A big step forward for India: UN adopts negotiating text for security council reforms

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
So you first claim uno is useless and then ask why it will become useless? :lol:
I am also thinking the same thing.
Yes, that is very bad for PR of UN, but that is all.
When Chinese decided to ignore UN's resolution on Korea issue, UN armies were stopped by them;
When the whole world condemn US on Iraq, their army still marched into Baghdad;
When Russia provided protection to Syria, there is no UN resolution at all;

Tell me, on which issue, how UN will become useless if India is not part of deal.
Simples.

  1. Let's say India tables a motion in UNSC (when member) seeking approval for its plans to conduct another round of nuke tests.
  2. UNSC vetoes it.
  3. India goes ahead and blows us some underground nukes in Rajasthan nonetheless.
  4. Some countries impose sanctions on India.
  5. India says, "cool bro," and goes back to minding its own business.
  6. Twelve months down the line, sanctions are lifted.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
  • Some countries impose sanctions on India.
  • India says, "cool bro," and goes back to minding its own business.
  • Twelve months down the line, sanctions are lifted.
The only country which will impose sanctions on India will be Pakistan :lol:
 

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
UN is a joke....the least democratic institution in the world...a tool of achieving interests of a few nations.
A global body which deprives 1.3 billion Indians their legitimate right to express opinion on equal footing to major nations is a fake and useless organization. India does not need to care much about UN seat.
An elephant is still an elephant whether made to sit with rats or given its rightful place.
Some say..India should join western led group against China-Russia group. I totally disagree. INDIA DOES NOT NEED TO BE ANY GROUP. India needs to continue its policy of mutual respect and harmony with all nations.
Russia is a time tested friend, China is a friendly great ancient civilization , Iran/Iraq are an glorious persian nations...USA is a nation India shares lots of core beliefs..They are all India's friends in some way.
The only country which envies and hates India is Pakistan ...Indian defense policy makers must pay a lot of attention to this rougue entity which is eager to be used by some other power . Therefore, Indian forces should slowly degrade and keep Paki weak so it does not dare to create trouble in India. Offensive defense is the only policy which works with crazy Paki rulers.
You can't find an american who hates India...And you can't find an American who loves Pakistan..
India 's defenses should be Pakistan centric and enormous funds should be allotted to keep this evil Paki entity under control ...By all means...economic, military, social, diplomatic and if needed sabotage of its infrastructure.
This will keep Paki users ,also away because they will keep losing money and will get tired of funding this endless pit of financial need.
 

prohumanity

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,290
Likes
1,362
Country flag
The old boys country club...UN..has to expand and become truly representative of todays World..otherwise it is becoming irrelevant by each day.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
I am also thinking the same thing.

Simples.

  1. Let's say India tables a motion in UNSC (when member) seeking approval for its plans to conduct another round of nuke tests.
  2. UNSC vetoes it.
  3. India goes ahead and blows us some underground nukes in Rajasthan nonetheless.
  4. Some countries impose sanctions on India.
  5. India says, "cool bro," and goes back to minding its own business.
  6. Twelve months down the line, sanctions are lifted.
Wow, that is wired: A world power wannabe asks UN to approve her domestic issue? Oh, my friend, if that is how you define the power of yourselves, do you think what impression will others get? Even North Korea is better than that.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Wow, that is wired: A world power wannabe asks UN to approve her domestic issue? Oh, my friend, if that is how you define the power of yourselves, do you think what impression will others get? Even North Korea is better than that.
It was an example given to show that India can do what it wants, regardless of what the UNSC thinks. Whether India will seek approval from UNSC or not is not the point. Thanks for missing the point. I am here to bring you back to track.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
It was an example given to show that India can do what it wants, regardless of what the UNSC thinks. Whether India will seek approval from UNSC or not is not the point. Thanks for missing the point. I am here to bring you back to track.
It was a very bad example to show India's capability. It is like you are applying for a senior IT management position but the best example of your skills that you can come up with is: you managed your personal pc very well. Can you imagine how other people will estimate you based on this example?
Meanwhile it is a very good example to show how most of Indians here misunderstanding the meaning of power. Being able to protect yourselves within your own house is the minimum requirement , North Korea, Iran can do that. Even Saddam was able to do it in a period of time. But being a power, it is more importantly if you can protect your interest and support your allies outside your house.
So far, what we hear from India is: we are the largest democracy in the world, we are no.2 population in the world, we have this, we have that......
Please, stop, nobody cares what you have, nobody cares who you are. The only thing they care about is what they get if they put you into that seat.
 

Sakal Gharelu Ustad

Detests Jholawalas
Ambassador
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
7,114
Likes
7,761
It has been a characteristic of Nehruvian diplomacy that India’s interests have been sacrificed for the personal interests of a few.


Given the reliance of politicians on the bureaucracy to both formulate policy as well as to implement it, it is no surprise that several UPA-era initiatives are being backed equally enthusiastically by the NDA. The acceptance of a mistake being a cardinal sin in the ranks of the higher bureaucracy, it is natural that even policies that have demonstrably been shown to be counter-productive have been continued into the present. Among these is the Club of Four, or the G-4, comprising Japan, Germany, Brazil and India that got formed to collectively lobby for permanent membership in an expanded UN Security Council. Each of the four has the gravitas necessary for entry into this most exclusive of clubs within the UN system, although eyebrows may get raised at yet another European country being included in a group where the continent is already well represented, with the UK and France being permanent UNSC members. Given the declining role of Europe in international geopolitics, a situation which shows no sign of getting reversed in the coming decades, if we assume that the number of permanent UNSC members should get doubled to ten, clearly Asia should have at least three seats, Europe retain its two and South America and Africa gain two each, the new entrants from the first being Brazil and Mexico and from the second, South Africa and Nigeria.

Japan clearly merits a permanent seat at the UNSC. The country has been lavish in its funding of UN operations, and has behaved impeccably in international fora since the UN got formed in 1945. However, there is zero chance that P-5 member China will allow Japan to enter the UNSC Permanent Member club, and by joining hands with Tokyo in an all-or-none strategy, the two countries with the brightest chances, Brazil and India, are dooming their quest. While going through the motions of keeping the G-4 going, such as through the meeting of Heads of Government hosted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New York, it needs to be signalled that in fact, each of the four is on its own so far as a permanent UNSC seat is concerned. What is needed is to ensure a General Assembly vote on separate proposals to include each of them (rather than the four as a combo) as a two-thirds majority is needed for consideration by the UNSC. In that forum, should each of the five back a country together with two-thirds of the General Assembly members and a majority within the 15-strong UNSC, that country would enter the club of permanent members. The country with the brightest chance is India, followed by Brazil and Germany, with Japan eliminated because of Beijing's veto. Within the P-5, should a vote take place on India, it would be difficult for China to veto the move, except if New Delhi insists on being tagged with Tokyo for the honour.

It has been a characteristic of Nehruvian diplomacy that India's interests — including core interests — have been sacrificed in order to further the needs of other powers. This was done most fragrantly by Jawaharlal Nehru, even in matters as vital for survival as water, when he handed over 80% of the Indus waters to a belligerent Pakistan for reasons clear only to him and perhaps his advisors. However, Lal Bahadur Shastri's surrender at Tashkent over the Haji Pir pass and Indira Gandhi's kowtow to Bhutto at Simla are some of the many examples of such a needless sacrifice of the national interest. India has lost considerably and gained not at all from such an India Last policy, and it is expected that Narendra Modi will ensure that his promise of a consistent and principled India First policy will be followed, even if some elements of this jar on officials reluctant to abandon "time honoured" policy lines. Until Japan ensures support from China, there is zero chance of Tokyo becoming a permanent member of the UNSC. There is no reason for India to delay its own ascension to the slot till Tokyo makes it, and in such a process, far more than the G-4, it is the General Assembly as well as the UNSC — especially the Permanent Five — that will decide whether and when India will make it to the UNSC. It needs to be made clear that while each of the four countries forming the G-4 support the others, none within the group has the right of veto on others seeking to enter this most exclusive of UN clubs. In Ban ki-Moon, the UN has a Secretary-General who understands and appreciates India, and in Barack Obama, a US President eager to ensure that an alliance with India be placed in his legacy box.

Our country's policymakers, invariably, give precedence to process over outcome. This should not recur in the UNSC hunt as well. India should not lock itself into a situation where it will fail to succeed, not because of opposition to its own candidacy but because of the Chinese veto over Japan's candidature.

The UN General Assembly should hold a separate vote on each of the countries wanting to join the UNSC as a permanent member, followed by another vote for each such country within the UNSC. The odds are high that India will cross these barriers with greater ease than any of its G-4 partners. A propitious moment has come for India's acceptance as a UNSC Permanent Member, and this needs to be seized by Prime Minister Modi, rather than thrown away in the manner of the numerous missteps by his predecessors. Outcome is core to the future, and the process followed needs to be such as would ensure success in India's quest.


http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/1059-p-5-key-india’s-unsc-success
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top