India gets Veto Powers it would simply keep vetoing any decision on Kashmir!

The US and China both might just veto the whole thing. They go through hell to get a consensus of the 5. Imagine if they had to get more okays.
 
If India gets Veto Powers it would simply keep vetoing any decision on Kashmir!

The US and China both might just veto the whole thing. They go through hell to get a consensus of the 5. Imagine if they had to get more okays.

does it make any defference even without VETO as far as the issue of Kashmir is concerned??
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom