Germany, Japan fume at Obama's UN nod

[Mirza Jatt]

All the UNSC reforms that are being talked about...is not just for India...if there will be a change and if the P5 is thinking of any reform, it certainly will think of accomodating the other deserving dandidates as well.

I would say a time for japan,germany and Brazil to cash on this opportunity and reinforce extra lobbying than getting furious.

 

[pmukherjee]

Rubbish! Utter rubbish! There is no equality among nations of the world and neither can there ever be. You cannot possibly think of giving same weight to Uganda and Zimbabwe as to US and China.

If nations like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka want to be treated equally, they will have to actively work to make sure that they are in the same league of nations as UK, US, China etc.

It's like asking to give A grade to every student just because he/she is human and all humans are equal.

Equality doesn't come by moral BS, equality comes by being strong. Respect is commanded, not begged!

Yes, the caste system amongst nations, perpetrated by the UNSC. Wasn't this what Nehru, Nasser and Tito set out to do when they created the Non Alligned Movement? To give voice to the nations that do not have a voice? and do not care to join the camp of either super power in order to have their interests taken care of.
Well, they are all dead now and Tito's Yugoslavia is no more. And so is the NAM, well practically.

 

[pmukherjee]

Come on.. dont reverse the direction..

I have transformed the opinion from the pet status to opposing one..

See its very easy to manipulate opinions....dont play the spoilsport.

Just having fun buddy. P

 

[TruthSeeker]

The real solution is to simply abolish the UN. At the very least the UN headquarters should be moved to Beijing where it belongs. In the meantime, the USA should go one step farther and take away its veto from Israel, who now owns it, and give it to India, the USA's new best friend! All Obama has to say is that from now on we are going to let India decide how to vote the USA's veto right. Obama can say he will consult with Mr. Singh on every issue, abide by whatever India wants done, and cast the USA vote in the UNSC accordingly. Problem solved and we don't even need a vote by the other UNSC members. That way, Israel can just go lobby with India for every veto that it wants India (oops, America) to cast!!!

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

India 's U.N SC seat aspirations, with a veto are because the issues which come up before the U.N ....Global warming , rights of developing countries in certain fields , also U.N peace-keeping troop commitment ,are things which India can effectively help in , along with the P5 .

The U.S commitment was the toughest goal because the U.S is one country at loggerheads with India everytime - on Iran , on Myanmar etc . In contrast India mostly sees eye -to -eye with China on fields like Global warming, so compared to the U.S they dont have an imminent reason to block India's candidature .

The power games involving strategic or military blocs like NATO or SCO do not require the need of a U.N.S.C veto any more , they are carried out either militarily( Afghanistan /Iraq) or economically by sanctions ( Iran /North Korea).

To all intents and purposes the only role of the UNSC is to uphold world order ,and represent the voices of both the developed and the developing world in many instances . This is a role India can play to perfection.

 

[gubbi]

well I would rather say....Abolish permanent seats in the United Nations

Give equal opportunities to everybody.....decide all matters on the basis of votes....one for each nation

Veto-power imbalances the power in the region and is a useful tool for powerful countries to oppress the less powerful nations

Thats a nice idea. But there is already a UN body which does that - the UN General Assembly.

As for International security matters to be left in the hands of countries which can barely protect themselves is a wrong idea. Its not about votes or vetos. Its about the military prowess of a nation and what difference it can make when a push comes to a shove.

Militarily powerful countries, which can also protect many other nations at the same time are the best choices for a Security Council!

 

[gubbi]

Equality doesn't come by moral BS, equality comes by being strong. Respect is commanded, not begged!

X2. True that.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Thats a nice idea. But there is already a UN body which does that - the UN General Assembly.

As for International security matters to be left in the hands of countries which can barely protect themselves is a wrong idea. Its not about votes or vetos. Its about the military prowess of a nation and what difference it can make when a push comes to a shove.

Militarily powerful countries, which can also protect many other nations at the same time are the best choices for a Security Council!

Such countries are only two ,the U.S and Russia to a certain extent .France and Britain operate under the U.S ( Nato auspices ).

China as yet has still to develop its military to protect say , hypothetically Iran from a U.S invasion or militarily prevent a conflict in say the middle -east .

 

[The HBS Guy]

Thats a nice idea. But there is already a UN body which does that - the UN General Assembly.

As for International security matters to be left in the hands of countries which can barely protect themselves is a wrong idea. Its not about votes or vetos. Its about the military prowess of a nation and what difference it can make when a push comes to a shove.

Militarily powerful countries, which can also protect many other nations at the same time are the best choices for a Security Council!

Military & Economy &/OR Population

 

[Solomon2]

"Veto? India will fight to the end for the veto. But many countries say they can live without it, because the veto is not used anymore and lobbying for support is the way to go in the Council. But veto, like nuclear weapons, is a currency of power. That battle, therefore, will continue."

Membership in the SC is about willingness to maintain the status quo and the ability to project military power. That is why China's original membership (1945) was controversial; it had no power-projection capabilities so the Chang Kai-shek regime could only be an echo of its primary supporter, the U.S.

By my measure I arrive at three conclusions:

1) India could be an SC member in the future but it is not there yet.
2) The French should lose their seat, and
3) Israel should have a seat on the Security Council.

(Germany and Japan, lacking either the means or the will to commit decisive military forces, shouldn't be worth further comment at all.)

 

[Beacon]

"Veto? India will fight to the end for the veto. But many countries say they can live without it, because the veto is not used anymore and lobbying for support is the way to go in the Council. But veto, like nuclear weapons, is a currency of power. That battle, therefore, will continue."

Membership in the SC is about willingness to maintain the status quo and the ability to project military power. That is why China's original membership (1945) was controversial; it had no power-projection capabilities so the Chang Kai-shek regime could only be an echo of its primary supporter, the U.S.

By my measure I arrive at three conclusions:

1) India could be an SC member in the future but it is not there yet.
2) The French should lose their seat, and
3) Israel should have a seat on the Security Council.

(Germany and Japan, lacking either the means or the will to commit decisive military forces, shouldn't be worth further comment at all.)

Wat nonsense!! why should Israel have a seat on the security council..... what logic do ya have for it...

 

[Jackdaws]

Germany and Japan want a seat on the Security Council - to shut them up mention stuff like the Gestapo, Dachau, Warsaw, genocide, **** of Nanking etc.

 

[Jackdaws]

How come no smart alec has come up with an idea of a UNSC seat for SAARC?

 

[Solomon2]

Wat nonsense!! why should Israel have a seat on the security council..... what logic do ya have for it...

Israel is committed to the status quo and possesses and employs power-projection capabilities. Have you never thought of how many wars and even domestic conflicts could be alleviated if Israel exercised a vote in the Security Council? Lebanon would never have fallen to Hezbollah, the Rwanda mess would have been addressed promptly, and of course the world would not be blinded by all those resolutions condemning Israel for reasons that turn out to be faked or exaggerated, thus lowering the level of world hatred.

 

[CardSharp]

Israel is committed to the status quo and possesses and employs power-projection capabilities. Have you never thought of how many wars and even domestic conflicts could be alleviated if Israel exercised a vote in the Security Council? Lebanon would never have fallen to Hezbollah, the Rwanda mess would have been addressed promptly, and of course the world would not be blinded by all those resolutions condemning Israel for reasons that turn out to be faked or exaggerated, thus lowering the level of world hatred.

None of those reasons are particularly convincing and I doubt anyone in the world is seriously thinking about putting Israel on the UNSC.