UN Security Council Reforms

[Martian]

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, and killed countess innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians. Your toops even sodomise Iraqi prisoners. Eliminate yourselves from the UNSC on those 'moral grounds' you speak of.

I admit that the US has killed some civilians as unavoidable collateral damage (i.e. smart bombs are not perfect and do go astray). However, the few hundred or maybe one or two thousand Afghan and Iraqi civilians cannot be meaningfully compared to the intentional killing of millions of civilians. For example, hundreds of thousands of civilians were intentionally killed in Nanking.

 

[Martian]

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.

I'm suggesting that the UK and France were chosen to represent the EU based on historical reasons. And thank you for the correction on the TerraWatt-hour.

 

[tarunraju]

I admit that the US has killed some civilians as unavoidable collateral damage (i.e. smart bombs are not perfect and do go astray). However, the few hundred or maybe one or two thousand Afghan and Iraqi civilians cannot be meaningfully compared to the intentional killing of millions of civilians. For example, hundreds of thousands of civilians were intentionally killed in Nanking.

"Smart" bombs, and UAVs are the most convenient excuses the Americans come up with. I doubt the two were primarily responsible for civilian causalities. What is this 'collateral damage' that you speak of? When did the Iraqi government rubber-stamp killing innocent American civilians in numbers that measure up to the civilian casualties in Iraq? As for Japan, I seriously doubt the number of civilian casualties created by Japan came even close to those created by the American use of WMDs on two Japanese cities, and air-strikes on Germany.

 

[Yusuf]

Guys reform is not going to be in the line of getting any existing member of P5 out. It's going to be an expansion.

 

[Martian]

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?

I selected electricity consumption because it is the favorite unbiased measuring stick for economic activity by Lester Thurow, a famous economist and former dean of MIT's Sloan School of Management.

I didn't use GDP on a PPP basis, because some people believe that we should use GDP on a nominal basis or a mixture of both. It gets too complicated.

I happen to agree with Lester Thurow that electricity is a straightforward and neutral way of measuring economic activity. Terawatt-hours cannot be manipulated. However, the basket of goods used to determine the basis for a PPP measurement can vary widely, depending on the study.

 

[Yusuf]

No I gave the example as just economics font dictate membership of the SC though it's an important factor.

 

[tarunraju]

Guys reform is not going to be in the line of getting any existing member of P5 out. It's going to be an expansion.

I know the P5 is only going to expand, but what's good for the geese should be good for the gander. You can't leave a country like Japan out of the race saying it's ineligible due to its war-crimes dating back to WWII, and then call yourself eligible stay a part of the UNSC. That's American hypocrisy for you.

And I disapprove of energy needs as a determining factor. India, Japan, and Germany have predominantly service-sector economies, we don't manufacture much, and hence our energy needs are low.

 

[Martian]

"Smart" bombs, and UAVs are the most convenient excuses the Americans come up with. I doubt the two were primarily responsible for civilian causalities. What is this 'collateral damage' that you speak of? When did the Iraqi government rubber-stamp killing innocent American civilians in numbers that measure up to the civilian casualties in Iraq? As for Japan, I seriously doubt the number of civilian casualties created by Japan came even close to those created by the American use of WMDs on two Japanese cities, and air-strikes on Germany.

The use of WMDS on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the air-strikes on Germany (i.e. Dresden, Hamburg, etc.) were moral because the United States was trying to win World War II and save the world from the fascist Nazis and the Imperial Japanese Army. It was moral for the United States to use all means necessary to save the free world.

Also, since Germany was bombing London and Japan was bombing Chinese cities, the evil aggressors of WWII were only getting a taste of their own medicine.

I'm surprised that I have to defend U.S. actions during WWII that were intended to break the war-fighting capability of the Germans and the Japanese. If the U.S. had refrained from bombing the Germans and Japanese, many more thousands of U.S. troops would have died.

 

[tarunraju]

The use of WMDS on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the air-strikes on Germany (i.e. Dresden, Hamburg, etc.) were moral because the United States was trying to win World War II and save the world from the fascist Nazis and the Imperial Japanese Army. It was moral for the United States to use all means necessary to save the free world.

Also, since Germany was bombing London and Japan was bombing Chinese cities, the evil aggressors of WWII were only getting a taste of their own medicine.

I'm surprised that I have to defend U.S. actions during WWII that were intended to break the war-fighting capability of the Germans and the Japanese. If the U.S. had refrained from bombing the Germans and Japanese, many more thousands of U.S. troops would have died.

That still doesn't answer this:

"Smart" bombs, and UAVs are the most convenient excuses the Americans come up with. I doubt the two were primarily responsible for civilian causalities. What is this 'collateral damage' that you speak of? When did the Iraqi government rubber-stamp killing innocent American civilians in numbers that measure up to the civilian casualties in Iraq?

 

[Yusuf]

No one here has raised any objection to US actions in WWII.

 

[tarunraju]

No one here has raised any objection to US actions in WWII.

I didn't. All I said was don't use events dating back to WWII as criteria. There is no Nazi Germany, no Empire of Japan, either anymore. Both have after WWII, never been part of a major armed conflict, are peaceful countries, and power economies at that.

 

[Martian]

That still doesn't answer this:

After the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11, the U.S. struck back at perceived countries that supported terrorism. The U.S. deposed Saddam Hussein and liberated Iraq. Currently, the U.S. is battling Iraqi insurgents that want to bring back Saddam's old Ba'ath party.

The U.S. is trying to help a democratically-elected government get on its feet. The insurgents are trying to bring back a dictatorship and the U.S. is trying to defeat them. Unfortunately, some civilians are dying as collateral damage. As far as I know, the United States military is operating in Iraq with the full support of the elected Iraqi government.

 

[mattster]

Its amazing.....35 pages on DFI about the UNSC membership !!

I am amazed as to why Indians in general are so obsessed with the UNSC in particular. I certainly understand that it has some clout, and there are some major advantages to being a member of the UNSC.

But folks.....seriously.....lets not go overboard here !!

The UN is an increasingly powerless, toothless and impotent organization.
Its ability to do anything is severely compromised by the very fact that the main members of the UNSC are divided into different camps with different long term strategic interests.

Look at the recents attempts to sanction Iran at the UNSC. If you look at the track record of the UN in recent times.....the members cant agree on diddly squat.

Take your pick of major global issues - Climate change, Terrorism, Nuclear non-proliferation, Global pandemics, Sanctions against the worst regimes, Darfur, etc.

Almost on all of these issues - the UN members cannot come to any consensus.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation is just about the "biggest joke" of an issue - given that UNSC member China and its main ally Pakistan and North Korea are the world leading proliferators of nuclear and missile technology. Now tell me what exactly has the UN done to punish China and Pakistan ??

China supports and arms some of the most corrupt and murderous regimes in Africa and Asia.
Whats the UN doing about it ??. The UN is increasingly becoming a joke !!

I'm not saying that the UN is completely useless....they still do some good work in international peace-keeping, global hunger, disaster relief, and other humanitarian issues.

But from a strategic standpoint the UNSC is an increasingly impotent organization. It not really the fault of the UN itself.....its only as good as its members. Its members are increasingly more fractured, and its probably only going to get worse as the 21st century progresses.

If India can develop its economy and military simultaneously over the next 20 years to be one of the top 5 economic and military powers in the world - then, they can basically tell the UN and UNSC to go jump in a freaking lake !!!

 

[Martian]

The point that I'm trying to make is that the UNSC P5 has remained unchanged for sixty years. If the membership in the P5 were unwarranted or unfair then change would have been instituted a long time ago.

I'm merely suggesting that economic strength and historical circumstances combined to determine the membership of the P5. If any country wants to join the P5 then show me about 1.5 TerraWatt-hours and you'll get my vote.

As mattster has suggested, if India were to become a top 5 economic and military power in the world, the P5 would most likely invite India into the club. When you have power, others will accommodate you because it will be necessary to get anything done. The fact of the matter is that no country can currently make a strong case for P5 membership.

 

[Yusuf]

Status symbol. UN is toothless, but we still have the P5 zealously gaurding their position. They might well give up.

 

[Known_Unknown]

To those who think that the UNSC is useless or toothless, imagine what might have happened if the Soviet Union was not a UNSC member in 1971. They used their veto 10 times to block any censure, or punishment or sanctions against India for the war. Imagine what would have happened if India was on the UNSC in 1974. There would have been no 30 year sanctions against India for testing nukes. Sanctions which crippled India technologically to the point where our defence and industrial development was set back by decades.

If we were part of the P5, we could have initiated a resolution to censure China's nuclear proliferation to Pakistan, and Pakistan's to the whole world.

If India was on the P5, it would have changed the global strategic landscape and the US would have been forced to mend relations with India during the cold war.

The importance of any country is determined by how much it is needed by the global community. The more important the country, the more friends it has and the more likely it is that her interests are protected. If India was on the UNSC, its utility to others would increase exponentially, and combined with increases in military and economic power, would make it an indispensable part of the global community.

Kinda like the US, Russia and China today.

 

[Vladimir79]

If you think the UN doesn't have any military power you might be right, but the one thing it does have is economic power. Sanctions can have a devestating effect over time on national development.

 

[Yusuf]

Known,
The veto has kept the UN irrelevant all along. Nothing meaningful has been done by it as the big boys kept wielding the veto. That's the reason why it's coveted. It's an instrument to further your interests.

Even though it's irrelevant by all means, we still need the veto as it helps us stave off any future action against us. Imagine the state of NPT talks if we had the veto.

 

[p2prada]

If India can develop its economy and military simultaneously over the next 20 years to be one of the top 5 economic and military powers in the world - then, they can basically tell the UN and UNSC to go jump in a freaking lake !!!

I agree with you. But, we have other uses for the seat. We can control our neighbors with it.

 

[Yusuf]

Wonder if the the G4 has considered a threat of withdrawal from the UN to force the issue. Will that have any effect at all. Call it blackmail, but then threats have always been part of international diplomacy.