India open to 'no veto', for now, as UNSC member; Pak still says 'no go'

lcafanboy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
3,666
Likes
13,178
Country flag
India open to 'no veto', for now, as UNSC member; Pak still says 'no go'

(Representative image)
HIGHLIGHTS
  • The main issue with the UNSC veto is not one of quantity, it's one of quality, India's UN representative Syed Akbaruddin said
  • Veto or no veto Pakistan doesn't want the UNSC's permanent membership expanded
  • Pakistan wants to create a new category of elected membership with longer terms than the current two years
NEW DELHI: India and other G4 countries said today they are willing to consider temporarily suspending their veto rights when and if they are made permanent members of the UN Security Council.

This change of heart is meant to hasten the process of making the G4 countries - India, Brazil, Germany and Japan - permanent members of the elite UN body sooner rather than later.

A proposal to this effect was set forward on Tuesday by India's Permanent Representative, Syed Akbaruddin, who was speaking on on behalf of the G4 at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on Council reforms.

In the scenario G4 proposes, the new permanent members will, in principle, have veto powers that the current five members have. They just won't exercise the veto until a decision, specifically on this matter, has been taken during a review.

That may sound reasonable to G4 members but it is strongly opposed by Uniting for Consensus (UfC), a 13-member group that includes Pakistan.

UfC wants to create a new category of elected membership with longer terms than the current two years. For two decades, it has been blocking the reform process and waging a decades-long battle against expanding permanent membership. And as far as India is concerned, it's UfC member Pakistan, which has been a thorn in its side.

Akbaruddin called the UfC proposal "old hat". Any proposal for Council reforms without an expansion of the number of the permanent seats does "grave injustice to Africa's aspirations for equality", he said.

G4 also believes UfC's proposal is counter-productive and a ploy to block the addition of new permanent members.

"It will actually widen the difference between permanent and non-permanent members even more, tilting further the scales in favour of a dispensation that was valid in the special situation in 1945 but is no longer now," the G4 statement said.

To veto or not to veto

On the issue of the UNSC veto, Akbaruddin said the question has been addressed by many from differing perspectives. The G4 approach, he said, is that the problem of veto is not one of quantity (of extending it immediately to new permanent members) but of quality - of introducing restrictions.

"Our position is imbued with this spirit. While the new permanent members would as a principle have the same responsibilities and obligations as (the) current permanent members, they shall not exercise the veto until a decision on the matter has been taken during a review," the G4 statement said.

Veto or no veto, Pakistan remained stoutly opposed even to this new G4 proposal.

"Merely possessing veto power, even without its use, has a telling impact on the Council's working methods. But some of us propose more veto-wielding members in the Council, while calling for improved working methods of the Council. How can this dichotomy be justified," said Pakistan's UN Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi, today, Samaa.tv reported.

The veto, Lodhi said, could be counterbalanced in the Council by strengthening the voice of elected members.

The G4 member states believe that some have "conflated and confused" regular elections to the Council with accountability.

"Ensuring a perpetual campaign mode is not the best form of accountability," the G4 statement said, without naming UfC or Pakistan.

No side is happy though with the current impasse in security council reform.

"The issue of veto is important, but we should not allow it to have a veto over the process of Council reform itself," said Akbaruddin.

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/ind...pak-still-says-no-go/articleshow/57541578.cms
 

Trinetra

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
260
Likes
548
Country flag
I dont understand why Britain is permanent member still.. They lost the world power status.. They are just now a lieutenant of US in world stage..they are just there becuz they have some nuclear submarines with nukes.. The new world powers must get the seat in UNSC to actually make a difference in world politics.... and India totally fits into that category..
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,352
Likes
1,033
Country flag
I dont understand why Britain is permanent member still.. They lost the world power status.. They are just now a lieutenant of US in world stage..they are just there becuz they have some nuclear submarines with nukes..
London is still the world financial centre;
Britain still leads the world in many technological front;
British banks and business network are still possessing great influence over the world;
Countless foreign political and military leaders graduated from British universities;
Countless foreign political leaders' elections are funded by British money;

So, yes, they are still a world power.

The new world powers must get the seat in UNSC to actually make a difference in world politics.... and India totally fits into that category..
Now, these new world powers have agreed to accept second class roles even before they get the seat, I just wonder what kind of difference they are able to make?
 

Krusty

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
2,531
Likes
4,846
If you ask me, I'd say India should stay well out of the UNSC. And concentrate on our own progress. There willl come a time when India is shown the red carpet to join. We should not try to barge our way in. The seat on that table is too over rated anyways. It's a league that can't agree on anything, It's just a legal entity to maintain the status quo past ww2 using the veto system and nothing more. Why are we so desperate for a seat anyway?
 

I am otm shank

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
285
Likes
190
The UN needs to change its structure to address the times or it will become irrelevant like the league of nations before it.
 

I am otm shank

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
285
Likes
190
If you ask me, I'd say India should stay well out of the UNSC. And concentrate on our own progress. There willl come a time when India is shown the red carpet to join. We should not try to barge our way in. The seat on that table is too over rated anyways. It's a league that can't agree on anything, It's just a legal entity to maintain the status quo past ww2 using the veto system and nothing more. Why are we so desperate for a seat anyway?
In a way I agree but the unsc directly impacts India's growth as a nation. the sanctions post it's nuclear tests is a good example.

without out a strong influence on the foremost international regulatory board India's a cess to trade,technology and "friendships" are severely hampered
 

square

Strategic Issues
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,637
Likes
1,460
veto or no veto......UN has lost its values...!!!
 

Trinetra

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
260
Likes
548
Country flag
London is still the world financial center;
Britain still leads the world in many technological front;
British banks and business network are still possessing great influence over the world;
I already said only becuz Britain is the lieutenant of US.. all technology transfers from US.. all financial influence from US.. If Britain is so powerful why its PM came begging here for private and public investments after Brexit.. and it was her first or second abroad visit after becoming PM and first to any Asian country.. Britain came begging to tata steel after it decided to sell corus steel in UK.. so that thousand's of jobs wouldn't be lost..


Countless foreign political and military leaders graduated from British universities;
Only becuz their universities are older thats why they still have the influence..

Countless foreign political leaders' elections are funded by British money;
any proof of this?

Now, these new world powers have agreed to accept second class roles even before they get the seat, I just wonder what kind of difference they are able to make?
I dont know about any other power. India certainly didn't agree to the role.. at least not under current Indian govt.. The difference u say here could be far better than now with the current permanent members..
 

Krusty

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
2,531
Likes
4,846
veto or no veto......UN has lost its values...!!!
I'm saying it had no values to begin with. It was just an institution make up of spent powers (Of WW2) in decline to be a part of the New world order. Nothing more.
 

hardip

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
462
Likes
379
Ha.ha.ha..

UNSc is a circus....

Where.. No one want give power to new country... Because everyone have their own Interest ..

UNSC have been A . Organization but Unfortunately it's not...

After '65 no member been added..
It's. Mean everybody don't want resist.. from new country... japan German can out of control... in technology... and India is under banner of Good people.. peace full County.. so India is big enemy for China... (also in future For US) Chinese activities not tolerable... And India can veto..."
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
4,004
Likes
824
Country flag
Indian members still don't get it, objection from Pakistan is not the reason why India can't get a unsc seat. the real thing is none of the p5 sincerely wishes to share the most powerful diplomatic tool with new members.

Americans or British might have expressed that India is welcome to join the club, but we all know they were merely paying lip service.they just know someone else is gonna be the bad guy and veto India, why not play the good guy, after all India is not gonna make it.

the P5 won their seats by creating a new world order, to do that each of them except France had suffer huge sacrifices during the wold war two. the world would have been different if the P5 had lost. unless the current world order collapsed and a new one was built, the P5 stay and no one else gets in.

I understand indian members' frustration, at the same I advise you people to be pragmatic.
 

Trinetra

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
260
Likes
548
Country flag
Indian members still don't get it, objection from Pakistan is not the reason why India can't get a unsc seat. the real thing is none of the p5 sincerely wishes to share the most powerful diplomatic tool with new members.

Americans or British might have expressed that India is welcome to join the club, but we all know they were merely paying lip service.they just know someone else is gonna be the bad guy and veto India, why not play the good guy, after all India is not gonna make it.

the P5 won their seats by creating a new world order, to do that each of them except France had suffer huge sacrifices during the wold war two. the world would have been different if the P5 had lost. unless the current world order collapsed and a new one was built, the P5 stay and no one else gets in.

I understand indian members' frustration, at the same I advise you people to be pragmatic.
I understand your point.. i think even Indian establishment had understood your point too.. but in this world of no free lunch.. if you wont fight for your right then u dont deserve what's ur right too.. so India is doing this.. I urge India to keep fighting for the world order to change.. even if it takes longer time than what India expects..
 

Krusty

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
2,531
Likes
4,846
How is China a power from ww2 they had to be saved (by Indians)allies?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-08/18/c_134531462.htm

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ah, China.. the perfect example of 'right place and right time'. Yes, they were beaten back badly by the Japanese in ww2. China (ROC at the time) was considered one among the 'four key allies' by Franklin.D.Roosevelt. Not even France made it to the list. That list was one that Roosevelt deemed was the coalition which had free armies which could decide the course of the war. Roosevelt was so keen on China because it could serve the key role of diverting Japanese forces in the Pacific where the US had a huge chunk of its force.

Churchill on the other hand who was involved mainly in the European and North African theatre, where there was no Chinese role, did not like Roosevelt's idea. He later got France to join the 4 members in as a tradeoff for Roosevelt's stand on China.

So yes, regardless of being beaten back or not, China (ROC) had a huge army and resources which made the US give it the position of a 'key ally'. Little did they know just a few years later Mao would crash the party. And India, regardless of the men and material supplied wasn't considered 'Indian'. they were resources of the British colony (A perception that the British narrative held and something that we as Indias should work to change). Even after independence, India had no infrastructure or prosperity (not to mention it was still not fully our of colonialism) to support the role of a UNSC member even if it were offered and accepted at the time.
 

Krusty

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
2,531
Likes
4,846
real thing is none of the p5 sincerely wishes to share the most powerful diplomatic tool with new members.
Yep. this I absolutely agree to. Last time they let in a country that wasn't in a league of the rest ( pushed around by then colonial powers, Beaten by a much smaller force, US had to step in and save China in WW2) , Mao happened and crashed the party. They have learnt from their last mistake with China and do not want to repeat it again. China got into the UNSC despite being weak and beaten was because of FDR quite literally liked them as cannon fodder against the Japanese in the Pacific where the US was operating. That diversion of Japanese troops was key to the USA.

India is in a much more better position to join the UNSC now than China was back when it joined. China joined UNSC from a position of a weak loser and an unstable government (ROC vs PRC saga). India can join from a position of strength and prosperity.

Critical difference,
 

Hemu Vikram Aditya

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,118
Likes
978
Country flag
China got into the UNSC despite being weak and beaten was because of FDR quite literally liked them as cannon fodder against the Japanese in the Pacific where the US was operating. That diversion of Japanese troops was key to the USA.
they got in unsc because of that asshole nehru and most of that so called mahtama gandhi(G*NDU) BHARAT Could have Gotten UNSC seat
 

Krusty

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
2,531
Likes
4,846
they got in unsc because of that asshole nehru and most of that so called mahtama gandhi(G*NDU) BHARAT Could have Gotten UNSC seat
Nehru being a loser twat is a whole thread in itself. UNSC was formed in 1945 by victors of WW2. that is the time period I am talking about. We were still a British colony back then.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top