India’s bid for permanent UNSC seat falters

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India’s bid for permanent UNSC seat falters

* UNGA president to issue report favouring Pakistan’s ideas​

Staff Report

UNITED NATIONS: India is likely to withdraw a resolution it tabled in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Tuesday, asking for more permanent and non-permanent seats in the UN Security Council (UNSC), after it failed to draw enough support, diplomatic sources said on Saturday.

India announced that it would ask the assembly to vote on the resolution directly, as opposed to deciding it by consensus. However, the Indian delegation can do nothing now but withdraw the resolution after only 25 members showed up for a meeting called to evaluate support for the move on Friday.

Instead, the assembly president is to issue a report that includes several modifications suggested by Pakistan. Pakistan’s Ambassador Munir Akram told a UN General Assembly panel that the purpose of reforming the Security Council would be nullified “if only a few large states were to claim for themselves either permanent or semi-permanent membership” in the expanded council.

Media reports said that even India’s close ally Russia disapproved of the move.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

The proposal to expand the veto wielding membership of the Security Council is going to do nothing for reform in the UN - the result will be a continued concentration of power, and its partisan use and abuse, in the hands of a select few. It is ironic that some nations who championed movements like NAM, in pursuit of equality and justice between nations, would now wish to perpetuate, and seek to join, the same hierarchy that they struggled against.

A more detailed analysis of the proposals moved in the UN, and the implications for India:

Indian American Center for Political Awareness

 

[bhangra12345]

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

The proposal to expand the veto wielding membership of the Security Council is going to do nothing for reform in the UN - the result will be a continued concentration of power, and its partisan use and abuse, in the hands of a select few. It is ironic that some nations who championed movements like NAM, in pursuit of equality and justice between nations, would now wish to perpetuate, and seek to join, the same hierarchy that they struggled against.

A more detailed analysis of the proposals moved in the UN, and the implications for India:

Indian American Center for Political Awareness

Let us have instead of 15 member security council, 200 member one with all having veto
then we can happily say security council doesnt exist

 

[Awesome]

The UNSC needs to be abolished rather than added with new members. As it is, nothing goes through. Even if the whole world is on one side, some or the other country will veto a move for their personal interest.

Then they also veto for their allies. China does for Pakistan, Russia historically did for India, America has done it the most for Israel.

Depend upon a popular vote from the UN General body. That would really force everyone to keep good global relations.

 

[Awesome]

The veto should be with nobody.

See India kept harping about UN reforms but when it came to it they were also looking for power. The real reform would be to break this tyrannical order and level the playing field.

 

[Contrarian]

How can there be a level playing field. How can for example angola contribute to the international security and prosperity like India. Those countries that wield power must be given responsibilities. India does wield power, both military and economic and this will increase dramatically in the future. Thus it is imperative that UN recognize a new world order will gradually emerge and change accordingly.

 

[EagleEyes]

If India is given the leadership position, so should Pakistan. Pakistan is the top contributor to the UN, and plays the major role throughout the world politics.

 

[Contrarian]

What role webby? Its high time you realise that India and Pakistan are not equal and will no longer be treated as equals on the world stage. Many things stand testimony to this changing fact already, i think you are missing them.

Being a contributer to UN(manpower wise) is not the main criteria. Heck even Japan and Germany are fighting for a seat, do you think Pakistan will get it? Economic power, military power, democracy, human rights AND contributions to UN, are among the various factors outlined as the preconditions for being selected.

I think US gave these, i cant find that report right now, maybe some one else can get it.

 

[EagleEyes]

Economic power: We are both growing at the same speed.
Military Power: We both have the required power to coup with any challenges equally or for that matter as per by the requirements of the UN.
Democracy: Thats already in Pakistan, but is soon to return "officially".
Human rights: We both are crap in it.
Contribution to UN: We both have done more than any other country, maybe Pakistan have done a little more than India.

What differences are you exactly talking about? A country has to have a big geographical size and population to enter in UN? I call it, Bullocks!

 

[Contrarian]

Economic power: We are both growing at the same speed.

No mate, for the last 5 years, we have been consistently growing at >8% rate, while Pakistan i think managed that just once. And its inflation is much higher and its growth rate has slowed down again to around 7% with inflation still higher than the growth rate.
Apart from that there is the economy of scale. The sheer size of India's economy makes it a very suitable candidate and very important economically, same reason as China's. They are just too big to ignore.

Military Power: We both have the required power to coup with any challenges equally or for that matter as per by the requirements of the UN.

Its not about coping with any challenges. Its about projecting power. That is where India leads Pakistan. Dont you wonder why India is spending money like crazy on its Navy, same as China. Navy is the IDEAL tool to project power.Why there are plans to increase the AF strength to 49 sqd's. Its not about need, its about projection.

Democracy: Thats already in Pakistan, but is soon to return "officially".

Please mate, not this.

Human rights: We both are crap in it.

Lol, that made me laugh and snort out my food.

Contribution to UN: We both have done more than any other country, maybe Pakistan have done a little more than India.

Yep, but like i said, this is not the main factor

What differences are you exactly talking about? A country has to have a big geographical size and population to enter in UN? I call it, Bullocks!

No it has to be military very strong, project power, command an economy that cannot be ignored, that is vital for world trade, have democracy and next, be on the good books of all the major world powers.

 

[EagleEyes]

Lol, that made me laugh and snort out my food.

I hope that laugh, wasn't the laugh of denial.

I will hopefully respond you in detail later.

Thanks.

 

[Contrarian]

I hope that laugh, wasn't the laugh of denial.

I will hopefully respond you in detail later.

Thanks.

Nah, it was a laugh that you got it spot on and said it in simplicity.

 

[Awesome]

How can there be a level playing field. How can for example angola contribute to the international security and prosperity like India. Those countries that wield power must be given responsibilities. India does wield power, both military and economic and this will increase dramatically in the future. Thus it is imperative that UN recognize a new world order will gradually emerge and change accordingly.

Angola would only get ONE vote as a nation as would India. It sounds fair to me. Why should India weild "power" over Angola if the majority of the world doesn't agree with India.

The majority would weild power not the stature of any country.

 

[ied_blast]

The UNSC needs to be abolished rather than added with new members. As it is, nothing goes through. Even if the whole world is on one side, some or the other country will veto a move for their personal interest.

Then they also veto for their allies. China does for Pakistan, Russia historically did for India, America has done it the most for Israel.

Depend upon a popular vote from the UN General body. That would really force everyone to keep good global relations.

agreed mate ....but then who gona look into matters like "DAFFUR"

 

[ied_blast]

If India is given the leadership position, so should Pakistan. Pakistan is the top contributor to the UN, and plays the major role throughout the world politics.

again agreed mate....but for all the wrong reasons.

 

[IceCold]

again agreed mate....but for all the wrong reasons.

Care to explain what wrong reasons are we talking about here?