UNSC with Veto is a very badly designed system... What if US attacks China and China goes to UNSC for action against US, since US has the VETO it will reject any notion that will lead to take action against its interest! There always should be consensus and majority should be considered as the last option!
US committed to a permanent seat for India in a reformed UN Security Council
- Thread starter Paranoid Android
- Start date
Listen to me. France stopped being a 'major' power before the 20th century. You really believe, in all honesty, that France came out a 'winner' after ww2? Neither does the rest of the world. So why do you think you deserve a UNSC seat? India deserves it 10x more TODAY, and about 200 times more in a decade or two. I can name another 5-6 nations that deserve a seat more than France or the UK. The world has changed. France is about as relevant as a medium sized Chinese province. The West deserves 2 seats at most, US and EU. Simple as that. Russia doesn't even deserve an entire seat. India does, so does China. A major African power too in the coming decades, and finally a Latin American power. This isn't the 1800s anymore mon ami!
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
India In 2020: A Wishlist from India's Scientist-President.
Developed India in 2020 should be a nation where the urban-rural divide has reduced to a thin line. A nation with equitable distribution of energy, quality water and access to quality electricity. A nation where agriculture, industry and service sector work in harmony, resulting in sustained wealth generation and higher employment. A nation where education is not denied to any meritorious candidate due to societal or economic discrimination. A nation which is the best destination for the world's most talented scholars and scientists.
Developed India should be a nation where the best of healthcare is available to the population. A nation where governance uses the best of technologies to be responsive, transparent, easily accessible and simple, hence corruption-free. A nation where poverty has been alleviated, illiteracy and crimes against women are eradicated and society is unalienated. A nation that is prosperous, healthy, secure, peaceful and happy. And finally, a nation that is one of the best places to live in and brings smiles on a billion-plus faces.
Stem cell research
Interactive tele-education delivery system
Biofuel
Supersonic Cruise Missile
Molecules to Drugs
Treatment of Parkinson's Disease
Solar Energy
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Are you going to torture us by singing the Israeli-Indian Rafel promotional song of 'dinga dinga dee!' if you don't get it?
OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,666
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
If there is consideration based on area and 'real influence' economy and clout than England and France must cede the seat to rightful Germany. In Asia Indonesia, India and Pakistan must be added and in Africa South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt deserve a spot. In south America Brazil and Argentina. If we cared for plurality and equal voice of all we didn't need permanent members and veto wielders. However in this scenario giving voice to as many as possible is the only answer. There has been some talk recently about bygone era of spheres of influence which is clearly not true as long as you'd have former clonials wielding veto there will always be spheres of influence. Just like near abroad for U.S. and Russia and former Colonial powers and their respective anglo and francophiles.
karakoram
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2014
- Messages
- 2,803
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
:
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Majority of Muslim countries do support India for Permanent member seat in UNSC.
That Guy
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2013
- Messages
- 14,553
- Reaction score
- 52
- Country
- Location
Potential Riva. It's no secret that US and Indian interests ONLY align when it comes to China, and differ greatly elsewhere. India joining the UNSC would end with both sides arguing often.
RazorMC
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
- Messages
- 3,888
- Reaction score
- 1
With veto powers?
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Permanent members do have veto powers and when they support India for permanent member seat then it means with full powers.
salarsikander
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2013
- Messages
- 8,860
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
This has nothing to do with my statement, I quoted 2012 statement from a great visionary man
Taygibay
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Take just about any productivity index including esoteric ones like innovation
and France is in the top ten. Area, pop. etc" do not define a powerful nation.
Across the board top ten placements in performance values make a better list.
And if we are talking major power after 1900, you should talk to the Da'esh guys
that are so happy to have broken Sikes-Picot or consider the Ottoman-Turkey
transition for clues that France still had world shaping influence at that time.
But I'm glad for you that you coined a nice sentence if void of true meaning.
You are right somewhat though about the WW II thing then again, ask the Germans
if Bir-Hakeim was a picnic or remind yourself that France had troops landing in
Provence as well as in Normandy so that it could reestablished itself as a state
which was not the case everywhere else in Europe or think about La Résistance
( BTW those troops also participated in securing Germany including camps as a
consequence of which some of us served in West Berlin in 1984 … did you? )
and became the first country to have the Americans leave its soil and take a more
autonomous stance hence, etc. You may not like us but we were the ones ready
to veto our friend so that it did not gain legitimacy in attacking Iraq. How much world
changing events has Holland created lately save legal weed?
Still that a UN seat was given to those winners and that this is by now incorrect is
evident and not my point ( which was your childish insult IYRC ). In another thread
however, I explained that since, the reasons for maintaining this position have evol-
ved to include an ability to act both nuclear on a global scale ( able to hit everywhere )
as well as conventional and the will to do so. But 2 more things should be weighed.
How is veto used ( and even, what is it? ).
Some people here seem to have a strange view of the veto power. It allows nothing
more to its possessor than the ability to refuse passing of resolutions but it in no way
gives then the power to create and enforce one!
Check this explanation to see that I did not wait for today to talk about a rebuild of it :
Dad, what is the veto right on the UN’s Security Council about? | Definitive Lapse of Reason
If we had a SC with 15 seats and 15 veto rights, nothing would ever get done, period!
Every proposition would be vetoed and a civil war of epic proportions would have seen
the Central African Republic lose 20% of its population to murder or fleeing, all Muslims.
It took the UNSC over 4 months to decide after one of its P5 members rang the alarm
and when it did, that member went there alone and did the job and is now pulling out,
the job done!
Merci qui? Merci la France!
And even in that present system, not every member uses its veto right the same way.
Would you be surprised to learn that China is the most responsible so far in that respect?
Or will you argue that it used it less hitherto because it too was not a big enough power?
Fact remains, the Celestials are the best behaved of the lot as of today.
Sure, it's often politics but hey my friend Kamal should agree that when our US chums
vetoed us over Suez, it was a good thing for Egypt even if motivated by competitiveness.
The history of the veto right is much more varied than the shallow image you seem to
hold of it. There are is a link to that effect in the above piece.
How good is the UN itself?
A few years back, an American proposed a nutritional complement in the shape of those
plastic sauce containers found in lunch boxes everywhere rich. Based on peanuts ( cheap ),
his mixture was rich ( again ) enough to sustain life for a whole day allowing for the survival
of all the millions of famished that die of hunger every year on my planet.
The lady in charge of the UN food program dismissed it because it would cost 23 B $ a year,
1 B $ more than her entire budget. The guy is now trying to bring it to those in need ( dire need )
with the help of rich foundations from that despised Western Civilization you're so critical of.
My point of view was that … if being one B $ short was the only problem, I'd readily accept that
that lady and her entire staff be sent home ( with our taxes providing a replacement job for her )
and the kits distributed so all would live.
That is the day when I began considering that the UN had outlived its usefulness.
And yet I understand that that is only me hoping, that in reality the UN does what it was supposed
to which is avoid the very worst while allowing the rest to continue, a stepping stone at best.
That in order for things to change, the required moves are not a musical chairs shuffling of the
present seating arrangements but a totally new idea better implemented to boot.
Until that surfaces, we'll have to make do … not comforting, I know.
As for the rest,
Pure trolling and I sincerely wish for your sake that you know it or understood it from this answer.
Try and pry it away from the bear's muzzle, be my guest!
Not yet ( or under present set-up ) & yes.
Really? South Africa most modern with all its internal problems of whom many other African nations are wary
or Nigeria that is the richest and can't manage Boko Haram?
[ Strangely enough, I think that I'd be tempted if forced to give such a seat to "award it"
to Morocco or Egypt first but that may only be because we've been Mediterranean
neighbors since pre-History, old buddies after and despite all.
]
to Morocco or Egypt first but that may only be because we've been Mediterranean
neighbors since pre-History, old buddies after and despite all.
]Which is fine to conclude on : you are very right that this is not the 1800s anymore in light of which …
maybe the countries that still don't have electricity and plumbing and roads everywhere should concentrate
on acquiring 21st century living conditions instead of griping about nearly useless representation.
Pakistan is doing that ^ and despite having nukes and top notch Blue Helmets contribution, you don't hear
them nagging for a P5 seat as loud as some others you seem to represent?
Just sayin' Tay.
Last edited:
mike2000 is back
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 8,513
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
To be honest, there are dozens of countries out there i can think of who deserve it as well. If only UNSC P5 seat was determined by 'deserving 'countries.
You are British still have comprehension issue in English
Oh my bad. You said after 15years(not sure why you choosed that number though.lol, at least you are not as delusional as some of your indian brothers who think they are already way ahead of britain abd france. Lol).
However, you remember our 'experts/analysts and media' were all predicting as well that India will be a superpower by this time/end of this decade and will overtake China and all european powers by now. Lol. But here we are today, you are still behind us despite having over 17 times our population and growing.
So if i was the one, i will calm dowm and just bide my time until when im ahead before i start boasting/bragging. You are still nowhere near Britain and France in world influence/tech/industrial advancement etc you name it.
In short NEVER count your eggs before they hatch.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Only Permanent members of the UNSC as currently defined have veto powers. UNSC reform entails 2 different sets of questions:
1. The addition of more permanent and/or non-permanent members to the UNSC
2. Whether new permanent members will have veto powers / reforming the veto powers of the existing P5
India only has support on the first question
MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
imo India doesn't need a seat in UNSC... we have other issues to sort out....
Similar threads
