Power and Principle: UNSC Reforms

[LaBong]

You guys really having a boner it seems! Well carry on with your psychotic, obsessed rant!

 

[Speeder 2]

Ok... so, where in the world are you?

And do you mean that "Indians" and "Chinese" don't get along well, else where .. Londonstan etc.


Remembering "Londonstan" .... HongWu ..... is it a play on the words London and Pakistan ?

Firstly, it's not "Ding" Dong (my bad on spelling) , but JingDong i was talking about here. S-10 aside, congrads you are the only left in my list. I might be wrong, or not!

secondly, I see whenever Indians/India are concerned , you are more often than not among the ones at froefront of Indian defence line, even on the expenses of Chinese, AND logic.

Many posts of yours i've seen tend to deliberately play with words, with a thinly-veiled aim of stirring up posible troubles btw chinese and pakistanis in general.


thirdly, as for how Indians and Chinese get along in Singapore, or not, one CAN look no further than be-all & end-all Lee Kuan Yew.

There are many quotes of Lee on the issue on the net, just one off my head for starters:

Lee literally said that the single most important slogan for any singaporean Chinese politician is "I am a Chinese".

Singapore's racial/social/economical national policies therefore, are geared towards guranteeing Chinese' numerical superiority, because we know whom are we, and we know whom you are.

I got 2 singaporean Chinese as my former classmates in universities, FYI.

I know a 1st-hand account in Belgium of how an Indian ( a Singapore native) deputy trapped his professionally able but socially "dumb" Research Group Leader (a guy from China mainland) and made him fired by the boss, in order to hire a guy from India he knew. That may be an anecdotal singular evidence, yet that's about the first Singaporean Indian I knew of - a complete scum.

BTW, i probably will visit singapore this summer to catch up with my friends there if my other plans go smoothly.

Disclaimer: Londonstan is more about Hindustan, both in my posts, and in beyond-surface-reality that really matters as well.

 

[Speeder 2]

...
india's physical and philosophical strength lie in the Aryavarta or the hindi speaking belt in the Northern part and that should be the target. China needs to form and fund more institutions which can study india as gathering knowledge about your enemy is strategically important.

Most are agreed. Obviously you are much more knowledgeable than I am in Indian affair.

As for your last point ( as quoted), why China even should bother herself on those stuff?

The only thing china needs IMO is to take a close look, if has to, on what are the self-determinational

inspirations of those indigenous maoist groupies.


Or more clearly as I said earlier:

first, break the s*cker into 20 pieces,

then, Grandpa Wen can go over to delhi at his convinience and "chat" about south tibet, dalai lama,

kashmir, indian ocean and beyond, while having his footnails done when sipping afternoon tea.

 

[CardSharp]

New Delhi/United Nations: India’s long desired wish in the International arena– to get a permanent seat in the United Nation Security Council (UNSC)– is going to be fulfilled as soon. But this seat will be offered to India without veto power.

According to the diplomatic sources placed in UN, told ‘Live India’ that India is near about completed its negotiations with all 192 countries in which around 180 had given their nod for India in UNSC as permanent member. 128 votes required to get a permanent seat in security council.

“We had cleared all the hurdles in getting this, but this (seat) will be without veto power as we had to wait for atleast 10-15 years for veto rights”, the diplomat said.

“But we will take the seat and start our negotiations for getting the veto too”, he added.

Few days back India appreciated the support of US President Barack Obama for its quest for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. India said that the US support has come at a time when momentum is building up for the expansion of this most powerful wing of the world body.

India agrees on permanent seat in UNSC without veto power: Diplomatic sources | Liveindia

Looks like India is going to take the seat and worry about Veto 10-15 years down the road when the restriction runs out.

 

[ares]

As I said before this is not about India getting permanent seat at UNSC..but rather India being elected to a Non permanent seat with 180 votes..
As we all know non permanent are without a veto.

Infact India has become a non permanent member after almost two decades, as it had placed self imposed restrictions on itself to not contest for non permanent seats..till it is considered a permanent seat in UNSC.

PS: Just do not go on the heading ..read the content of the article.

 

[CardSharp]

As I said before this is not about India getting permanent seat at UNSC..but rather India being elected to a Non permanent seat with 180 votes..
As we all know non permanent are without a veto.

Infact India has become a non permanent member after almost two decades, as it had placed self imposed restrictions on itself to not contest for non permanent seats..till it is considered a permanent seat in UNSC.

PS: Just do not go on the heading ..read the content of the article.

No this is news about permanent membership. The United Nations Security Council election you're talking about were held on 12 October 2010.This article was published today. Written on 21 Feb, 2011 at 19:53 in India.

PS: Just do not go on the heading ..read the content of the article.

It would help that you yourself read the article.

According to the diplomatic sources placed in UN, told ‘Live India’ that India is near about completed its negotiations with all 192 countries in which around 180 had given their nod for India in UNSC as
permanent member. 128 votes required to get a permanent seat in security council.

 

[GodlessBastard]

It's kind of pointless to be a permanent SC member without veto power, but it's still a very big step from a diplomatic standpoint.

This is a historical undertaking that has never been done before.

 

[lemurian]

Without veto power, the SC seat is just a joke.. A selling point in the next general elections maybe.The end of the horizon for the Indian polity..

 

[CardSharp]

This veto restricted proposal has been floated since beginning of last year by the Indian ambassador. I will try to find the link.

It's kind of pointless to be a permanent SC member without veto power, but it's still a very big step from a diplomatic standpoint.

This is a historical undertaking that has never been done before.

See ares, other people understood what the news said.

 

[JanjaWeed]

It's kind of pointless to be a permanent SC member without veto power, but it's still a very big step from a diplomatic standpoint.

This is a historical undertaking that has never been done before.

just the matter of getting the foot in!! once you are in, it's only a matter of time. anyway.. i'm not a big fan of this UNSC P member thing!! just an outdated bullying club, if you ask me!!

 

[ares]

No this is news about permanent membership. The United Nations Security Council election you're talking about were held on 12 October 2010.This article was published today. Written on 21 Feb, 2011 at 19:53 in India.




It would help that you yourself read the article.

I agree you are right
But what they are talking about is this.




Security Council: India for delayed veto power for new members
United Nations, July 9, PTI:

Pressing for UN Security Council reforms, India has suggested a compromise solution on the tricky issue of what kind of Veto power the new permanent members should hold.

The G-4 — Brazil, Germany, India and Japan — hold the view that the new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members the US, the UK, Russia, France and China.

However, the new permanent members will hold off wielding the Veto power for fifteen years after the reforms come into place.

"The new permanent members shall not exercise the right of Veto until the question of the extension of the right of Veto to new permanent members has been decided upon in the framework of the review mandated fifteen years after the entry into force of the Council reform," said Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN.

Speaking at the ongoing discussion on the reforms this week, Puri said that this compromise would "ensure that the veto does not veto Council reform."

At this stage only a small number of countries want the Veto to be abolished altogether but a large majority would prefer some restrictions on the use of Veto especially in under certain circumstances like genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law; war crimes, ethnic cleansing and terrorism.

The deliberations on the Veto are part of the growing momentum to achieve concrete progress on UNSC reforms.

This year the discussion was kicked off with the chairperson of security reform process Zahir Tanin, who is also Afghanistan's permanent representative to the UN, asking member-states to submit proposals that can be worked into a negotiating text, which will be the basis for future discussions.

In 2009, member-states of the UN finally abandoned the 'Open Ended Working Group' (OEWG) that had dragged on for 15 years without yielding any substantive results.
In March last year, the old talks were replaced by the new "inter-governmental negotiations".

Speaking to PTI earlier, Puri even expressed confidence that current negotiations will lead to tangible action in 2010 and could probably yield results in 2011.

At the same time, Pakistan is not in favour of an expansion in the permanent category.
Opponents of the expansion fear that more members will further cripple the SC, which is often divided and fails to reach effective decisions on peace and security matters.

These countries also argue that assigning more powerful countries permanent positions in the Security Council will not break the power dynamics of the past.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Fifteen years later?

Who knows what things will be like in fifteen years.

Veto power should not be expanded. It is already difficult enough to run the UNSC with only five vetoes.

 

[CardSharp]

As I read it, the veto is still negotiable, though India will most likely get it after the restriction period.

“But we will take the seat and start our negotiations for getting the veto too”, he added.

 

[ares]

Fifteen years later?

Who knows what things will be like in fifteen years.

Veto power should not be expanded. It is already difficult enough to run the UNSC with only five vetoes.

What other similar news are suggesting that they will have the veto power but as a compromise.
" the new permanent members will hold off wielding the Veto power for fifteen years after the reforms come into place"

 

[CardSharp]

Intervention by Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri, Permanent Representative, at the
informal meeting (closed) of the plenary on the intergovernmental negotiations on the
question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security
Council and other matters related to the Council, on 14 December 2010, New York.

except

Third, new permanent members shall have the same rights and obligations as the
current permanent members. However, if some of the new permanent members decide
not to enforce their veto right till such a time as a comprehensive review is undertaken,
they should be allowed to do so. This would of course be without prejudice to the
proportionate changes in the minimum numbers needed to take decisions on matters
other than the procedural ones in the reformed Council. This also does not however
preclude from the immediacy of the task at hand, namely for restricting or limiting the
use of the veto under certain circumstances such as: genocide, crimes against humanity
and serious violations of international humanitarian law; war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and terrorism.

http://www.un.int/india/2010/ind1804.pdf