UN Security Council Reforms

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by A.V., Mar 8, 2009.

  1. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,921
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Russia had the capability to walk into West Germany and France and prolonged the war. The Russians annihilated almost 500 German divisions compared to some 100 odd by the Americans in the Western Front. The Western Front was won by the Soviets while the Eastern Front was won by the Americans.

    All other countries were just a part of the war including UK, India and China.

    India was at the receiving end of the war. We had become one of the poorest nations on the planet and had to face humiliation in the international community. The Chinese had their own problems with the civil war.

    IMO, even today, neither India nor China deserve the Security Council Seat. Neither of our policies and attitude is good enough for being in any major international body(with the exception being economic bodies).
     
  2. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,418
    Likes Received:
    979

    You are wrong.


    In 1946, when the Permanent 5 was constituted, China was a nation whose sovereignty was disputed between the Guomindang and the CCP in one of the most protracted, combative, bloody civil wars in history- with no particular end in sight. You cannot award a seat on the world's most powerful purported governing body - the UN Security Council, to a nation whose government is disputed between two competing parties, both of whom officially claim sovereignty and legitimacy over the entire nation-state.


    Furthermore, in 1946, when the P5 was constituted, the move to Indian independence had already begun with the British Cabinet Mission to India that aimed to envisage the complete transfer of power, the establishment of a Constitution and an Executive body and to specify a kurz time frame for so doing. It is also realized that the British were keen to envisage the transfer in as quick a schedule as possible for lack of their being able to keep a hold of the subcontinental nation on account of their losses in World War II - and actually preponed, rescinded and urged Indian leaders to reconsider all proposals that would envisage the time-frame in any longer than was deemed 'necessary'. Ergo at the time of the P5's deliberation, proposal and constitution, the knowledge that India would 'very soon' be a sovereign, independent state was not blight obscure or ambiguous to world leaders.


    In addition, from the choice of the nation-state (RoC) to represent 'China', it is evident that "being one of the major, independent, victorious member of the Allied states in WWII" was not a consideration. The KMT's role in fighting the IJA was minuscule. Apart from the 'Jinan incident', there are few notable victories, and the KMT concentrated largely on fighting northern warlords to expand its hold over the country, evidenced most clearly in the Shanghai massacre of 1928. At the commencement of the second Sino-Soviet war in 1937, when Stalin reportedly ordered the communists to obey the Kuomintang in everything, and an alliance was reportedly 'struck', conflicts between the KMT and communists were more than sporadic and documented claims of Communist attacks upon the KMT forces, and vice versa, abound. If anything, it was the guerillas of the Communist Party that won a series of minor, and two major, battles against the IJA. Ergo, it was the PRC that should have been accorded P5 status by that measure. Furthermore, that consideration was rendered null and void when the KMT's jurisdiction was confined to Taiwan in 1950, and remained so for the next 21 years. Politics, however has its own head.


    Political scientists have speculated that the real reason India was denied a P5 seat was because of Nehru's virulent and obvious Fabian socialist leanings- a fact of which he made no attempt to conceal throughout- and evident extrapolation that since he was most likely to become Independent India's first leader, he would likely side with the Soviet camp- just as the PRC was denied a P5 seat to the benefit of the RoC.


    If purely objective criteria were to be used today to evaluate India's position, India ought not to be denied a seat: it is a rising economy, is the dominant power in its region- a region that represents more than one-sixth of the sea of humanity, has expanding regional and extra-regional influence, and one of the largest, rapidly modernizing armed forces in the world. Why this has not transpired so far is as good your guess as mine.
     
  3. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,491
    Location:
    BANGalore
    No one is claiming a seat now on the basis of what happened in WWII. The initial formation was what was being discussed.
    According to me only three countries deserved the seat back then if all arguments are considered. US, UK and USSR. France and china became just by default. China lost many men, but they were easy picks for the better equipped enemy. They came out victorious by other peoples help. So did France.

    India is mow claiming the seat based on present day scenario. And it's case has been well documented.
     
  4. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    JUst what the world needs- advice from an internationally recognised nut case


    JUst what the world needs- advice from an internationally recognised nut case
     
  5. tarunraju

    tarunraju Sanathan Pepe Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,495
    Likes Received:
    13,125
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Hah, Gadhafi can only dream about Pakistan in the UNSC, forget hyphenating India with it on pretty much everything.
     
  6. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,491
    Location:
    BANGalore
    It's an indirect prop of pakistan this statement by Gaddafi. He obviously owes it to the pakistanis for having supported them in their quest for their own nukes. Though they chickened out after western pressure. Otherwise we would have gone the saddam way as well.
     
  7. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,901
    Likes Received:
    692
    Well, as a chinese, I must say you got it wrong. Before June 1946, there was no dispute about who represent china. At that time, even CCP admitted it was under the lead of KMT and KMT gov represented China. What they argued was 2 points:
    1. how should form the future china's amy. In other word, should the both paties hand out their amies?
    2. What kind of role should CCP play in future chinese gov.

    The military conflict between both sides was aimed at geting bigger territory, which would utmitly enhance their negotiation position.
     
  8. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,418
    Likes Received:
    979


    As a student of politics, let me say that you have it wrong.

    You might do well to read up on the history of the Chinese civil war, which had its roots in the Northern Expedition of April 1927, well before June 1946 or any date concerning the establishment of the Permanent 5.


    Read my post again. You evidently have NO conception of Chinese internecine history. The peace brokered by the Soviets between the Communists and the Kuomintang requiring the communists to obey the Kuomintan in everything was one in name only, and conflicts between the KMT and communists were more than sporadic and documented claims of Communist attacks upon the KMT forces, and vice versa, abound. The level of actual cooperation and coordination between the CPC and KMT during World War II was minimal. The CPC rarely engaged the Japanese in major battles, but did prove efficient at guerrilla warfare, and in the midst of the Second United Front, the CPC and the KMT were still vying for territorial advantage in areas not occupied by the Japanese or by Japanese puppet governments. The situation came to a precarious head in late 1940 and early 1941 when there were major clashes between the Communist and KMT forces.


    The split was not about who should form China's army, or what kind of role "CCP should play in future China government". The split was essentially an ideological one, exacerbated by the Soviet policy of political expediency of support for both the Nationalist and the Communist parties, and catalysed first by competing decisions to move the seat of the KMT administration and governance from Guangzhou to Wuhan where Communist influence was growing on the one hand, and the antipodal decision to move it eastward by Chiang Kai Shek and Li Zongri toward Jiangxi on the other. Followed subsequently by the rejection of Chiang's demand and the denouncement of the leftists for betraying Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People. Even as early as 1927, there were three de facto capitals of China: the de jure, int'nly recognized capital at Beijing, the CPC and left-wing KMT capital at Wuhan, and the right-wing KMT capital at Nanjing, representing various factions that each sought and legitimately claimed sovereign jurisdiction over the entire country.


    The military conflicts were not aimed only at "getting bigger territory" or "enhancing their negotiating position". Each side claimed complete and utter sovereignty over the entire country, were ideologically and materially intractably opposed to each other and had vastly differing perceptions of political trajectories and policies of national-social mobilization - so much so that they had to be 'coerced' into getting to the negotiating table either by Soviet-brokered 'truces' (which were both vitriolic and volatile in both conception and in execution) or by events such as the 'Xian incident' in which Chiang Kai-shek had to be kidnapped by his own generals Zhang Xueliang and Yang Hucheng of the Kuomintang to even agree to negotiate with the CCP to form the 'Second United Front' (a teleological alliance that was more eponymous than anything else).
     
  9. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    I think UK should be removed from the UNSC and replaced with India. British military size isn't worthy of a permanent seat.
     
  10. hbogyt

    hbogyt Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    11
    re

    History of the United Nations

    http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/Everything_You_Always_Wanted_to_Know_About_the_UN.pdf

    Where does it say India was offered one? It does say, however, that the now P5 countries played key roles in the establishment of UN, therefore was given the seats. China was one of the original drafters of the UN charter.

    What did Indian contribute that deserve a seat?

    The soverignty of China was not disputed as of 1946, in other countries' eyes. The PLA was regarded as rebels.
     
  11. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    5,133
    Likes Received:
    734
    in fact, neither KMT nor CCP was serious about the peace,after Japanese was defeated in 1945.

    either of them were active in the preparatioin of the coming civil war.

    because of huge contradiction of idiology and interest, the civil war between KMT and CCP was inevitable..:blum3:
     
  12. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,418
    Likes Received:
    979
    Do not attempt to humour me with perfidies or quiddities of the UN. You will fall flat on your face and break it.


    Did I say it was offered one?

    I challenge you herewith to point out where I did.


    There were 26 signatories of the original UN declaration. Being "one of the original drafters of the UN charter" does not in itself constitute an entitlement to a P5 position. Get your facts right. Further on this below.


    Per your 'boy' 'Koji's' measure, a large number of troops without which it would have been impossible, yes, I M P O S S I B L E for the Allied nations to win the Asian theaters of the war.

    Indian contributions to the Allied victory in World War II- both materiel and personnel have been expostulatedly documented.


    The sovereignty of China was disputed between its two major ideologically juxtaposed political parties. Furthermore, no armistice or peace treaty was signed between the combative parties- leaving it in an official state of civil war: a state of dispute between two groups vying for unchallenged legitimacy over a single state - and none has been signed ever since. The recognition of the KMT's legitimacy over the entire region of China by its Western allies concomitant of the 1946 Declaration was a product of the dynamic of the geropolitical outgrowth of the Cold War. Furthermore, to attempt to resolve that conflict by ignoring the de facto government of China- a government that, by all measures, had more to do with the Axis defeat on its soil than its nationalist counterpart, and furthermore by according the perceived de jure government of China a responsibility of one as a permanent seat on the world's most powerful deliberative body - a government weakened, enfeebled and consigned to its jurisdiction confined to an island state off the coast of the territory which it claims- is fortuitous at best. Especially when,the state in question neither conforms to nor is seemingly or reasonably capable of prospectively adhering to the status of a 'major' or 'big' world power.
     
  13. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,921
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    EU should be given only 1 seat IMO. UK, France and Germany with 1 Seat and some non permanent seats to other member states. The fifth seat will be contended by Brazil, India and Japan. It's anybodies guess that Japan will get the fifth seat for obvious reasons(US).
     
  14. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,491
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Yes that is one thought doing the rounds. One seat for EU. But that will be easier said than done. Britain didn't join common currency. It will not give away it's veto to Europe.

    The best scenario is getting the G4 in.
     
  15. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    Minus South Afrika, they have no place there.
     
  16. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,624
    Likes Received:
    412
    Location:
    Boston
    What I am about to suggest may be considered controversial. Please treat it as a discussion of ideas and do not take it personally.

    The UNSC should not be reformed. The countries in the UNSC should reflect the countries in the world with the most power. From a realpolitik standpoint, the countries with the most power have the resources and ability to set the rules by which the world operates.

    A straightforward and unbiased measure of a country's economic strength is its electricity consumption. See https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2042rank.html (Economic strength is the criterion and not military strength. At one point, Iraq had the world's fourth largest army and I don't think anyone would have seriously argued that Iraq should have been part of the UNSC.)

    Looking at the CIA Factbook list, the top six entries are: United States (3.9 terawatts), China (3.3 terawatts), EU (2.9 terawatts), Japan (1.1 terawatts), Russia (1 terawatt), and Germany (0.5 terawatt).

    It is obvious that Germany at 0.5 terawatt is much smaller than the other countries. Common sense tells us that it is fair to eliminate Germany from UNSC consideration. Japan has a good claim to the UNSC based on its 1.1 terawatts economy. However, as an aggressor during WWII, killing of millions of innocent civilians, and conducting biological experiments on living human beings, we will eliminate Japan on moral grounds.

    As individual countries, the UK (#12 at 0.35 terawatt) and France (#9 at 0.48 terawatt) are not big enough to qualify for the UNSC. However, due to their historic roles as European allies in WWII, we can consider the UK and France as proxies for the EU (#3 at 2.9 terawatts).

    Interestingly enough, the countries on our final list are: United States, China, EU (via UK and France), and Russia. These countries are the familiar UNSC P5.
     
  17. tarunraju

    tarunraju Sanathan Pepe Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,495
    Likes Received:
    13,125
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    What does that even mean? Why do you look at events in WWII to shortlist eligible countries? By that logic, the US is ineligible, because it used WMDs in WWII, and killed countess innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians in recent wars. Your toops even sodomise Iraqi prisoners. Eliminate yourselves from the UNSC on those 'moral grounds' you speak of.
     
  18. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,921
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    It is not Terrawatt but TerraWatt hour. They are both different units. Anyways, if that is the case then both UK and France are below India. So, India is more deserving of a seat.

    Please don't mix the energy generation of UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc with the EU. They are all added for the EU.
     
  19. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,491
    Location:
    BANGalore
    South Africa is not in the G4. But some people want to give charity by getting an African country in without sound logic.
     
  20. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,291
    Likes Received:
    11,491
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Martian,

    UN seat is not going to be decided on electricity. If thst is a measure then people will start bringing in other measures. How about GDP on PPP basis?
     

Share This Page