UN Security Council Reforms

NikSha

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
337
Likes
3
Or is it all that we had to discuss on the topic?
Meh, topic pretty much ended in first few posts. China/Pakistan screwing up India's chance and then chinese members telling us how mighty their friendly neighbourhood country is and why India doesn't deserver the seat.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
496
1. Today, France and UK are still stronger than India in almost every fields including economy ,military and tech.
PLS don't tell how many India's PPP is .
PPP is buill$hit when measuring countries' economy influence.


2. if France and UK are not qualitifed for veto, then India should be less qualitfied.


3. when India can suprass France and UK is still a big problem.

4. UN's present structure is not perfect, but still better than a UN with G4 holding vetos.
Badguy,

I am saying that UN's Veto Members should represent the power equations regionally as well as globally.

# US's Veto is justified because it is the single and only overwhelming Super Power.

# China's Veto is justified because it is the Next most Powerful Nation today and is expected to be the next big thing. Though there its powers have limitations unlike US.

# UK and France are neither overwhelming Powers in their region nor is their future looking particularly bright. Especially with this economic recession, their might, muscle and money are expected to go down. Giving Veto to two European nations that means Europe has two vetoes, So, the question is does Europe(or its veto members) have that kind of Global Power anymore?
IMHO, no. So, instead of giving Europe two vetoes, they must be given one veto, which in IMO, would be accurate representation. And instead of giving it to any one nation, it should be given to EU. So, the European Country that can influence EU most has the loudest voice in UN. That would be accurate power equation representation.

# Russia still has enough clout to merit a Veto.

# India deserves to be a Veto Member because it is the next most growing nation after China and is also the regional power of Sub-continent. Its might, muscle and money are steadily increasing even in the times of economic recession. It is expected to be one of the power centres in about 30 yrs time. Now, tell me any other nation which has all these qualities(remember that India is a seventh largest country and second most populated country), which doesnt have a veto.

My point is: By not having India as a veto member reduces the validity and clout of UN. Besides, UN's present structure doesnt represent the power equations of the different regions accurately.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
740
Meh, topic pretty much ended in first few posts. China/Pakistan screwing up India's chance and then chinese members telling us how mighty their friendly neighbourhood country is and why India doesn't deserver the seat.
well, PLS study how CHina screw IMF and world bank in Africa when China has not veto of IMF and world bank.

1. wave check-note to African countries: " common baby, I can give you fund without any additional political precondistions!"

2. IMF and WB find that their importance in Afrcia go down after african countires can get easy money from China..


3 .so ,IMF and WB has to negoticate with CHina and ask for cooperation from China, otherwise IMF and WB would be drove out africa market by CHinese easy money.


obviosly ,now it is IMF and WB that needs CHinese help to keep its importance in Afrcan market.
here, Chinese thick wallet is more useful than a veto. if IMF and WB can not get cooperation from China, both would be abandoned by african countries.but if both wants to get cooperation from CHina ,they have to give more shares to CHina.


the same logic is fit to UN.

If india is really powerful enough, India itself can "force" UN to get more cooperaton from India.
but fact is that UN still work as usual even when india say no.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,552
Opposition to the expansion plans are giving way,infact recently the UN accepted India's proposal to start intergovernmental talks for the proposed expansion,this despite opposition from the so called coffee club group.Eventually all opposition to expansion to the UNSC veto membership will come to an end too,this is the post recession world we are dealing with and old obduracy will not stand.

the UNSC is a conclave of powers who are willing to abide by the stipulates of a council resolution,which effectively means that none of the members will violate the purpose of the resolution.The UNSC resolution and its effectiveness depends on complete adherence to it(thus recognizing that if one violates the resolutions is with out purpose)

The old system worked on the principle that there exists no country/countries outside the council whose defacto adherence will be required for the mandate of the UNSC resolution to take effect.Today countries like India,Japan,Brazil or South Africa can effectively play such spoil sport.

Eventually the Old order is going to face defiance,defiance is the first steps to great power,India could easily threaten to quit the UNO and refuse in the future to recognize any UNSC resolutions.Could a UNSC resolution calling for economic boycott of country 'A' be effective if a country like India ,Germany or Japan refuse to respect the contents of such a resolution.

If the NSG is any indicator,there will be initial grunting and whining,but eventually they'll step aside and make way.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
496
Opposition to the expansion plans are giving way,infact recently the UN accepted India's proposal to start intergovernmental talks for the proposed expansion,this despite opposition from the so called coffee club group.Eventually all opposition to expansion to the UNSC veto membership will come to an end too,this is the post recession world we are dealing with and old obduracy will not stand.

the UNSC is a conclave of powers who are willing to abide by the stipulates of a council resolution,which effectively means that none of the members will violate the purpose of the resolution.The UNSC resolution and its effectiveness depends on complete adherence to it(thus recognizing that if one violates the resolutions is with out purpose)

The old system worked on the principle that there exists no country/countries outside the council whose defacto adherence will be required for the mandate of the UNSC resolution to take effect.Today countries like India,Japan,Brazil or South Africa can effectively play such spoil sport.

Eventually the Old order is going to face defiance,defiance is the first steps to great power,India could easily threaten to quit the UNO and refuse in the future to recognize any UNSC resolutions.Could a UNSC resolution calling for economic boycott of country 'A' be effective if a country like India ,Germany or Japan refuse to respect the contents of such a resolution.

If the NSG is any indicator,there will be initial grunting and whining,but eventually they'll step aside and make way.
Exactly, what I have been trying to say. But you, of course have articulated it much better than me.:113:
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
740
Badguy,

I am saying that UN's Veto Members should represent the power equations regionally as well as globally.

# US's Veto is justified because it is the single and only overwhelming Super Power.

# China's Veto is justified because it is the Next most Powerful Nation today and is expected to be the next big thing. Though there its powers have limitations unlike US.

# UK and France are neither overwhelming Powers in their region nor is their future looking particularly bright. Especially with this economic recession, their might, muscle and money are expected to go down. Giving Veto to two European nations that means Europe has two vetoes, So, the question is does Europe(or its veto members) have that kind of Global Power anymore?
IMHO, no. So, instead of giving Europe two vetoes, they must be given one veto, which in IMO, would be accurate representation. And instead of giving it to any one nation, it should be given to EU. So, the European Country that can influence EU most has the loudest voice in UN. That would be accurate power equation representation.

# Russia still has enough clout to merit a Veto.

# India deserves to be a Veto Member because it is the next most growing nation after China and is also the regional power of Sub-continent. Its might, muscle and money are steadily increasing even in the times of economic recession. It is expected to be one of the power centres in about 30 yrs time. Now, tell me any other nation which has all these qualities(remember that India is a second largest country and second most populated country), which doesnt have a veto.

My point is: By not having India as a veto member reduces the validity and clout of UN. Besides, UN's present structure doesnt represent the power equations of the different regions accurately.

frankly speaking.

the perfect UN structure is G4: USA, CHINA, EU and Russia(purely for its nuke).

other countries are still not in the same league of big 4,if measured by "compound national power".

in the coming decades, the world would be co-ruled by G3, USA ,CHina and EU.

Japan and Russia would be the challengers . India and Brazil are not even in the position of chanllengers------both are short of solid industry base while powerful industry base the the backbone and base of world power.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,552
somebody throw this buffoon out from this forum................This is supposed to be serious place of discussion.
 

A.V.

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
6,503
Likes
1,152
lets discuuss reality as to what way the reforms of the un are shaping up this thread is not directed to who will rule the world in the future anyway THE VETO POWERS DOES NOT RULE THE WORLD THE UN COMPRISES OF MOST NATIONS AND EVERY COUNTRY AS THEIR SAY SO THE QUESTION OF RULING DOES NOT ARISE
stick only to the un security council reforms here please no TROLLING and degrading the quality of discussion
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
496
frankly speaking.

in the coming decades, the world would be co-ruled by G3, USA ,CHina and EU.

Japan and Russia would be the challengers . India and Brazil are not even in the position of chanllengers------both are short of solid industry base while powerful industry base the the backbone and base of world power.
Badguy,
Firstly, you are assuming that only those who rule the world deserve the UN Veto. Secondly, you are assuming that ruling the world is the primary motive for asking the Veto Power. Then basing on your assumptions your are ruling out India from Security Council because neither does India rule the world nor does it intend to rule the world by acquiring Veto Power. Both your assumptions are wrong.

UN is not a place for a few nations to rule the rest of the world, it is a forum for international countries to regulate the world. Some are given a special power( and responsiblity) as a recognition of their larger clout, might, muscle, money or nukes.

India is a seventh largest country, second most populated nation with one of the fastest growing economies even in times of recession. It is estimated to grow further. India is playing a constructive role in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka conflict. Its nuclear track record is clean. It has traditional relations with Iran and defence ties with Israel. It is one of the traditional friends of Russia from soviet era, yet it has managed to balance its relations with US and has recently signed a nuclear deal after passing through NSG( irony is NSG was setup after India tested to stop any other country from doing so, also to make Indian nukes illegal. The passing NSG basically made India a legal Nuclear Power.) This tells you the diplomatic clout that India enjoys. The balance that India has managed in its International relations. Besides India is the world's largest liberal Democracy(something which not even the Mighty China can boast of).

So, India's money, muscle, clout and might are growing and are expected to grow further. India has moral highground in terms of nuclear prolifiration, democracy, liberal media....etc. India is the regional power of Sub-continent and has played constructive role in the recent conflicts in this zone(Afghanistan, Sri Lanka). Not just that, but India is able to have relations with seeming International opponents like Russia-US, Iran-Israel....etc. This shows the maturity of diplomatic policy of India. And of course India has nukes and India has no-first use policy inspite of having a rogue nuclear Pakistan as neighbour.

These are the qualifications of a powerful, mature, responsible regional and global power. India may not rule the world, but to think that India cant challenge the world order is a gross underestimation.
BTW, China and EU ruling the world is merely wet dream. UK just rides on the back of US. France is a friend of India and AFAIK has agreed to India having a seat in security council(correct me if I am wrong). China still cannot challenge US. US is the one an only super power of the world. China is little more than a regional superpower(though it behaves like a regional bully). India is a regional power.
In future, world is going to be multi-polar with regional satraps playing a greater role(US will still be the superpower). Not having such regional power centers in Security Council will only reduce the clout of UN.
 

NikSha

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
337
Likes
3
somebody throw this buffoon out from this forum................This is supposed to be serious place of discussion.
I have no idea why you guys are even bothering. Reminds me of that other chinese guy who started a 100 post thread and no matter what anyone said, kept on repeating same crap over and over until the thread was locked.

We all know that these trolls ARE NOT here to have a serious discussion, kinda obvious to everyone reading their posts.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
496
Pakistan's ambassador said in the UN, "Enlarging the oligarchy will increase these problems. It will make the Security Council less democratic, less representative, less transparent, less effective and less accountable."

"An increase in national permanent membership is unrealizable," the Pakistan envoy said. "Some of the aspirants are prepared to become permanent members without veto (like India) thus contradicting their claims of counter-balancing the P-5 (the five permanent members)."

"Caution must be exercised in referring to a broad and generic category of permanent membership," he added.

"Permanent membership is contrary to the principle of sovereign equality of states," the Pakistan ambassador said. "There is no criteria for election of permanent members. They are just there. The aspirants, as we know, also just want to be there. But that may be their idea of reform."
What is this Pakistani envoy blabbering about? He says enlarging the security council is less democratic and less representative(as if it is democratic and representative in the first place), then he says that Permanent membership is contrary to principle of sovereign equality of states. Funny that this is coming from Pakistan who has surrendered its so-virginity to Taliban. Anyway, Why doesnt he tell this to his tallel than mountains friend China? Ask China to give up Permanent Seat because it is against the equality of states.:((

In all the blabbering the idiot has raised an important point. He said that India is ready to accept permanent membership without Veto?!? :eek:
Is that India's official position? What is the use of Permanent Membership without Veto?!


PS:The partner of Pakistan is Italy. Now, that we have an Italian Super PM, cant she use her influence to get Italy to support India's cause......
 

kautilya

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
69
Likes
2
frankly speaking.

the perfect UN structure is G4: USA, CHINA, EU and Russia(purely for its nuke).

other countries are still not in the same league of big 4,if measured by "compound national power".
What compound national power? Don't fool yourself too much. China is an economic power but it has some ways to go before it can truly project military power. Would you like to try and get your energy supplies through the Indian Ocean without the concurrence of the USN and the Indian Navy?

At best you are a Japan with nukes and they actually have much better armed forces.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
27,585
Likes
35,097
Country flag
Chinese are also the only last ones the list of compound national power nations to lose a war; to a much smaller Vietnam.
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
740
What compound national power? Don't fool yourself too much. China is an economic power but it has some ways to go before it can truly project military power. Would you like to try and get your energy supplies through the Indian Ocean without the concurrence of the USN and the Indian Navy?

At best you are a Japan with nukes and they actually have much better armed forces.


Today, china is in fact a mercantile isolationist ,who has powerful economy power but no interest to oversea miliatary adventure.

To some extent, China today is somewhat like USA before WW I.

But CHina low profile in miliatry oversea adventure doesn't mean that CHina has no such resource to support oversea adventure.

In fact, USA took only one years to send two million troops to europe during WW I,althought in 1917 USA didn't has army in fact.

the power of CHIna today and USA before WW I come from two factors:

1. powerful industry base, which can provide thier army overwhelming material support ---------In pacific small islands during WW II,every US sodlier in front could receive birthday cake while Japanese army had to live on grass .leaves and snake,which itself prove why Japan was defeated.
2.population: USA before WW I had much more population than UK ,France and German whild China has more population than USA.

India's weakness is not its poverty ,but the shortage of powerful industry base.
In fact, Russia is not richer than Brazil if measured by per GDP, but Russia has much more powerful industry base than Brazil.

powerful industry base is backbone and muscle of a country . the wealth is just the dress of a country.

richer countries like Sauia-Arabia maybe look more charmful like a well-dressed gentleman and poorer country like Russia may look like a lay-off worker in rags.
But Russia with powerful backbone and musle can easily crack down Saudia-Araiba.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
496
Today, china is in fact a mercantile isolationist ,who has powerful economy power but no interest to oversea miliatary adventure.

To some extent, China today is somewhat like USA before WW I.

But CHina low profile in miliatry oversea adventure doesn't mean that CHina has no such resource to support oversea adventure.

In fact, USA took only one years to send two million troops to europe during WW I,althought in 1917 USA didn't has army in fact.
Alright, China is the Super Duper power and can defeat any country or group of countries. It has a military budget of 1000000000 billions and it is light years ahead of everyother nation. So? Why is that 'fact' a road block to India(or someother country) acquiring Veto?

Chinese seem to be stuck on their nation's new found clout and thereby expect everyone else to bend over. That doesnt happend my dear.
China being the powerful country is neither a disadvantage or advantage in India's quest to seek its rightful place on Global Politics(Including UN's Security Council).
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
740
Alright, China is the Super Duper power and can defeat any country or group of countries. It has a military budget of 1000000000 billions and it is light years ahead of everyother nation. So? Why is that 'fact' a road block to India(or someother country) acquiring Veto?

Chinese seem to be stuck on their nation's new found clout and thereby expect everyone else to bend over. That doesnt happend my dear.
China being the powerful country is neither a disadvantage or advantage in India's quest to seek its rightful place on Global Politics(Including UN's Security Council).
ok, let's get back to "india's bid to UNSC seat".

in fact it is not practical for India to get veto in forseeable furture.

My suggestion to indian people is to accept a seat without veto.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,323
Likes
11,737
Country flag
Let us discuss the whole gamut of reforms at the UN rather than just Indias bid for the UNSC seat. There is a G4 (Japan,Germany,Brazil and India) aspiring for the seat. Lets include them in our discussion. Also discuss the relevance of the UN and what reforms are required to maintain the relevance of the UN in the changing world order
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
110
China was a third world country ravaged by the world war, little industry and no economy to speak of when it was given the UNSC seat. That too because Nehru refused it for India because he felt it would not be correct for India to sideline China!

We have all seen how China has paid back that favor. China may play their little games with India, once we hit back you won't have a place to hide.

The UN is losing its own credibility by not having India as a permanent member. The same way as G-8 is meaningless without some of the biggest economies in the world now.
 

Officer of Engineers

Professional
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
650
Likes
11
India was never offered a seat in the UN. That was a pipe dream of some British Foreign Office who tried to load up the UNSC with their members. India had as much chance of having a seat as Mongolia. Truman and Churchill said no to Mongolia just as Stalin said no to Canada. Stalin was not even shown India.

The fact of the matter is that 3 egos determined the UNSC: Truman, Churchill, and Stalin. Once you understand that, then it would become obvious why no one else was ever offered a seat.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,821
so ,IMF and WB has to negoticate with CHina and ask for cooperation from China, otherwise IMF and WB would be drove out africa market by CHinese easy money.
Russia also used to give 'easy money' to Asian and African and then they required money from others to shore them up and their whole system collapsed.

So giving 'easy money' for political gains can ruin a country faster than one can say Jack Robinson!

Easy come and Easy go!

I appreciate the Chinese fear of India and Japan entering the UNSC. It will skew the hegemonic ambitions of China as the sole representative of Asia and will make it lose face and the crest that she is riding at present.

There is no doubt that China has made some mind boggling strides in all spheres and that is very creditable. One of the reason is that there is no dissension is because the Chinese as individuals are more interested in their own financial and economic growth than over social issues like human rights and democracy which actually mean nothing to them so long as they themselves are doing fine. This attitude is historical and is finetuned by the theory of Legalism where the State is more important than human individuals!! Therefore, so long as the State caters for the economic well being of the individual, it is irrelevant if human right abuses or totalitarian regime continues. I think that is an ideal way a country can progress since the citizens could not care less how it is achieved.

Yet, at the same time, with globalisation and with the isolation slowly being erased, the Chinese are getting restless. The rural population and those in the Western China and not on the seaboard or Beijing are realising that they are being taken for a ride, more so since they are not the 'true Hans' but the assimilated ones. That is why the last People Congress has taken cognisance of this issue, but it is hard to be resolved.

China is slowly becoming a pressure cooker and it may explode unless the dichotomies are addressed. The CCP will not give way come what may and so repressive methods will be the order of the day, the same way Falun Gong went since they were a highly disciplined and with a huge following that could be a threat to the CCP.

China is too full of dichotomies and it is to early to predict its future and its activities in the world and the UN.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top