UN Security Council out of tune, serves no one's purpose: India

[arp2041]

Missed the point.

Veto implies that the decision making of other members of the SC - including the rotational members is flawed.

It must go.

Resolutions should be passed by voting among all members of the SC. This would be a test of diplomatic skills of all members equally.

I don't agree with that, veto is somewhat necessary so that it can differentiate between a more important country for the world than the one with lesser importance (though i know this is not good to say but this is the fact), i mean how can one differentiate between a tiny nation with limited population & limited economy like maldives with that of US (a country with 25% of world GDP, half of world military budget, undisputed superpower), if both have the same power in the UN, giving one country one vote irrespective of there global standing is a flawed equation for efficient world order.

Missed the woods for the trees.

As the title suggests the existing system of UNSC sucks and needs reform. Not the UN.

For the record India is already in - since 1947.

small correction it's 1945, India is the founding member of the UN.

 

[third eye]

I don't agree with that, veto is somewhat necessary so that it can differentiate between a more important country for the world than the one with lesser importance (though i know this is not good to say but this is the fact), i mean how can one differentiate between a tiny nation with limited population & limited economy like maldives with that of US (a country with 25% of world GDP, half of world military budget, undisputed superpower), if both have the same power in the UN, giving one country one vote irrespective of there global standing is a flawed equation for efficient world order.

If they are members of the UNSC, they have to be ( treated as ) equals.

The wisdom of the US diplomats cannot be greater than those of Fiji.

Or else do not allow ' smaller' countries to the UNSC. But keeping them as a decoration piece is unacceptable.

 

[Amolthebest]

I don't agree with that, veto is somewhat necessary so that it can differentiate between a more important country for the world than the one with lesser importance (though i know this is not good to say but this is the fact), i mean how can one differentiate between a tiny nation with limited population & limited economy like maldives with that of US (a country with 25% of world GDP, half of world military budget, undisputed superpower), if both have the same power in the UN, giving one country one vote irrespective of there global standing is a flawed equation for efficient world order.



small correction it's 1945, India is the founding member of the UN.

Beg to disagree. When you accept democratic pattern every vote counts. In India Mukesh Ambani and a slum dweller has same weight-age to their vote. The basic idea behind voting is to know what majority thinks. Idea behind veto is very regressive and holding back the fresh breath of air.

 

[arp2041]

If they are members of the UNSC, they have to be ( treated as ) equals.

The wisdom of the US diplomats cannot be greater than those of Fiji.

Or else do not allow ' smaller' countries to the UNSC. But keeping them as a decoration piece is unacceptable.

Beg to disagree. When you accept democratic pattern every vote counts. In India Mukesh Ambani and a slum dweller has same weight-age to their vote. The basic idea behind voting is to know what majority thinks. Idea behind veto is very regressive and holding back the fresh breath of air.

I am not saying that smaller countries are not important for the UN, yes smaller country have there own important part to play, but to make UN an effective global organization we have to give some power to the top nations like the US, Russia, China etc. (just as the case with IMF quota system) I mean why will a country like US take part in any UN initiative when it knows that it's standing in the organization is same as Fiji (a country which many can't even pic in a map), this was the same case with the UN predecessor the League of Nations, & this was the only cause which made it to dissolve itself as no powerful nation - US, UK, Germany,Russia, China was part of it.

 

[arp2041]

India: UNSC sucks, but it will all be okay if you take us in!

If India had any honor, it would argue to eliminate a tyrannical scheme such as UNSC.

I'm glad Pakistan has been one of the few nations that has had the guts to say UNSC should be abolished.

sir, India is not saying UNSC sucks, but it is saying that in it's current form it stinks as the UNSC has hardly changed in these 67 years of UNO (gone up from 10 to 15 member nations & the permanent members are unchanged at 5).

India is not for abolishing UNSC instead it demands it to be more in tune with new world realities where UK & France are no longer dominant powers & Russia cannot be equated to former USSR.

+ I m sorry to say that Pakistan is demanding abolishing UNSC not because it is unjust or something but b'coz it knows very well that it doesn't stand any chance to become it's permanent member on the other hand India has a good chance to become one & if someday India achieve this thing than many of the Pakistani interests will be lost forever notably Kashmir.

 

[r3alist]

India will have to open up its markets first, and fit in with the existing mechanisms much better before it can get anywhere with its bid to be a permanent member of the UNSC.

spoken like a true american


some quite bold statements really, especially vis a vis syria, i wonder what peeved the indians off, they are usually so measured in their words...

but on one thing he is wrong, the un security council does serve a purpose, it helps the american/british empire!!


also, i guess indian wont need a seat anymore

 

[agamdilawari]

India will have to open up its markets first, and fit in with the existing mechanisms much better before it can get anywhere with its bid to be a permanent member of the UNSC.

 

[Tshering22]

Come around finally now, haven't they (GOI)?

I mean who listens to the UNSC anyway?

China and Russia blocked the military action against Syria, but even otherwise does anyone thing that Assad would have listened to Obama?

 

[Developereo]

Missed the point.

Veto implies that the decision making of other members of the SC - including the rotational members is flawed.

It must go.

Resolutions should be passed by voting among all members of the SC. This would be a test of diplomatic skills of all members equally.

My point is that India and the other G4 don't want reform so that the UN becomes more democratic; they want it so they, too, can have the veto power. All the fancy talk of equality is just window dressing.

 

[VCheng]

My point is that India and the other G4 don't want reform so that the UN becomes more democratic, they want it so they, too, can have the veto power. All the fancy talk of equality is just salad dressing.

If and when there is an expansion of the UNSC, the new permanent members likely will not get the power of veto.

 

[Wickerman]

I personally believe that the UNSC does need to be expanded with more representation. But no country should have Veto powers.

The expanded UNSC needs to vote on each and every issue, and do things more democratically.

 

[VCheng]

I personally believe that the UNSC does need to be expanded with more representation. But no country should have Veto powers.

The expanded UNSC needs to vote on each and every issue, and do things more democratically.

The existing members who have veto power will not give it up simply because it is the democratic thing to do.

 

[Developereo]

If and when there is an expansion of the UNSC, the new permanent members likely will not get the power of veto.

The new members may settle for it as an interim measure, as a sort of get the foot in the door approach, but such membership is worthless without the veto power. Regardless of their rhetoric, the only thing the G4 are after is the veto power.

P.S. I shouldn't write posts while I am hungry; the mind does weird things...

 

[VCheng]

The new members may settle for it as an interim measure, as a sort of get the foot in the door approach, but such membership is worthless without the veto power. Regardless of their rhetoric, the only thing the G4 are after is the veto power.

P.S. I shouldn't write posts while I am hungry; the mind does weird things...

I agree with you.

Here, enjoy this to help you think better:


Dinner 011312-5 by vcheng552000, on Flickr

 

[Tshering22]

Get real! To be a UNSC veto member, one needs

1. top economy

(meaning real, hard and cold world-class Industrial Power, not call centre back office alike douchebags)

While I know you will be snuffed if you debate with me, here's the thing; you got the UNSC seat when your economy was riling under Mao's massacres and thousands were working in collective farmings while USSR was feeding and covering your rear.

2. top military

(meaning self-sufficient and truly indigenous production at least beyond basic rifle and ammunitions level, not purchasing in that deep pocket Saudis is ranked much more powerful than India)

When you got the UNSC seat, You had your @$$ thrashed from USSR, got pounded by us in just 1 day, and even a divided Vietnam insulted and thrashed your braindead Zombie soldiers running back to Mao.

Some top military

All you can do is spread propaganda and kill those who question you to establish your version of truth.

Communists...