India wins non-permanent seat at UN Security Council

[prototype]

187 of the 191 member states in the General Assembly backing

Above numbers speak volume!
This is a key for India to open the door of P-5 to join it.

that's why i say India getting into p-5 is inevitable,those who voted against India can try to delay it,but not stop it,and they have to live with it

 

[VCheng]

One major long-term gain for India is that enemies of the state such as Hafiz Saeed/ Dawood Ibrahim etc are brought to justice.

Now we will see a renewed effort on this.

Like I said, that is India's right.

However, please remember the old aphorism: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Exhibit A: The recent Nobel Prize award controversy.

 

[karan.1970]

This seat is passed around and everyone is given a chance now and then. Pakistan has had many chances, even I think we were on it 2 cycles ago. I don't see how this would affect your bid.

India is not becoming Permanent member because of the US and its issues with India getting veto power.

One thing that I have learnt in last 10 years in corporate life is that a seat at the table, no matter how insignifacant always helps. India getting it per se is no big deal as I said earlier.. However as the UNSC reforms agenda moves off the back burner, India being on the UNSC table can only be helpful

 

[VCheng]

One thing that I have learnt in last 10 years in corporate life is that a seat at the table, no matter how insignifacant always helps. India getting it per se is no big deal as I said earlier.. However as the UNSC reforms agenda moves off the back burner, India being on the UNSC table can only be helpful

Absolutely correct sir!

 

[RajmaChawal]

I am above all these petty concerns, and I do not take any sides, ever. I merely reminded you of an old aphorism, that is all.

No offence intended.

None taken buddy, I know you are among the most sensible Pak posters around.

 

[karan.1970]

Like I said, that is India's right.

However, please remember the old aphorism: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Exhibit A: The recent Nobel Prize award controversy.

True, but I think the modus operendi of the individuals play a role in how the world sees them. The biggest problem that a true Kashmiri movement (if one even exists) is the association with Pakistan. Because the whole world sees Kashmir as a land grab struggle between India and Pakistan and not a freedom movement (which I too believe it isnt) of Kashmir.

That is exemplified by the Chinese situation where there is no other country who stands to gain in terms of land aquisition so similar.

 

[Hawkish]

Congrats to India. On the way to permanent one, if she play her cards right

 

[StingRoy]

Pak’s vote for India at UNSC is ‘significant’: Indian envoy

India was elected to the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member with a thumping majority of votes, including that of Pakistan, in what was quickly described by New Delhi as significant.

“Of course it is of significance,” said Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s envoy to the UN, in response to a question of whether India viewed this positively.

“It proves that those who are sceptical on India-Pakistan cooperation in the UN... it proves them wrong,” he told PTI, after the vote.

Only a day earlier, however, diplomats both countries had argued about Kashmir at the UN with Congress MP Charan Das Mahant asserting that Kashmir was an integral part of India, “and that its people have regularly expressed their will in free and fair elections“.

Pakistani delegate Tahir Andrabi who had spoken later said, no electoral exercise in Jammu and Kashmir can substitute a “free and impartial plebiscite” mandated by Security Council resolutions.

Puri, however, stressed that India and Pakistan had not clashed over Kashmir but were reiterating their longstanding positions.

“Yesterday what happened was not a spat,” the Indian diplomat said.

“I’m not going to comment on Pakistan’s statement... India’s position is crystal clear... Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India... Jammu and Kashmir has periodic franchise through elections,” he added.

While India got 187 votes out of 191, with one country abstaining, two of the other three votes went to Pakistan and Swaziland.

Since the voting is done by secret ballot, it is not clear who cast those votes. Puri, however, confirmed it was not Pakistan.

“As long as I know that Pakistan voted for India, it doesn’t matter who in a mischievous way cast a vote for Pakistan,” Puri said.

“It was clearly designed to create a bit of confusion,” he said.

India, which is a founding member of the UN, is returning to the Security Council after a gap of 19 years.

It has been on the Council six times before-having last served in 1992.

India’s term for the next two year begins in January 2011.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

More than the seat, the timing at which it has come is important.

I mean just think about it. Now India can raise 26/11 and Permanent UNSC seat at the top of its voice for a full two years and that too when all major countries are more or less agreeing that UNSC reform is the need of the hour.

In two years, we would have raised the pitch sooooo high that it will make our case on both 26/11 and permanent UNSC watertight.

hate to burst your bubble; the world has moved on!


so should you....




oh wait...

 

[true_indian]

hate to burst your bubble; the world has moved on!


so should you....




oh wait...

Same could be said about Kashmir..can't we?..oh wait..may be I should rephrase it..the greater world doesn't bother..So,may be you should move on as well...

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Same could be said about Kashmir..can't we?..oh wait..may be I should rephrase it..the greater world doesn't bother..So,may be you should move on as well...

Kashmir is a disputed territory.....I guess you could argue that on 26/11, mumbai was only ''disputed'' territory for those 60+ some odd hours. But normalcy returned there.

Normalcy wont return to Kashmir anytime soon; not as long as the occupational forces (AKA the sissies) are stationed there, in territory in which the majority of the people are vivirulently opposed to them


the "greater world" as you call it just isn't informed enough on the dispute as it doesn't get the attention it deserves. It's a crime to Kashmiris, not necessarily to Pakistan Nation. We do our part by standing by our positions; we do our part by not subjugating the Kashmiris. One quick glance at Azad Kashmir where there is peace, then a glance at occupied Kashmir where unrest is again at its peak --and we can see clearly where the real problem lies.

 

[luckyyy]

Pakistani delegate Tahir Andrabi who had spoken later said, no electoral exercise in Jammu and Kashmir can substitute a “free and impartial plebiscite” mandated by Security Council resolutions.

While India got 187 votes out of 191, with one country abstaining, two of the other three votes went to Pakistan and Swaziland.

Since the voting is done by secret ballot, it is not clear who cast those votes. Puri, however, confirmed it was not Pakistan.

“As long as I know that Pakistan voted for India, it doesn’t matter who in a mischievous way cast a vote for Pakistan,” Puri said.

“It was clearly designed to create a bit of confusion,” he said.

how can indian deplomat can confirm when pakistani themself has not confirm that they voted for india...

it looks funny when india deplomat says some body mischievously cast a vote for Pakistan to create a bit of confusion

 

[KS]

Just two things :

the "greater world" as you call it just isn't informed enough on the dispute as it doesn't get the attention it deserves. It's a crime to Kashmiris, not necessarily to Pakistan Nation.

No..it is informed well enough - but chooses to behave like it is not well informed.
there is a sea of a difference in those two stances.

One quick glance at Azad Kashmir where there is peace, then a glance at occupied Kashmir where unrest is again at its peak --and we can see clearly where the real problem lies.

One is imposed peace and another is imposed unrest.

 

[xuxu1457]

Congratulations~~~
India should get a permanent seat in the council without veto right, getting the veto right is very difficult, even USA against Japan to get the right, no one want to share the power with others


http://www.telegraphindia.com/110101...y_13052424.jsp
New York, Oct. 12: The first comprehensive endorsement of India’s potential rise as a global power by the international community won a legal and diplomatic stamp here today when the country was elected to the UN Security Council by a landslide.

With only four countries voting against India among 191 valid ballots cast in the UN General Assembly, the sweeping endorsement exceeded the expectations of most member states of the world body, including New Delhi’s best friends here.

India scored the highest number of votes on record in any election to the Security Council in the last six years, figures for which were readily available with the General Assembly and Conference Management Department of the UN.

In a surprising twist to the historic vote that augurs well for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s attempts to resolve disputes with Pakistan, Islamabad’s delegation to the General Assembly voted for India.

Never before during the six terms that New Delhi has served on the Security Council since 1950 has Pakistan ever voted for India, according to recollections of India’s past envoys to the UN.

Led by Abdullah Hussain Haroon, its unconventional permanent representative to the world body, the Pakistani delegation showed what is purported to be a secret vote to several delegations on the General Assembly floor as proof against charges in the coming days that it was one of four countries which said no to India’s membership of the Security Council.

In another positive twist that promises to promote harmony in India’s neighbourhood and the smooth working of the Council during India’s tenure, China’s permanent representative to the UN, Li Baodong, was the first to warmly congratulate his Indian counterpart here, Hardeep Singh Puri, on India’s convincing victory.

Puri told The Telegraph that with 98.5 per cent of the General Assembly members voting for India, this was a day to rejoice in the outcome and not dissect, at least for now, the 1.5 per cent of the UN membership that opposed New Delhi.

At Indian embassies and high commissions across the globe, the landslide in New York sparked instant celebrations. B.S. Prakash, India’s ambassador in Brasilia, told this correspondent that there was “expectation in Brazil that the two countries can together demonstrate their strength and capabilities in addressing the global agenda”.

India and Brazil will serve concurrently in the Security Council along with Germany, which was elected today. That means three out of four countries in the Group of Four (G4) which is spearheading the effort here for permanently expanding the Council’s membership will work together at the world’s most visible and influential high table.

South Africa was also elected today. Pretoria shares membership of the Ibsa group with India and Brazil in their joint efforts to chart a new course in global affairs. Brazil and India are constants in another influential group, Bric, short for Brazil, Russia, India and China, all of whom are now in the Security Council.

“By a happy congruence, today’s results will strengthen our partnership in Ibsa, Bric and the G4,” Prakash, who was earlier joint secretary in charge of UN at the ministry of external affairs, predicted. Co-ordinated with imagination and vision, this would have a far-reaching impact on how the global system shapes up in the context of current economic and political uncertainties in the world.

In New Delhi, external affairs minister S.M. Krishna said today’s “resounding endorsement of India’s candidature at the UN serves as a reaffirmation, if any were needed, of the overwhelming support that India enjoys in the international community”.

Krishna had stayed put in New York for 10 days last month and, aided by Puri and foreign secretary Nirupama Rao, went over every minute detail of not how India could win the election, but how big a majority it could marshal in the General Assembly.

The minister personally directed the campaign because the last time India contested for the Security Council and was trounced by Japan in 1996, then external affairs minister I.K. Gujral had egg on his face after he told the H.D. Deve Gowda cabinet that victory was assured in the General Assembly.

Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, who was India’s permanent representative to the UN the last time New Delhi was elected to the Security Council 19 years ago, told The Telegraph from San Francisco that the challenge of India’s Council membership would be to promote national interest and fulfil international obligations at the same time. “A delicate balance would be needed for this,” he pointed out.

Gharekhan said that with almost every UN member voting for India, there would be high expectation from its two-year tenure that New Delhi would follow a “constructive and independent role” in international affairs.


http://news.oneindia.in/2010/04/06/c...t-krishna.html
Beijing, Apr 6: External Affairs Minister SM Krishna on Tuesday, Apr 6, asked China to support India for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
Speaking on the topic 'India and China in the 21st century world', Krishna called on Beijing to review its policies on UN reforms to "welcome" its neighbour to the core group of the world body.


Krishna said, "Indeed, even on the complex issue of UN reforms, it is time for China to review previously held positions and welcome the presence of in the Security Council of a nation with which it has much in common."

He further said the interests of India and China converged on several issues, including climate change and world trade.

"The two nations could boost each other through active cooperation," he said.

China has been saying that it supports India's aspirations to play an important role at the UN, but wants an overall reform of the world body.

Krishna, who is on his four-day visit to China, is expected to take up the issue during his talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi and Premier Wen Jiabao on Apr 7.

OneIndia News

 

[zavis2003]

i think that the india who is involved in the kashmir issue need not be a memeber of SC and all such countries who have problems means who are problem creaters would not be the SC members and also one thing that this creates biasiing inthe many issues and would make more problems for whole world