Pakistan opposes creation of new permanent seats at UNSC

[That Guy]

It doesn't matter,once more and more of the % of the world economy shifts to these countries,if u don't take us in....ur council itself will become irrelevant.See just about every member supports our stand.Give it another 10-15 yrs at the most..we won't even have to ask for it..they'll ask us.



Like i said,despite chinese objections..in abt 15 yrs our economy will be big enough along with also those of germany,brazil,japan that if u keep us out..ur essentially cutting off a major part of the world economy..so UNSC would then become a farce.Votes alone will mean nothing if doesn't have economic and military muscle behind it.



Your watch isn't going to last forever,amigo.

To be fair, the UNSC is already a farce. We'll more likely to see major seat reforms, instead of more permanent seats.

 

[illusion8]

Wild flights of extreme fantasy is more like it.

hundreds of thousands are dying for it or because of it, a lot many are actually taking it seriously I guess.

 

[That Guy]

Yes, but who will bell the cat? The UNSC reflects the globe in 1945, not 2014. Nobody should have veto. What gives one country the right to hold the whole world ransom? It is a rubbish system in an organization which is by and large a failure.

China doesn't matter. Their being on UNSC and unable to actually integrate Taiwan shows what an utterly useless organization the UN is.

The UN itself is not a failure, in many regards, it has been far more successful than the League of Nations. Personally, I think the UN itself is just another stepping stone towards an even more efficient intergovernmental organization, except, the world won't have to abolish the UN (unlike the league of nations), and can just use it as a base for building on top of what it has already accomplished.

As for China, the only reason why Taiwan hasn't been integrated with the UN has to do with competing governmental claims of the PRC and RoC. In many regards, it's all thanks to the UN and the security council (one of the UNSC's few accomplishments) that the PRC and RoC aren't at war right now.

 

[Jackdaws]

The UN itself is not a failure, in many regards, it has been far more successful than the League of Nations. Personally, I think the UN itself is just another stepping stone towards an even more efficient intergovernmental organization, except, the world won't have to abolish the UN (unlike the league of nations), and can just use it as a base for building on top of what it has already accomplished.

As for China, the only reason why Taiwan hasn't been integrated with the UN has to do with competing governmental claims of the PRC and RoC. In many regards, it's all thanks to the UN and the security council (one of the UNSC's few accomplishments) that the PRC and RoC aren't at war right now.

You are correct to a large extent. The U.N. has had some very commendable successes including Korea and various health programs across the underdeveloped and developed world. But as a political organization, a unipolar world with USA at its helm means that U.N. is by and large toothless.

 

[That Guy]

You are correct to a large extent. The U.N. has had some very commendable successes including Korea and various health programs across the underdeveloped and developed world. But as a political organization, a unipolar world with USA at its helm means that U.N. is by and large toothless.

I wouldn't say that the UN is toothless, the US may be at it's helm, but none of the peacekeeping forces are US based, nor are they led by the US.

The problem with the UNGC and the UNSC are that they butt heads constantly, so much so that they could technically be considered two different organizations altogether. This causes stalemates, and slows down progress, not to mention that it hampers international security and unity.

 

[scrumpy]

not sure the UN works on a religious basis lol might as well have a seat for Buddhist then

What about Sikhs, Jains and Parsis?

 

[Yeti]

What about Sikhs, Jains and Parsis?

That's my point where would it stop? shall we reserve a seat for Jedi's too?

 

[khujliwal]

Pakistan learnt nothing from the ICC big 3 episode.

 

[Tameem]

OK, Pakistan can support India on UNSC Over Kashmir.

 

[Jzaib]

The usual. Pakistan opposes anything that would benefit India.

In the end, its literally inevitable..India will be on UNSC.

only bcoz u did the same in recent past when we were getting trade benifit in Europe ..ill send u a link

 

[Abingdonboy]

It's frankly inevitable. You can't have the likes of France and the UK pr even Russia in the P5 when in PPP terms Brazil, Japan, Germany and India all have higher GDPs than them and this is were the real power is- money. The longer the UN opposes a reform to reflect the new world order the more and more it makes itself a redundant and archaic institution with absolutely zero credibility.

In this post I'm not going to even get into a India vs Pak debate although I do seriously doubt whether Pakistan would be as insistent on maintaing the status quo if India wasn't one of the G4.


Look at the case of Germany, easily the most powerful nation in Europe and one of the richest nations on the earth that France and the UK who are both answering to Germany in many ways, in the EU shouldn't be on the UNSC as a permanent member is an utter joke and only reflects the time of the raising of the UNSC after WWII but doesn't reflect the ground realties of the 21st century.

Like I said, the longer this goes on and these G4 are denied permanent seats the worse it will look on the UN itself.

Who really cares what Pakistan says about this matter? As if anyone on the world stage listens to THEIR voice- the US, Russia, EU, G4, Israel, much of the Mid-East and to an extent China have all backed India's bid.There are very few nations other than Pakistan that would object to such a move.

Pakistan, as usual, is on the wrong side of history.

 

[Abingdonboy]

India is diplomatically close to both Russia and Iran. Who are almost always aligned against the USA.

India has its own foreign policy that it uses to meet its OWN needs not Iran's, not Russia's and not the US's. India is diplomatically close to Israel but that doesn't affect its ties with Iran, Saudi Arabia or Oman.

The US has no grounds to object to India because it has close ties to Russia and Iran, it does because India is the nation who has voted against US interests more than almost any other nation in the UN.

This is neither here nor there though, the US endorses India's bid to become a permeant me member of the UNSC and Obama said as much on his state visit to India in 2011.

 

[UKBengali]

It's frankly inevitable. You can't have the likes of France and the UK pr even Russia in the P5 when in PPP terms Brazil, Japan, Germany and India all have higher GDPs than them and this is were the real power is- money. The longer the UN opposes a reform to reflect the new world order the more and more it makes itself a redundant and archaic institution with absolutely zero credibility.

In this post I'm not going to even get into a India vs Pak debate although I do seriously doubt whether Pakistan would be as insistent on maintaing the status quo if India wasn't one of the G4.


Look at the case of Germany, easily the most powerful nation in Europe and one of the richest nations on the earth that France and the UK who are both answering to Germany in many ways, in the EU shouldn't be on the UNSC as a permanent member is an utter joke and only reflects the time of the raising of the UNSC after WWII but doesn't reflect the ground realties of the 21st century.

Like I said, the longer this goes on and these G4 are denied permanent seats the worse it will look on the UN itself.

Who really cares what Pakistan says about this matter? As if anyone on the world stage listens to THEIR voice- the US, Russia, EU, G4, Israel, much of the Mid-East and to an extent China have all backed India's bid.There are very few nations other than Pakistan that would object to such a move.

Pakistan, as usual, is on the wrong side of history.

India is too poor and technologically backward to even be considered to be a permanent member of the security council.

Also, it needs to resolve it's territorial dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir first.

 

[Abingdonboy]

India is too poor and technologically backward to even be considered to be a permanent member of the security council.

Very subjective wouldn't you say? And anyway there is no set criteria for such things. In outright terms India is easily one of the most powerful nations in the world and its clout will only grow as the years tick by whilst nations like France and the UK (both P5 members) will be overtaken and left in the background.

Also, it needs to resolve it's territorial dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir first.

Says who? China has territorial disputes with all of its neighbours, the US has territorial disputes with Canada and they are both P5 members.

 

[UKBengali]

Very subjective wouldn't you say? And anyway there is no set criteria for such things. In outright terms India is easily one of the most powerful nations in the world and its clout will only grow as the years tick by whilst nations like France and the UK (both P5 members) will be overtaken and left in the background.



Says who? China has territorial disputes with all of its neighbours, the US has territorial disputes with Canada and they are both P5 members.

Point 1: India is not powerful. In fact it is quite weak as it is technologically backward and relies on primarily Russia to supply its weapons. Would India dare offend Russia so badly in the UN that Russia stops all support for Russian weapons?

Point 2: It does not matter about what happened in the past - we are talking about making the security council a more effective organisation for the future. What matters is that Kashmir is internationally recognised as a disputed territory by the UN and so it would make little sense to give a party with an interest veto rights over this issue.

Let India be able to develop it's own weapons first and resolve it's dispute with Kashmir and then it will have earned the right to be a permanent member of the UN.