Reforming Security Council Should Be Top Priority

[hello_10]

I would like to mention the key points we discussed, why Indonesia may become the more suitable candidate for the permanent seat in UN by 2020 onward, with a probable claim for Turkey also in place of Germany, hopefully by 2020:-

=> Why Indonesia?

1st, it is the 3rd biggest country of Asia by population, and the 3rd largest Democratic country after India and US, so it must be the 3rd country from Asia in this regard, after China and India :thumb:

2nd, the largest Muslim country.

3rd, there is no country opposing its candidature, while China won't let Japan get into this UN's seat.

4th, its economy size is above $1.1tn on PPP, while that of Japan is $4.4tn. but Indonesian economy would be double by 2020 while that of Japan may hardly maintain its current size, if it won't collapse with EU+US anytime this decade. as, its 'highly likely' that few of the major economies of EU would collapse till 2020, and then it would then bring down UK, France, with it also, obviously. and then its hard to believe that US and Japan type economies will remain unaffected after that......

5th, a collapse of NATO, after fall of its major economies, would clear path for the countries like Indonesia for the position of permanent seat in UN. as, neither there will be any grouping like NATO nor there will be much to ask, "why a US's follower isn't given a top post of UN. "

@amoy, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population.

You might be right. There is a significant difference between officially quoted statistics & the real Muslim numbers in India.

What's wrong with the France. Also why it needs to be only p5.

=> https://www.devex.com/en/news/blogs/indonesia-eyes-permanent-un-security-council-seat

I support claim of Indonesia on the basis of the above four points of my post. Indonesia is a responsible Muslim country, with growing very fast too, hence it may truly represent the Muslims of the whole world :thumb:

 

[hello_10]

You might be right. There is a significant difference between officially quoted statistics & the real Muslim numbers in India.

thats true, and we need a true representative of Muslims of whole world, and here Indonesia is the only candidate of UNSC in this regard, which has enough to claim for this position in UN/world, with having enough reputation in world too, as a responsible nation, with enough popularity among the Muslims too :thumb:

 

[amoy]

Indonesia? I still prefer India with a shorter spelling. Also not to neglect the largest Hindu population in aaddition to her Muslim demography.

And Hinduism perhaps has more followers than my almighty Tao!

Yin is within Yang Yang is within Yin!

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2

 

[hello_10]

Indonesia? I still prefer India with a shorter spelling. Also not to neglect the largest Hindu population in aaddition to her Muslim demography.

And Hinduism perhaps has more followers than my almighty Tao!

Yin is within Yang Yang is within Yin!

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2

Indonesia is a Trump Card to resist the Western Aggression, which will then represent the Muslims of the whole world, with raising their voice on the world platform in a true sense........

its all depends, to the extent the West force the rest of world, including BRIC, and how much we will then need to gather on the other side to resist these western efforts...... with the above 5 points i mentioned in support of Indonesia, post#41, its clear that Indonesia with very low public debt, the 3rd largest democracy in world and expected high growth rate for the next 10 years, will have got at least the 5th place among the E7s within the next 5-6 years, just behind BRIC......

In case of India, representation of Hindus in UN has little meaning as its not the religion which has any stake on the religious conflicts in world. but in case Indonesia, it means for representation of Muslims of whole world, who have history of 1000s years of religious conflicts with Christians. meaning of Permanent Seat in UN for Indonesia will bring much more meaning than India on the religious level. :ranger:

 

[hello_10]

double post

 

[amoy]

@hello_10 re:

Permanent Seat in UN for Indonesia will bring much more meaning than India on the religious level.

There're many angles to reforming UNSC, but on a religious ground it's not a good idea to get Indonesia aboard

Religion in Indonesia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Indonesian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.[3] However, the government only recognizes six official religions (Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism).[4][5][6] Indonesian law requires that every Indonesian citizen hold an identity card that identifies that person with one of these six religions, although citizens may be able to leave that section blank.[7] Indonesia does not recognize agnosticism or atheism, and blasphemy is illegal.[8

Let's stick to India to make life easier!

 

[hello_10]

@hello_10 re:

There're many angles to reforming UNSC, but on a religious ground it's not a good idea to get Indonesia aboard

Let's stick to India to make life easier!

a good comment :thumb:

but you didn't read my post#44 properly, 'if' Western Christianity force us more then you do have this option to put a credible resistance in front of them.....

look, either you may avoid the shiits, or you finally have to put your own hands in it too. and to deal with the shiits associated with the Western Christianity, Indonesia is a Trump Card to give a real front to the Muslim world against the West on the religious wars side this way :thumb:

its all about seeking a "balance" in world, on all the aspects, and Indonesia is the key to represent the Muslim world in UN....

similarly we have China to resist Western Agression, as discussed in my post#31 as below

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...e-mandarin-emerges-popular-course-iims-3.html

 

[amoy]

Alright @hello_10 sir First of all I dont see an united front of "Muslim World" against the West. Most recently the divide over Egypt is crystal clear, Iran & Turkey on one side condemning the military coup and bloodshed, GCC headed by Saudi on the other side immediately opening big $$ cheques in support of the military regime. Most of Muslim countries toe the sectarian lines in Syrian War. And their schism in Palestinian/Israel feud...

How has Indonesia demonstrated her credible resistance to the west in all these key regional or world affairs? Where is her leadership in "religious wars" against "Western Christianity" if any ( I doubt)? Or does Indonesia have the will and might to play such a role? We seldom hear of any Indonesian voice, not even in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). How much weight does Indonesia carry as a prospect candidate for UNSC, or more direct Q - How much support can be revamped for its contention for UNSC, even from the "Muslim world"?

 

[hello_10]

Alright @hello_10 sir First of all I dont see an united front of "Muslim World" against the West. Most recently the divide over Egypt is crystal clear, Iran & Turkey on one side condemning the military coup and bloodshed, GCC headed by Saudi on the other side immediately opening big $$ cheques in support of the military regime. Most of Muslim countries toe the sectarian lines in Syrian War. And their schism in Palestinian/Israel feud...

How has Indonesia demonstrated her credible resistance to the west in all these key regional or world affairs? Where is her leadership in "religious wars" against "Western Christianity" if any ( I doubt)? Or does Indonesia have the will and might to play such a role? We seldom hear of any Indonesian voice, not even in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). How much weight does Indonesia carry as a prospect candidate for UNSC, or more direct Q - How much support can be revamped for its contention for UNSC, even from the "Muslim world"?

sir, first these so called Western Industrialized Economies have lost their industries to China, and at the same time they are losing rest of the industries with the pace that we hope soon they will will get their industries back, just a big economic fall is required, hopefully by the end 2020. and it will be the time when per capita income of US/EU will fall below to China, hence making production cost cheap in their home nation this way....... but the main worries are, they have very high debt now and in case of getting back the industries, it will result in very high inflation which would be hard for them to bear. lets see what exactly we will see in our time :ranger:

these ranking are based on linearity, with a sense of continuity, while the OECD economies have high probability to face the type of recession Russia faced during 90s, while Russia did have enough oil/gas to support its economy, but how the same will support EU's economies which are being bankrupted one by one?????. if per capita income of the countries like Indonesia, India is $4000 at PPP then it means for growth in future, and if its around $35,000+ for the OECD economies then it would mean that they do need to have those superior technologies which will keep them on this level otherwise they will fall . and china and other emerging nations are set to outperform these so called Industrialized nations, who may soon get their industries back, hopefully by 2020/25............

i discussed the news as below, you would also have a look on the high tech business of china w.r.t. to OECD economies. all these new wars in the different parts of the world, ended with Iraq and it then switched to Afghanistan, again in Libya and it then switched to Syria right now, all are funded by US/NATO as their very last efforts to get something done in this world, before the world get completely changed

High-technology exports (current US$) | Data | Table


=> Indonesia is a Muslim nation

boss i say something in short, i have seen many muslim migrants who try hard to come to Australia/Britain/US, and just within a year, they start visiting muslim groups to discuss western wars against the Islamic countries, ask other members here too. and here, as a Muslim nation, Indonesia will only serve its brothers, once they come in this position, and it will finally result in grouping of Muslim world in favor of Indonesia to serve interests of the Muslims of the whole world. write down somewhere :thumb:

 

[Compersion]

The reform of the unsc with india on the unsc is necessary for world peace and development. But it sure is testing my patience on when it will happen. The nuclear (re)inclusion of india is priority it seems first and also the local elections come in the way.

On the unsc - there is a lot of candidates and options but they all include india to be included in the permanent list. All p5 wants to have india and if that is the case why wait and we can get the ball rolling now to get india on the unsc even with the caveat that india is included and done but can wait until the rest are decided. India needs to take a bold step (we can get usa and Russia to motivate and support us - imagine their two leaders and how they will be viewed in india for next generations if they encouraged that to happen and got it done diplomatically with us). The worst case is we will know objectively who prevented us. The good thing will be that India can create the precedenat for others to follow. 1. get all p5 to agree, 2. get a vote in general assembly 3. get usa and russia to sign off. The schematics of how unsc is reformed will also probably get a boost.

Relating to what you said which is good to talk as it leads to question of representaion of unsc and about indoneasia - What's the difference between Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi arabi. Each will point out why they deserve to represent Islam and Muslims. One with largest population, one with the Islamic jewels (nukes), one with Mecca that is the religious centre. As a prc leader (imagine you are one) if you had a choice who would you vote for (technically its who would you veto) - Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi arabi. Perhaps it is oic. I already thank you for voting india in earlier.

Also how many permanent members will the new permanent council have. Does it need to be decided now. Perhaps a unsc with india, USA, Russia, prc, France, uk and lead members and even rotating members in blocs (European union, oic, ASEAN, african union, and others can be envisioned.) I await the day when the unsc really develops a representative world body. The United Nations has a lot of potential and really wish it takes a few steps to evolve further and develop into what it was designed for.

 

[no smoking]

On the unsc - there is a lot of candidates and options but they all include india to be included in the permanent list. All p5 wants to have india and if that is the case why wait and we can get the ball rolling now to get india on the unsc even with the caveat that india is included and done but can wait until the rest are decided. India needs to take a bold step (we can get usa and Russia to motivate and support us - imagine their two leaders and how they will be viewed in india for next generations if they encouraged that to happen and got it done diplomatically with us). The worst case is we will know objectively who prevented us. The good thing will be that India can create the precedenat for others to follow. 1. get all p5 to agree, 2. get a vote in general assembly 3. get usa and russia to sign off. The schematics of how unsc is reformed will also probably get a boost.

Let's get straight: no one in P5 wants india or anyone else to join them! Yes, no one rejects india but no one will provide help to get india through. Without the help of them, India can't get enough votes in general assembly to get a seat since India itself can't afford the price to buy these votes.
This isn't a war but politics, no one care how many warheads you have or how many warship you can deploy, the only thing people care is how much they can get from you for the ticket. So, now, you have to come back to the real question here: how much you want to pay.

 

[drkrn]

Let's get straight: no one in P5 wants india or anyone else to join them! Yes, no one rejects india but no one will provide help to get india through. Without the help of them, India can't get enough votes in general assembly to get a seat since India itself can't afford the price to buy these votes.
This isn't a war but politics, no one care how many warheads you have or how many warship you can deploy, the only thing people care is how much they can get from you for the ticket. So, now, you have to come back to the real question here: how much you want to pay.

bilateral business in a lucrative ever growing free market which neither sides with communist nor capitalists .anything else

 

[hello_10]

Alright @hello_10 sir First of all I dont see an united front of "Muslim World" against the West. Most recently the divide over Egypt is crystal clear, Iran & Turkey on one side condemning the military coup and bloodshed, GCC headed by Saudi on the other side immediately opening big $ cheques in support of the military regime. Most of Muslim countries toe the sectarian lines in Syrian War. And their schism in Palestinian/Israel feud...

How has Indonesia demonstrated her credible resistance to the west in all these key regional or world affairs? Where is her leadership in "religious wars" against "Western Christianity" if any ( I doubt)? Or does Indonesia have the will and might to play such a role? We seldom hear of any Indonesian voice, not even in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). How much weight does Indonesia carry as a prospect candidate for UNSC, or more direct Q - How much support can be revamped for its contention for UNSC, even from the "Muslim world"?

Bluffs of Superiority, based on publicity of greatness, without any credibility or proper educational background

I have habit of reading western ranking stating, "indian women ranked below pakistani women as they don't sit on the nude beaches, similar to western women." "indian kids on the second last rank by UN, as they dont take drugs from schooling, including mass sex since 13-14 year age too." "india is more violent than US with 'staggering' 799 deaths by guns last years while the same score was well above 11,000 in US by guns last year." bla bla

and the above prediction by 2050, based on linearity, with a sense of continuity, is also nothing but a bluff, the western nations want to live in, the longer it is possible for them, until they face a real fall which will bring per capita income of US/EU to fall below China, hence helping them get industrialized again this way......

and apart from reading these predictions for the next 40 years, have a look on the same list of High Tech business as below. high tech export by US decreased from $220billion in 2008 to $145billion by 2011, within just 3 years, while that of China increased from $345billion to $457billion during the same period of 3 years only. your list shows the Western prediction for the next 40 years while the facts of just last 3 years is as below

=> High-technology exports (current US$) | Data | Table


recently i saw a news that, "US's NSA double its strength by every 4 years. " and i responded, "you will double your strength by the next four years and by then all the middle order powers like Indonesia will have got every technology till then." "you may double your strength by the next 4 years but till then China will have got a major share of Western high tech business, with a very high rate of patents by the Chinese companies too." the bluffs of Western rankings, based on 40-50 years projection while even the last 3-4 years doesn't look impressive . UK's economy is 3.6% to its 2008 level, Euro-zone is below 2% to its 2008 level, and US's is around 2.5% higher since then, only, with 4% population growth rate since too. but during this period, US's debt is now well above 106% to GDP to date, while the National Debt to Revenue ratio is well closed to 700% itself.

(by 2012, US's national debt was at around $16.4trillion while Revenue was at around $2.45 trillion only, hence ratio at 670%, even if US is a developed country hence having tax on low income group also )

The Western Rankings, "Bluffs of Superiority, based on publicity of greatness, without any credibility or proper educational background."

The euro zone posts horrible GDP numbers – Quartz

 

[Compersion]

Let's get straight: no one in P5 wants india or anyone else to join them! Yes, no one rejects india but no one will provide help to get india through. Without the help of them, India can't get enough votes in general assembly to get a seat since India itself can't afford the price to buy these votes.
This isn't a war but politics, no one care how many warheads you have or how many warship you can deploy, the only thing people care is how much they can get from you for the ticket. So, now, you have to come back to the real question here: how much you want to pay.

what you say is a reasonable analysis on the obstacles and the current situation to some extent. i bring in the nuclear (re)inclusion of india something that no one thought would happen. but its happening with proper precedents being established for future. this includes usa, russia support, strong non-proliferation record, advancement and skill of local nuclear industry, consistent record and history of nuclear use, nsg support, establishment of mechanisms, clear separation of military and civilian nuclear use, and others. when india gets (re)included to the nuclear club it needs to be done in such a way to make others question can they do the same - like a checklist. for example israel will have a better chance compared to pakistan.

no one thinks that unsc reform will happen. but if it does it needs to be done in a manner with proper precedents being established for future. unless like you said there is help from within the P5. perhaps help from USA and Russia and also get all p5 to agree (not to veto) and vote in the general assembly.

the value of the india ticket in the general assembly might need to be tested to determine if it is worth anything. from my understanding its worth quiet a bit. a un general assembly voting state being told that the ticket is to establish a precedent for future states getting on the UNSC. in that case the india ticket is worth a lot. further payment is not always in terms of trade. its also in terms of geo-political considerations and future developments.

 

[no smoking]

what you say is a reasonable analysis on the obstacles and the current situation to some extent. i bring in the nuclear (re)inclusion of india something that no one thought would happen. but its happening with proper precedents being established for future. this includes usa, russia support, strong non-proliferation record, advancement and skill of local nuclear industry, consistent record and history of nuclear use, nsg support, establishment of mechanisms, clear separation of military and civilian nuclear use, and others. when india gets (re)included to the nuclear club it needs to be done in such a way to make others question can they do the same - like a checklist. for example israel will have a better chance compared to pakistan.

No matter how people say about it, India was already a nuclear power after your nuclear test. Inclusion of india is not kind of reward to india but a acceptance of the fact.

no one thinks that unsc reform will happen. but if it does it needs to be done in a manner with proper precedents being established for future. unless like you said there is help from within the P5. perhaps help from USA and Russia and also get all p5 to agree (not to veto) and vote in the general assembly.

No one thinks that UNSC reform is not neccessary, but the question is how to reform it. Once again, no one wants a new member to share their power.

The value of the india ticket in the general assembly might need to be tested to determine if it is worth anything. from my understanding its worth quiet a bit. a un general assembly voting state being told that the ticket is to establish a precedent for future states getting on the UNSC. in that case the india ticket is worth a lot. further payment is not always in terms of trade. its also in terms of geo-political considerations and future developments.

You are talking too much about future, what about NOW!
Is there any country is being protected by india? No!
Is there any country is fiancing greatly on India aid? No!
Is there any country is in any formal alliance with India? No!
You can't even prove yourself to the need of them NOW, how can you make them believe your ticket will bring great value to them in the future?
Be realistic, what make india so special that putting you in UNSEC will creat a precedent for future. You know there are lots of country wanting the seat, why don't we put one of them in to be such a precedent?

 

[hello_10]

the value of the india ticket in the general assembly might need to be tested to determine if it is worth anything. from my understanding its worth quiet a bit. a un general assembly voting state being told that the ticket is to establish a precedent for future states getting on the UNSC. in that case the india ticket is worth a lot. further payment is not always in terms of trade. its also in terms of geo-political considerations and future developments.

No one thinks that UNSC reform is not neccessary, but the question is how to reform it. Once again, no one wants a new member to share their power.

thats a very mature statement. for example of Syria, two veto's were used in favor of the current government, which is similar to communist governments of Vietnam, Venezuela, Russia, China, Tajikistan, Iran etc, but US/NATO are directly funding and arming Jihad there????? then here, how does this matter even if two Veto's were used, if the western side start funding their terrorist organizations against other countries. have a look on the news as below, we have now got American Al Qaeda, British Al Qaeda etc as below too. :ranger:

=> American al Qaeda militant urges attacks on U.S. diplomats

=> Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution at U.N. - WSJ.com


see the news ralated to it in details in the thread as below:

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-qaeda-has-backfired-united-states-putin.html

You are talking too much about future, what about NOW!
Is there any country is being protected by india? No! :ranger:
Is there any country is fiancing greatly on India aid? No! :ranger:
Is there any country is in any formal alliance with India? No! :ranger:
You can't even prove yourself to the need of them NOW, how can you make them believe your ticket will bring great value to them in the future?
Be realistic, what make india so special that putting you in UNSEC will creat a precedent for future. You know there are lots of country wanting the seat, why don't we put one of them in to be such a precedent?

hmmmm, India has alliance with many countries, but its true that very few of them are dependent on India.

Indian annual budget keep around $1.0 billion aid for different countries but its lower than china, its true.......

there are many countries who have alliance with India, but not any big alliance like china, its also true.


but here, if you compare India with Brazil, the second biggest country of G4 for their claims on UNSC seat, then you will find India on a much better position to claim for a permanent seat, if the reforms happens in the way as it is.

but i favor UNSC reforms to consider the current state of the world, we want it working. you certainly don't need Britain, France now, and even Japan/ Germany dont look like going to maintain their lead in future, as compare to the the emerging economies. hence i favor no more than 7 countries/ fronts in UNSC, by replacing UK/ France from a seat for EU27, a seat for the African Union, for the representative of Africa in UN. with including India and Brazil from Asia and South America.

and from here, i won't like to see any Veto, but 4 out of 7 may make any decision on voting in UN. or, keep Veto for the 7 countries but that certain Veto may be pulled down if 4 out of 7 countries vote against it.........

i mean, do whatever you want but keep a platform to talk in any case, as the UN. and with that, do whatever you want but make the Veto powers working, as its looks disgusting that 2 Veto's were used in favor of the current Syrian government but then rest of the P5s, US/UK/France, started waging jihad there 'directly'

any reform, which make the UN working, at least to an extent, we want to see :thumb:

 

[badguy2000]

well, when the veto of UNSC were valueless, INdia would have chance to get it.

 

[hello_10]

well, when the veto of UNSC were valueless, INdia would have chance to get it.

boss first we are trying to make the Veto working, then who may get it and who can't......... as explained in my last post, even 2 Veto's couldn't stop terrorism, in Syria. on the top of that, all the American Al Qaeda, British Al Qaeda etc are getting straight support from their western brothers

first prove that your Veto does work. and we do understand that there can't be more than 5 veto in its current form as then it will hard to pass any bill in UN. and that's why i think, we would have 'majority' voting in UN, something like this, as explained in my last post.

first make this Veto work, UN work, and then we will discuss who may get what. thanks :thumb:

 

[Compersion]

thats a very mature statement. for example of Syria, two veto's were used in favor of the current government, which is similar to communist governments of Vietnam, Venezuela, Russia, China, Tajikistan, Iran etc, but US/NATO are directly funding and arming Jihad there????? then here, how does this matter even if two Veto's were used, if the western side start funding their terrorist organizations against other countries. have a look on the news as below, we have now got American Al Qaeda, British Al Qaeda etc as below too. :ranger:

=> American al Qaeda militant urges attacks on U.S. diplomats

=> Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution at U.N. - WSJ.com


see the news ralated to it in details in the thread as below:

=> http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-qaeda-has-backfired-united-states-putin.html






hmmmm, India has alliance with many countries, but its true that very few of them are dependent on India.

Indian annual budget keep around $1.0 billion aid for different countries but its lower than china, its true.......

there are many countries who have alliance with India, but not any big alliance like china, its also true.


but here, if you compare India with Brazil, the second biggest country of G4 for their claims on UNSC seat, then you will find India on a much better position to claim for a permanent seat, if the reforms happens in the way as it is.

but i favor UNSC reforms to consider the current state of the world, we want it working. you certainly don't need Britain, France now, and even Japan/ Germany dont look like going to maintain their lead in future, as compare to the the emerging economies. hence i favor no more than 7 countries/ fronts in UNSC, by replacing UK/ France from a seat for EU27, a seat for the African Union, for the representative of Africa in UN. with including India and Brazil from Asia and South America.

and from here, i won't like to see any Veto, but 4 out of 7 may make any decision on voting in UN. or, keep Veto for the 7 countries but that certain Veto may be pulled down if 4 out of 7 countries vote against it.........

i mean, do whatever you want but keep a platform to talk in any case, as the UN. and with that, do whatever you want but make the Veto powers working, as its looks disgusting that 2 Veto's were used in favor of the current Syrian government but then rest of the P5s, US/UK/France, started waging jihad there 'directly'

any reform, which make the UN working, at least to an extent, we want to see :thumb:

I have admit that I like what you say. It's somebit reasonable and mature. Although I can add to it (in terms of india and its qualifications) I prefer to focus on your direction. I would like to think that It's something that the prc leadership would say when you go down the reform route. Something the quicker it happens the better for indo - prc relationship and for world peace and development. It's inevitable that india gets on unsc. My only wish is that it happens quicker and india sets a good precedent and role model for others to follow. I have said earlier the reasons why india will.

On veto its a context that would have to be debated. But something that can be done even after a new permanent unsc member takes the seat. If a new entrant proclaims its non use before taking its seat until the veto specifics are finalised thats another option. The veto Itself has its benefits but there must be limits on its use. Perhaps a system restricting its use only twice per resolution (even for new entrants). I believe there to be a tradition and customary law in unsc. No unsc member ought to be able to use veto two times and more on a resolution. It's a bit like make your point understood on the table otherwise vote no. The second veto would also have a powerful effect. Another option would be for the (wise) older permanent unsc members to have more vetoes per reaolution compared to new entrants. With the new entrants developing the right to have more vetoes as they gain experience as they say. That latter would be more acceptable to the super powers and also allow for a more evolutionary unsc setup.

 

[Tshering22]

Personally I am not sure if India is ready to join UNSC even if it is reformed.

Our idealistic government would only take more troubles of the world on our heads when we have so many serious internal problems.

Let there be 5-10 years of strong economy-defence focused governance and maybe in 2024 we can think of joining the UNSC.