No Muslim voice in the UNSC ?

[fnv74]

India's history is testimony to the fact that it has never indulged in aggression and attacked any country.

India must try aggression sometime. Aggression is not easy.

 

[Taygibay]

The proper answer was given, jamahir :

Keep relegion out of this.

The UNSC is not based on religion but by nations.

fair argument, which is why to avoid such quarrels, the uno-sc must be abolished.

A typical redneck attitude, a proper reply should be why have a despotic system at the UN? There's no need for permanent status of any countries, it goes against democratic principles and those who will go at any length to keep it the way it is are all so-called champions of democracy!

Those posts are not entirely wrong but incomplete. As all know, the P5 were determined by WWII outcome.
As such, it is quite possible that the mechanism that led to their selection has outlived its usefulness if any.
However, there are still reasons for having veto rights in general. Without them, a given SC could decide to
back iniquitous resolutions : an all Muslim nations council could back war on Christian and vice-versa; an all
socialist nations one could back war on capitalism and vice-versa and so on.
The problem lays more in determining who should have those vetoes which correlates to this :

India's history is testimony to the fact that it has never indulged in aggression and attacked any country.

Actually, by itself, that statement is very dubious. Operation Polo is internal from an Indian PoV but not clearly so
from that of a neutral bystander and the first Sino-Indian war came by way of the Forward Policy and outposts at-
tacks by India. I don't mean to blame Bharat here but simply to outline that there are different ways to start wars.
Consider the Sudenten & Anschluss for instance. Spies can set the conditions for a nation to be forced to declare
war to another without having wished for it. Who then is peaceful and who is the aggressor?

This brings to light a forgotten set of conditions for veto power.
A country should be stable ( no foreseeable internal menace to its existence )
with a stable position on world affairs ( not likely to change in tone as a wind vane )
secure in its power ( which is often equated to global reach nuclear weapons )
and willing to take part in actions favored by the SC ( as in war ops, not Blue Helmets ).

Seen thus, this explains why no African nation can claim UNSC veto holding status for example.
I myself defended the idea of a communal veto seat for that continent but even that is perilous.
In crisis situations, there is little time for a veto empowered member to hold a meeting on its use
as would be the case if it was shared by many lands.

To be very honest, there is a more pervasive problem with the United Nations than that of vetoes.
Most nations in the UN do not even abide by the Human Rights Declaration! For instance, article 1
states that Humans are born equal in rights and dignity and yet there is one we know of where wo-
men cannot vote. Shouldn't it be excluded until that's fixed? And the same goes for other examples.

The UN is a wobbly stool, not a perfect tool. It exists for the sole purpose of making things, huh, how
shall I say, slightly less dire than they would be if left to themselves.
It's not a solution but a postponement shop, not a cure but a plaster.
As such it works fine on scratches and not at all on cancers or gunshots!

Asking about changes on veto powers of the UNSC P5 is useless.
Just rewrite the whole thing better or get used to it! Sorry to say!

Good day all nonetheless, Tay.

 

[darksider]

India is among the countries that has contributed the most to peacekeeping forces and its contribution has been praised world-over.

India's history is testimony to the fact that it has never indulged in aggression and attacked any country.

"Those days are gone when India had to beg. Now we want our right. No other country has such moral authority,"

"If that country does not get the Security Council membership, has to wait for 70 years, peace is in whose DNA...there should be justice to that country. A lot of time has passed,"

"Our membership will also be beneficial to the world. We both would like to see tangible progress in the United Nations Security Council reforms during the 70th Anniversary year of the United Nations,"

i think Pakistan have also big share force in un peace keeping.
and about peace pls dont make fool others.we know how peace loving india is.
supporting and sending terrorist to other countries is india,s old habit.
Pakistanis should never forget 71 and india,s involvement in it.

 

[jamahir]

Actually, by itself, that statement is very dubious. Operation Polo is internal from an Indian PoV but not clearly so
from that of a neutral bystander and the first Sino-Indian war came by way of the Forward Policy and outposts at-
tacks by India. I don't mean to blame Bharat here but simply to outline that there are different ways to start wars.

i will reply to your quoting me a bit later but i must say you are well informed... and you can be a international diplomat really ( your wording ).

 

[unbiasedopinion]

Support India for UN.

1. Largest Democracy
2. Second larget population
3. Largest Hindu population
4. Second Largest Muslim Population
5. Largest Jain population
6. Largest Sikh population

There are so many religons and sect which do have a voice in UNSC but if India is in, there will be voice of many.

 

[Taygibay]

i will reply to your quoting me a bit later but i must say you are well informed... and you can be a international diplomat really

I'll be happy to reply when you are ready but must first take exception to your generous judgement.
I find it much easier to be diplomatic from afar as on Internet where my arms are too short to …
strangle anyone. IRL, I mostly worked in security during my life though not exclusively and I suspect
quite a few people I came across would take exception to my being credited with diplomatic abilities.
Then again, many also praised my humane stance so that hopefully, as a ratio, I did OK? Not my call!

In written words, yes, because reflection can occur as I write before hitting send.
Later my friend, Tay.

 

[The BrOkEn HeArT]

This is ridiculous . Though I'm not religious but why muslims brings religion in each and everything?? If Muslims voice should be there in UNSC then why should not be for Hindu, Christens, Jews, budhhiest etc.? UNSC is about about nations , not for any particular religion. If you brings religion in each and everything , you should not ask why the hell are you suffering?

 

[banvanaxl]

The proper answer was given, jamahir :


The UNSC is not based on religion but by nations.




Those posts are not entirely wrong but incomplete. As all know, the P5 were determined by WWII outcome.
As such, it is quite possible that the mechanism that led to their selection has outlived its usefulness if any.
However, there are still reasons for having veto rights in general. Without them, a given SC could decide to
back iniquitous resolutions : an all Muslim nations council could back war on Christian and vice-versa; an all
socialist nations one could back war on capitalism and vice-versa and so on.
The problem lays more in determining who should have those vetoes which correlates to this :


Actually, by itself, that statement is very dubious. Operation Polo is internal from an Indian PoV but not clearly so
from that of a neutral bystander and the first Sino-Indian war came by way of the Forward Policy and outposts at-
tacks by India. I don't mean to blame Bharat here but simply to outline that there are different ways to start wars.
Consider the Sudenten & Anschluss for instance. Spies can set the conditions for a nation to be forced to declare
war to another without having wished for it. Who then is peaceful and who is the aggressor?

This brings to light a forgotten set of conditions for veto power.
A country should be stable ( no foreseeable internal menace to its existence )
with a stable position on world affairs ( not likely to change in tone as a wind vane )
secure in its power ( which is often equated to global reach nuclear weapons )
and willing to take part in actions favored by the SC ( as in war ops, not Blue Helmets ).

Seen thus, this explains why no African nation can claim UNSC veto holding status for example.
I myself defended the idea of a communal veto seat for that continent but even that is perilous.
In crisis situations, there is little time for a veto empowered member to hold a meeting on its use
as would be the case if it was shared by many lands.

To be very honest, there is a more pervasive problem with the United Nations than that of vetoes.
Most nations in the UN do not even abide by the Human Rights Declaration! For instance, article 1
states that Humans are born equal in rights and dignity and yet there is one we know of where wo-
men cannot vote. Shouldn't it be excluded until that's fixed? And the same goes for other examples.

The UN is a wobbly stool, not a perfect tool. It exists for the sole purpose of making things, huh, how
shall I say, slightly less dire than they would be if left to themselves.
It's not a solution but a postponement shop, not a cure but a plaster.
As such it works fine on scratches and not at all on cancers or gunshots!

Asking about changes on veto powers of the UNSC P5 is useless.
Just rewrite the whole thing better or get used to it! Sorry to say!

Good day all nonetheless, Tay.

Someone give this guy more positive ratings. He definitely deserves way more than the 3 he has now.

 

[dray]

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait give multi-billion dollars business to US military and NATO.

Why no Muslim voice in the United Nations Security council (UNSC) ?

Because UNSC is NOT a religious forum!

 

[T-Rex]

Because UNSC is NOT a religious forum!

It is, if it wasn't the 'Muslim' factor wouldn't have been a factor in the formation of it. Turkey with all its secularism and western trends couldn't join the EU for the same reason.

 

[Azizam]

Show me one industrialised "muslim nation?" Muslim nations are worthless and contribute nothing except terrorism, death, oppression, rape, misery.

 

[T-Rex]

The UNSC is not based on religion but by nations.

Now , you know that it's a tall tale like the west is interested in establishing democracy in the world. One of you guys declared pretty loudly only yesterday that geopolitics was not about morality or humanity and it's true and that's why religion is a factor in the formation of the UNSC. Since there's no place for morality or shame in today's geopolitics, proponents of this this hideous world order conveniently deny this ugly fact. The misdeeds of the 'great powers' are shielded by deniability. Privately these powers admit what they have been doing and every now and then people like Snowden exposes only a fraction of it. So,please save your breath, you don't have to indulge in this futile attempt to whitewash the events.

 

[Taygibay]

I'm not entirely certain why you quoted me on that but I'll try to answer nonetheless.

So,please save your breath, you don't have to indulge in this futile attempt to whitewash the events.

Let me clear that one first : I have absolutely no idea why or how you could be under the impression
that my post whitewashed anything really. My conclusion was that the UN is not good enough, that
through both flaws in concept and a lack of true intent it was not designed well enough to fix the big problems!
How is that whitewashing whichever unspecified events you're referring to?

geopolitics was not about morality or humanity and it's true and that's why religion is a factor in the formation of the UNSC

Strictly reading, you just said that religion is neither moral nor humane!

Since there's no place for morality or shame in today's geopolitics, proponents of this this hideous world order conveniently deny this ugly fact

It's not a matter of today my poor fellow! It always was like that. Geopolitics are not a biased anything
but a field of study first and foremost. The people who make use of what they uncover however are men of power.
Their goal is rarely if ever God or his words except in the sense of becoming gods themselves.
Power corrupts even the purest souls. And the goal of men of power is always and only more power.

The rest is a figment of your imagination : religion is a tool towards power just as armed forces are.
It matters not which religion but which men.
The "christians" of America battle the "christians" of Russia. The "muslims" of Saudi Arabia battle the
"muslims" of Iran. Neither seem to remember the deity that asked them to love and help one another.

Sincere belief happens within the confines of the soul. On the stages of the World, including the UN,
battlefields and rallies, it's histrionics that make the show.
I do get how that could be confusing.

Good day to you, Tay.

P.S. @banvanaxl Thanks for your generous appreciation. But unless they serve some purpose,
I have no pressing need for honors personally. My greatest reward for being honest is being useful
( ...being right being the icing and the hatred of trolls the cherry ).

 

[dray]

It is, if it wasn't the 'Muslim' factor wouldn't have been a factor in the formation of it. Turkey with all its secularism and western trends couldn't join the EU for the same reason.

Ok. WW2 was a religious war then.

Show me one industrialised "muslim nation?" Muslim nations are worthless and contribute nothing except terrorism, death, oppression, rape, misery.

This is pdf bhai!!

 

[Ababeel]

Veto power is a black spot on the face of justice & equality. Hundreds of resolutions against Zionist Israel were passed with over whelming majorities and put into dustbin by just one veto of the biggest Terrorist State of America.
57 State OIC has no veto power, India with a billion population no veto power. Shame on UN justice system. With veto power a killer state goes scot free and a nation with no weapons of mass destruction faces a war by best terrorist states in this world. What is the use of veto power - To keep ones monopoly over this world and suffocate the states with no veto power even if they are right. It's same as asking a killer to judge himself.