UN Security Council Reforms

The UNSC is a farce. Can anybody tell me what China or Russia did when US invaded Iraq. All the UNSC has done till date is apply sanctions on small countries with no way of fighting back. Eg: NK, Iraq, Iran.

Whenever it came to big countries, all the UNSC has done is Nothing, especially when the P5 are involved.

Even without being a part of the UNSC India has the veto. India even went against the Iraqi oil for food program and bought oil for money for a long time. There goes the UNSC.Not to mention we junked the UN resolutions on Kashmir too. Let's not forget 1974, 1998. We tested nukes and they invited us into the club.

UNSC is as much a farce as Paris Hilton. Only good enough for controlling small countries.

prada, you should know better. Groups like these exist so that few countries can feel special and pat each other on their asses every now and then for basically doing nothing at all.

Sometimes they do something useful but those are just random "bad" decisions, according to all members involved.

[I]India, a nuclear power, has the world's second largest population and is the world's largest liberal democracy. It is also the world's eleventh largest economy and fourth largest in terms of purchasing power parity. Currently, India maintains the world's third largest armed force. India is the largest contributor of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions.[/I]

Franky speaking, I believe that the fact that India is not a member of the security council and is barred from joining by others shows just how ineffectual the whole UN is.
In the light of the figures above there is virtually no practical argument against India being a member.

On another note
Australia Seeks UN Security Council Seat

Australia has made a bid to secure a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. The effort is part of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's push to make Australia a bigger player on the world stage. Mr. Rudd has met with the U.N. secretary-general in New York as part of a global tour. From Sydney, Phil Mercer reports.

Kevin Rudd's plan to seek election to the U.N. Security Council in 2013 is an ambitious move. It is part of a push by Australia's new prime minister to make the country a more active "middle power."

Australia last served a two-year term on the U.N.'s mos t powerful body in 1986.

Australia can expect tough competition. Finland and Luxembourg are both candidates for a seat and more Western nations are expected to emerge as candidates.

Mr. Rudd says his government fully supports the United Nations but seeks reforms at the organization.

The Security Council comprises five permanent members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - plus 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

The Australian government thinks that reform of the U.N. should reflect the rise of both India and Japan, both of which have argued for permanent seats on the council.

Prada,
you are right. But having a voice doesnt hurt, right? We dont have to lose our sleep over it, but having it would definitely be an advantage. Yes, Russia and sometimes France is doing our bid in UNSC, but being directly there increases our standing and therefore our clout in International relations. Its all about perception, isnt it! And P5 is seen as big nations, if we are part of P5, we will be SEEN as big by the smaller countries that gives us greater influence.....
Anyway, It will happen when it has to. If we keep growing, they will have to get us onboard otherwise we may create some kujli for them.

i liked one of the pakistani guy's Avatar pal at pakistan defence forum with UNO icon written under as UNable. that was hilarious ha ha ha .

We need political will mate and not stature. Stature comes automatically, seat or no seat. We can make our voices heard without a sweat.

Look at India's political scenario. DMK, a regional party with little power in the national stage was able to book 3 Cabinet berths and 4 MoS berths. That's a lot considering they won only a handful of seats in TN while the all powerful LEFT was kicked out completely.

All that VOICE and SEEN is merely propaganda. Main diplomacy happens behind closed doors. Smaller countries already see India as a Big country. No doubt about that.

Like Singh said, we need to act like we deserve the seat. Actually we need to start acting like we already have the seat. But, without political will, even holding the actual seat is a waste of time.

Cant disagree with that. But , it is an established fact that there is not much political will in our country and only oppurtunistic domestic politics at play.
Anyway, UNSC seat would make our resume even more impressive, and our sword would get more edge.

All India has to do is to pass a bill which makes it incumbent on the govt of the day to discuss all the UNSC resolutions in the floor of the house and get the approval of the majority of the house to comply with the said UNSC resolution.This automatically gives the parliament the veto and the govt does not have to take the blame.

However this will be tantamount to making mockery of the UNSC and undermine our interest in keeping the UNSC as effective institution for our future role as permanent member.

Haha! That's merely being technical. The fact is the spineless majority UPA will simply vote FOR the resolution than AGAINST simply because they can't stand up to US pressure. Similar to Iran vote a couple of years ago.

When will we learn???:viannen_81::connie_searchingsky

Whatever one's grouse against UPA it has come to power with the approval of the majority of Indians.Do not call majority of Indians spineless.The Iran vote was different,USA was campaigning our case for an NSG exemption and it was in our interest to humor the Americans all the way.

Infact i would have called the UPA spineless had it buckled under the left pressure and voted for the Iranians and thus jeopardizing our case for the NSG exemption.

UNSC seat will happen,no need to jump the gun and undermine our position.

Enlighten us on how Russia and the disgruntled SE neighbors will help India? Nobody jumped in during the 1962 war or the 1980's war China had against Vietnam. It is actually quite surprising that China actually has decent relations with many of the South East Asian countries.

And Russia is in the Shanghai Cooperation pact, so it is unlikely that they'll join. So what coalition are you describing sir?

They are greying but not at the rapid rate at which you're describing. Where is your proof that their society will be unsustainable in 10 years time? (Plus I think that they'll simply reverse the policy when they feel that the population and wealth are at some kind of balance) In fact, I saw some Journeyman Documentary that couples in China are allowed to have more than one child, as long as they pay a fee. This actually makes some sense because the system makes sure that families are wealthy enough to properly support more than one child. This prevents an oversaturation in a country.


Plus youth is no guarantee for success.

koji can you elaborate on the India-japan security pact??

Yes I can. The security pact that we have with India is very different from the one we have with Australia, which is directed more or less against China. The security pact that we have with you says NOTHING about China.

In the end, these are nothing more than international relations PR. They are not formal alliances.

The Hindu : Front Page : India, Japan say new security ties not directed against China

can you leave China out of your posts?? what are the military dimensions of the pact? it says in the article it is the same as the pacts Japan has with USA and Australia how is it different?