Reforming Security Council Should Be Top Priority

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,188
Likes
791
Country flag
Striking differences:US-India disparity in views on Syria

Striking differences:US-India disparity in views on Syria - Indian Express

Acknowledging that India and the US have differing views on the issue of a military strike on Syria, the Obama Administration has said that the UN Security Council needs to enforce international law, but it shouldn't be an impediment that can protect somebody like Assad.

"Generally we recognise that India has been very reticent to support military action in general and has been very focused on the UN Security Council," a senior administration official told reporters in a media round table on Friday.

India has been opposed to unilateral military strike in any third country without the approval of the UN Security Council, while the US insists that as Russia has used its veto power to block any move by the Security Council, it is an obligation on the part of countries like US to hold the Bashar al-Assad regime responsible.

"I think part of the point is that the United States has expressed support for India's aspirations toward the Security Council. It's important that the Security Council can work," the official said.

"And so as India looks to take on that greater responsibility and as the US supports India in that effort, we'll continue to make the case that the Security Council has to be a vehicle to get things done and to enforce international law and it shouldn't be an impediment that can protect somebody like Assad," the official said.

"I think the point we would make to India is that sometimes the UN Security Council is unable to act because you have a veto wielding member in Russia that will block any action," the official said.

The US said that the Syria situation has forced it to confront a choice between allowing an international law to be broken and taking action if necessary outside of the Security Council.
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
672
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. :wave:"

Indonesia calls for Muslim representation on Security Council


Hassan Wirajuda, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia

The world's estimated 1.1 billion Muslims deserve specific representation on an expanded Security Council, Indonesia's Foreign Minister said today, calling for any reform of the 15-member body United Nations body to consider the need for a variety of constituencies as well as greater geographic distribution.


Hassan Wirajuda told the General Assembly's annual General Debate that the Council was in urgent need of reform, saying that in a series of recent conflicts and tensions – over Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Iraq and Afghanistan, among others – the panel "should have been more decisive."

To make the Council more democratic, the application of veto power of the permanent five [members] must be regulated :thumb:

Mr. Wirajuda said it was clear that the Council's inability to deal adequately with these challenges was due mainly to what he described as its lack of democracy.

"To make the Council more democratic, the application of veto power of the permanent five [members] must be regulated," he said, referring to China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. "The misuse of the veto by any one permanent member should no longer be allowed to paralyze the entire Council."

He said that true democratization of the Council "also means an equitable distribution of its membership – not only in terms of geographical representation, where we already have imbalances – but also in terms of constituencies. Hence, the world's major civilizations should be proportionately represented. The world's community of 1.1 billion Muslims must be represented on the Council if it is to be truly democratic." :truestory:

Meanwhile, Zambia's Foreign Minister stressed the need for two permanent and two non-permanent seats on the Council for African nations, given that the continent comprises the second largest bloc of UN Member States.

Such a move would help to redress "the historical injustice against Africa," Kabinga J. Pande said.

Uruguay's External Relations Minister, Gonzalo Fernández, told the Assembly that his country would not support reform of the Council if it meant the creation of new members with veto rights.
:ranger:

Mr. Fernández said the veto right "constitutes a privilege that goes against the democratization of our Organization" and would in any case not be allowed under any intergovernmental negotiations package.
:thumb:

Earlier this month the General Assembly adopted a decision to begin intergovernmental negotiations on Council reform in informal plenary by February next year.

However, Mr. Fernandez said he was disappointed that countries have not yet reached consensus on reform, and taken on "timid steps forward" on changes to the UN Secretariat and the General Assembly.

Paula Gopee-Scoon, Foreign Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, said reform of Council was indispensable to the wider transformation of the UN.

"Failure to reform the Security Council could serve to undermine that organ's authority as the agency with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security," she said.

Mrs. Gopee-Scoon said small States such as her own deserved "equity of access" on any expanded Council and she added that there was a need for all the world's regions to be represented in the permanent membership.

For his part, Pham Gia Khiem, Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of Viet Nam, said reform of the UN should not be confined to just the Security Council, but include the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and specialized agencies as well.

Such reforms "will make this Organization more effective and efficient in the areas of work mandated by the [UN] Charter," he said.

Reforming the world body could also bolster its ability to alleviate the suffering resulting from the current food crisis and propel globalization to help ensure peace and development for all, Tunisia's Foreign Minister, Abdelwaheb Abdallah, said.

He called on international financial institutions to create and implement agricultural and production policies that would guarantee the fundamental right to food security for all.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=28334&Cr=general+assembly&Cr1=debate#.UlFMAVCuy9o
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
672
Is UNSC reform possible?
November 15, 2013



The reform of the United Nations Security Council is a crucial issue on the current international agenda. Depending on the outcome, it will determine the effectiveness of the work of the whole UN system for the foreseeable future.

Bearing that in mind, Russia is advocating giving the SC a more representative character and favors the idea of preserving the compact membership of the Council, which should not exceed, at best, the ceiling of 'low 20s'. We strongly believe that the efforts in this area should be aimed, first of all, at enhancing the Council's ability to promptly and effectively react to emerging challenges. This becomes even more relevant today as we witness multiplying conflict situations. :thumb:

Any ideas that impinge on the prerogatives and powers of the current permanent members of the Council, including the veto right, are unacceptable. These prerogatives are a reflection of the historic contribution that the P5 made towards making the UN a reality. Besides that, the veto is an important factor that motivates the SC members to seek balanced decisions. It would be incorrect, both history-wise and politically, to infringe on this right, which was established to help escape one-sided decisions, fraught with ruining the UN.

However, the level of progress so far does not allow to say that we have come closer to a universal formula of the SC reform. The approaches of various countries still differ substantially. Under these circumstances, there is no alternative to a continuation of the patient work towards bridging the gap.

This work should take into account that the issue of the UN SC reform could not be simply addressed by way of math, by putting to vote a draft reform and obtaining the required two thirds of the General Assembly. A result thus achieved would hardly add authority to the Council, or serve to strengthen the United Nations. :ranger:

Within this context we would fully endorse a formula of the SC reform that would enjoy the widest possible support of UN member-states - by a much larger majority than the legally-required two-thirds, i.e. we need general agreement. We are also ready to consider any option for expansion of the SC that would be reasonable, including the so-called 'intermediate solution', provided it is based on compromise and supported by the widest consensus in the UN. It is also important to try to make this process as transparent and inclusive as possible. :ranger:

We hope that all member-states will show political will and readiness to reach a reasonable compromise in order to make the UN SC reform possible.

Is UNSC reform possible? — RT Op-Edge
 
Last edited:

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
5,367
Likes
26,838
Country flag

HomeAll India"Tomorrow Could Be Too Late": Sushma Swaraj Calls For Urgent UN Reform
"Tomorrow Could Be Too Late": Sushma Swaraj Calls For Urgent UN Reform
Sushma Swaraj at UN: The UN needs to follow the format of the family -- to work together for the welfare of all the nations, Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj said. India doesn't believe that the United Nations should become the instrument of a few at the cost of the many, she stressed.
All India Edited by Nidhi Sethi
Updated : September 30, 2018 7:19 am IST

Highlights
Sushma Swaraj said changes cannot be cosmetic, are needed today
She said that the UN must accept that it needs fundamental reform
Ms Swaraj said UN needs to act like a family and must run on compassion
New York: The United Nations is losing significance in the absence of fundamental reforms, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Saturday. As she spoke at length on cross-border terrorism and the worsening India-Pakistan relations, she also took an opportunity to talk about the need for reforms at the United Nations. She said that multilateralism will collapse if the world body remains ineffective.

"While highlighting the positive role of the UN, I must add that the importance, influence, respect and value of this institution is beginning to ebb," she said.

Ms Swaraj warned against a delay in reforms, and said "tomorrow could be too late".


"The United Nations must accept that it needs fundamental reform. Reform can't be cosmetic. We need change the institution's head and heart to make both compatible to contemporary reality. Reform must begin today; tomorrow could be too late," she said.

She advised that the United Nations must try and emulate the format of a family -- the nations must work together and keep every country's goals in perspective.

Advertisement
One has to feel the pain of others to help them, she said.

"At UN, we cannot say 'this is me and mine'. A family is shaped by love and is not transactional; a family is nurtured by consideration not greed; a family believes in harmony not jealousy. Greed breeds conflict; consideration leads to resolution. That is why the United Nations must be based on the principles of the family," she said.

Advertisement
Drawing a parallel with the fate of the League of Nations, Ms Swaraj said the League went into meltdown because it was unwilling to accept the need for a reform.

"We must not make that mistake. If 2030 is the agreed deadline for delivery on Sustainable Development Goals, then it also marks 100 years of the lapse of the League into irrelevance. Surely there is something to learn from this coincidence?" she said.

Advertisement
India doesn't believe that the United Nations should become the instrument of a few at the cost of the many, she stressed.

"India believes that we must move forward together or we sink into the swamp of stagnation," she said.

India has repeatedly spoken about the need for an early reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC) including the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership to enhance its effectiveness and representativeness.

Along with the fellow nations in the G4 bloc, India has maintained that the current composition of the 15-nation Council does not reflect the changed global realities and stressed that UNSC reform is essential to address today's complex challenges.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
4,797
Likes
4,220
Country flag
We must keep trying to convince the UNSC for reforms, but at the same time as an independent power bloc, we should also focus on pushing for multilateralism and mini-lateralism (within a multilateral framework). Let's face it; the UN was powerful after the WW2; today, with the advent of dozens of technologies, it is hardly doing anything serious.

Agencies like WHO have already been bought over by China, while the UNSC's voting pattern is aggressively dominated by two squabbling sides (East vs West). Caught in the middle are countries like:
  • India
  • The 54 African countries,
  • the 20+ countries of Latin America,
  • the 15+ countries of Oceania
  • non-EU East European countries
I do not say that we must start a movement to leave the UN, but we need to create frameworks with various countries to enable a mechanism of cooperation where every country's vote is heeded and equally given importance.

One way to achieve this is by creating or boosting the role of India-Latin America/ India-Africa /India-Oceania Cooperation Organization. While we already have some of these frameworks for trading, we don't have them for policy development. Interestingly enough, India as a country shares a lot of problems that all these countries face: terrorism, poverty, diseases, wars, education, healthcare, etc. These frameworks will need to be modeled along the lines of UN but with one major difference; all the voices of every country will be heard and put to vote.

  • Suriname will have the same voting power as Brazil or India
  • Rwanda and Cabo Verde will have the same powers as South Africa or Nigeria
  • Nauru or Tokelau will have the same powers as Australia or New Zealand
And given our robust foreign policy leadership now under Dr. Jaishankar, this is something we can attempt. We could also rope in friendly countries such as Japan and Brazil, who are fellow G4 members demanding for UNSC reforms.

But again, this would only have people with non-permanent memberships of the UN.

P5, G7 and EU countries need not be invited.

_____________

The only diplomatic way of rendering the biased United Nations useless, is to imitate it and modify it with the requisite changes. Convince countries to join these inter-regional cooperation frameworks, put it to tests, and then let the member 'switches', do the talking.
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,188
Likes
791
Country flag
Linking to reform and role of Bharat in and with permanent member of UNSC.

Was reading about the credit lines that was provided to Maldives.


It is a good development no doubt and with the increased role of Bharat.

However:

Not for lack of funds ... (please note above)

"With roughly 940 foreign service officers, India has one of the most understaffed diplomatic corps of any major country -- just slightly higher than New Zealand’s 885 officers, or Singapore’s 850. It’s vastly outnumbered by the Japanese and Australian services of around 6,000 people, the estimated 7,500 diplomats of rival China and the US State Department’s service of nearly 14,000. "

Read more at:

Conclusion:

One respects that it must not be rushed. One respects the nimbleness. One respects the non-arrogance and master of languages requirements.

One respects Bharat has to increase its foreign service officers to around 5,000+ within the next 2-5-8 years and it must not be shy and shameful about it.

Money is not the problem ... Maldives is not a foreign service officer ...
 

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
5,367
Likes
26,838
Country flag
What do they mean when they say "reform" also how will they achieve it?
Reform means giving G-4 countries permanent seat in the security council and liberating UN by making it more open and multi polar.
Well for now G-4 have been trying to achieve it by speaking in one line and making a grouping to work on this issue.
 

Lancer

Bana
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2019
Messages
1,319
Likes
5,145
Country flag
The international furore against China might just be the moment we were waiting for @ the UNSC. If they continue to be the lone holdout amongst the UNSC nations against admitting India - something may be done to facilitate our entry.

Won't be easy though, and any workaround will likely be without precedent.
 

Assassin 2.0

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2019
Messages
5,367
Likes
26,838
Country flag
For reforming UNSC, veto power should be dropped in favour of majority votes.

CCP will never let us in.
So if CCP never let us in and this is not only particularly about india it's about all G-4 countries so do you belive on the statement which is passed by G-4 countries that UN may become obsolete if it's not reformed?
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
4,797
Likes
4,220
Country flag
Linking to reform and role of Bharat in and with permanent member of UNSC.

Was reading about the credit lines that was provided to Maldives.


It is a good development no doubt and with the increased role of Bharat.

However:

Not for lack of funds ... (please note above)

"With roughly 940 foreign service officers, India has one of the most understaffed diplomatic corps of any major country -- just slightly higher than New Zealand’s 885 officers, or Singapore’s 850. It’s vastly outnumbered by the Japanese and Australian services of around 6,000 people, the estimated 7,500 diplomats of rival China and the US State Department’s service of nearly 14,000. "

Read more at:

Conclusion:

One respects that it must not be rushed. One respects the nimbleness. One respects the non-arrogance and master of languages requirements.

One respects Bharat has to increase its foreign service officers to around 5,000+ within the next 2-5-8 years and it must not be shy and shameful about it.

Money is not the problem ... Maldives is not a foreign service officer ...
In a way it is good. Remember what Gen. Mattis of United States said, "If there are less diplomats, then that means I will have to buy more bullets".

That is exactly what we need at this point of time. For far too long, we have relied on bolstering the soft image. India's soft power status is well known and acknowledged around the world.

Despite China's more manpower in diplomacy, we far outstrip the Chinese in terms of positive perception world over.

Proof?

Just look at the UNSC non-permanent voting in favour of India: 184 out of 192 voters. The total count is 195 in the United Nations.

The world wants us as an alternative to the existing 4 powerhouses.

They see us as a benign power that will ensure fair treatment of all countries.

Basically, Arthashastra has succeeded.

The USA politically and militarily intervenes
China intervenes through trade and economic warfare
Russia is just focused on political + energy deals

India on the other hand, is fair to the countries.

If we weren't doing a fine job with existing diplomats, then we won't have won such numbers.

___________________________-

We need to show our hard credentials also and for that, we need to bolster our military investment:

Reduce manpower and focus on building more technological prowess.

The foundation of our diplomacy is strong enough to shield our military development from criticism.

At the most, we can expect the UK and USA (if Democrats come to power) to raise concerns. The EU with a friendly France won't bother while Germany will just not to whatever the USA says). Russia will be pleased as it gets business whether standalone or through JVs.

_______________________

So you see, we are actually in the best possible position to justify a ramp-up of hard power; especially since the world is now seeing us as a frontline defender against CCP's aggression.

We can afford to build more guns over giving more buns to win influence.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
4,797
Likes
4,220
Country flag
So if CCP never let us in and this is not only particularly about india it's about all G-4 countries so do you believe on the statement which is passed by G-4 countries that UN may become obsolete if it's not reformed?
UN is already becoming irrelevant.

Tell me; all the P5 members have someone as their favourite country. We have 3 of the P5 members that back us from time to time all the time.

There is 0 South American, African or Australasian representation.

Brazil, the largest South American economy and the most powerful Latin American nation, is excluded.

Nigeria, the largest African economy, and South Africa the most industrially-advanced African country; both are excluded.

India, the world's 5th largest economy, 4th most powerful military force and 2nd largest population is excluded despite being a core member of the winning side of WW2.

Japan, the 3rd largest economy on the planet, and the largest foreign donor country for development projects are excluded.

Germany, the largest European economy and technologically the most advance country in Europe, is excluded on the flimsy grounds of something that happened 75 years ago.

Indonesia, the largest economy in Southeast Asia and the 4th most populated country on the planet, is excluded.

Australia, though in alliance with the USA, is the largest economy in Oceania. It is excluded. Alternatively, Fiji should be given permanent seat representing the entire Pacific since Australia and NZ already have the favour of the UK and the United States.

There is ZERO confidence in African countries on the work that the UN has done individually, France, UK, China, India + Japan are doing far more work for the benefit of specific countries.

So what legitimacy or relevance does UN have anyway?
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,188
Likes
791
Country flag
In a way it is good. Remember what Gen. Mattis of United States said, "If there are less diplomats, then that means I will have to buy more bullets".

That is exactly what we need at this point of time. For far too long, we have relied on bolstering the soft image. India's soft power status is well known and acknowledged around the world.

Despite China's more manpower in diplomacy, we far outstrip the Chinese in terms of positive perception world over.

Proof?

Just look at the UNSC non-permanent voting in favour of India: 184 out of 192 voters. The total count is 195 in the United Nations.

The world wants us as an alternative to the existing 4 powerhouses.

They see us as a benign power that will ensure fair treatment of all countries.

Basically, Arthashastra has succeeded.

The USA politically and militarily intervenes
China intervenes through trade and economic warfare
Russia is just focused on political + energy deals

India on the other hand, is fair to the countries.

If we weren't doing a fine job with existing diplomats, then we won't have won such numbers.

___________________________-

We need to show our hard credentials also and for that, we need to bolster our military investment:

Reduce manpower and focus on building more technological prowess.

The foundation of our diplomacy is strong enough to shield our military development from criticism.

At the most, we can expect the UK and USA (if Democrats come to power) to raise concerns. The EU with a friendly France won't bother while Germany will just not to whatever the USA says). Russia will be pleased as it gets business whether standalone or through JVs.

_______________________

So you see, we are actually in the best possible position to justify a ramp-up of hard power; especially since the world is now seeing us as a frontline defender against CCP's aggression.

We can afford to build more guns over giving more buns to win influence.
No doubt that the IFS has done a fantastic job and continues to but I would not label it singularly. The positions and role of Bharat has many threads that originate from away and sometimes with few(er) and many. That shall always continue no matter if there are few foreign service officers (in 1945) to 950+ today and much more tomorrow. I appreciate and agree with much of what you say.

I sincerely believe it is time to stop thinking 950+ foreign service officers is enough for Bharat.

Moderation and having too much no doubt is important and increasing in size has to be done carefully. I sincerely believe it must not be rushed but it must also not be stationary and without any movement. Non-arrogance and master of languages is the ratio and much more.

We also need to stop thinking that supporting government and related officers to go overseas is something to be coy and shy about (in moderation and sensibly).

There is economic, political and now there is an approach to development that has to be human-centric. Righteous and by righteousness.

Regional and globally the role of Bharat has to and will increase.

Some will say - 30 Million NRIs are in essence foreign services officers technically. Some observe the larges credit lines that are being afforded by Bharat to nearby and observing the budget of the foreign service in due light.

950+ foreign service officers is not enough. It has to be around 5,000+ What is wrong with having 5,000? What is wrong with having ICBM with 10,000KM+ range and MIRV? What is wrong with doing an ASAT test?

What is wrong with having UNSC permanent member seat for Bharat (whatever body it is UN* and otherwise).

Reform? Reconfiguration? Reawakening?

There is a lot for Bharat to do and will do in time ahead. Be ready. Jai Hind.

Disclaimer: I don't want to be a foreign service officer - though I admire them much and support whoever does become one and has and will.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top