India deserves a UN permanent security council seat! With peace between India and Pakistan, Pakistan should support India become a permanent member of security council. What do you’ll think?
Give India a UN council seat!
STOCKHOLM: The future credibility of the United Nations Security Council will depend on India being offered a permanent seat, Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Persson said yesterday.
“Is it possible to have in the future a credible multilateral organisation carrying the whole globe, without, for instance, letting in the biggest country according to population, at least soon, India?,” Persson said following a three-day conference here on “Preventing Genocide” conference.
With a population of more than one billion, India has long sought a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, contending that the current membership - Britain, China, France, Russia and the US - no longer represents today’s world order. “We have to reform the Security Council,” Persson said
there should be more regional representation. Maybe India of South Asia, south africa from africa, Saudi Arabis from Middle east, Brazil from South America.
The dada geeri of a few is not a lasting solution.
Instead of expanding, they should get rid of archaic ideas from post WW-II era, and get rid of the veto-power completely.
Practically speaking US does whatever it wants to do anyway, with little regard as to what UN says, anyway. And UNSC permanent council is now quite hopelessly cut off from reality. UK is really no more than a stooge of US, France is almost irrelevant in world politics, Russia has severe internal crisis and power-horses like Germany, India, Japan are all missing. They should either revamp the whole thing to make it a more inclusive body where world issues can be effectively tackled or get rid of it completely. Its getting more irrelevant by the day.
Good to see that finally ,the venomous fangs directed at India are getting short.(when I see my pakistani counterparts supporting Indian ambitions to make it in to United nations permanent meber squad).
India rightfully deserves a place in the U.N security member squad for a number reasons.first one is ,India has actively taken part in almost all U.N missions to different regions of the world and she has lost more men that any other country in such U.N missions.Itsa country of 100 million people and its a democratic and secular nation by its constitution.Its a nation of multi religion,multi ethnic and culture and plays active role in south Asia.It has played pivotal roles in many international issues and has given birth to great people like Gandhi.Its the mother land of worlds three prominent religion and has the potential to play strategic roles in the international arena.
Its a great military force and itsgeographical size reckons to be seventh in the world..
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gesto: *
Good to see that finally ,the venomous fangs directed at India are getting short.(when I see my pakistani counterparts supporting Indian ambitions to make it in to United nations permanent meber squad)..
[/QUOTE]
one does not have to have venemous fangs to oppose anyone's entry as a perm member. I am not convinced at this point, and it has nothing to do with the lame India Pakistan rivalry.
Either we decide in terms of infleunce/size and power, in which case India along with countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia should be included as representatives of their region
Otherwise, I think the whole veto business needs to go. pretty undemocratic.
The veto power should be abolished, and one major country from each region should be give a permanent seat - 12 in total, and another 13 should elected for one year terms. I would have the following countries represent each of the regions, and be given a permanent seat :-
USA, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, Eqypt, Germany, Russia, China, India, Japan and Indonesia and Australia.
I think people who are fixated on abolishing the veto misperceive the nature and mission of the UN. The UN was not intended to be and is not a “World Government.” It is a voluntary organization designed to accomplish specific objectives. Like it or not, the UN cannot achieve its objectives/mission unless certain key countries participate as members. One of those is clearly the US. Another is China. Another is Russia. When the UN was founded, France was perceived as one of the can’t do without countries. Today, it is probably not.
The practical reality is that the US, China, and Russia would probably not be voluntary members of an organization if they would be required to give up important aspects of their independence and sovereignty to the majority vote of a bunch of third world countries. Thus, to keep them in the UN and to preserve the UN’s ability to accomplish any of its objectives, the trade-off is giving them a veto power to eliminate concerns that the UN would usurp their sovereignty.
In deciding whether to extend the veto power to other countries, you’ve got to ask yourself whether that country’s membership in the UN is critical to the accomplishment of the UN’s objective/mission. If yes, and if the country would withdraw from the UN without getting the veto, then you give it to them. If not, you don’t give it to them and they can stay in as a member or quit as they see fit. Whether Venezuela is or is not a member of the UN doesn’t make a hill of beans to accomplishing the purposes of the UN. To preserve aspects of its sovereignty, Switzerland did not voluntarily become a member of the UN until 2002. Neither its previous non-member status nor its present member status impact the UN’s ability to accomplish its objectives.
I’m also quite certain that a number of countries would not want to be voluntary members of the UN if they did not know that their veto-wielding allies on the Security Council could protect them against the popular whim of the majority of third world countries.
Q: Will India withdraw from the UN if it doesn’t get a veto?
A: No.
Q: If it did withdraw from the UN, would the UN be unable to accomplish its objectives?
A: No.
No reason to make it a permanent member with veto power. I can think of several countries, India included, that probably ought to be permanent members of the Security Council without veto power. Malik's list is a pretty good starting place for discussion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
^ Why you didn't include Pakistan in this list?
Pakistan is the biggest islamic country in west asia and can represent this region.
[/QUOTE]
That's true. But Indonesia, Nigeria and Egypt are three Muslim countries that are home to some 350 million Muslims (a quarter of the world's Muslims) so there would be more than adequate representation of Muslims.
Though, in the spirit of peace and reconconciliation maybe India and Pakistan can occupy the South Asia seat on a rotational basis? :)
Either we decide in terms of infleunce/size and power, in which case India along with countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia should be included as representatives of their region
Otherwise, I think the whole veto business needs to go. pretty undemocratic.
[/QUOTE]
Brazil and Saudi do not deserve their places in this squad since these countries do not actively take part in international arena despite their large size.
At any cost entry of Saudi can not be welcomed as Saudi regime poses a color of religious extremity.
Even at a distant possibility,the present permanent members wont give up their veto rights or wont agree with the idea of lifting of veto power from their hands as the same gives them the power of sustenance.without it Israel could not have secured its positions many times ,and all the times when the U.N tried to intervene in many Israel involved disputes,the U.S was infront to give Israel the shield of Veto.
Indians should be thankful to Veto power,because Russians had used it many times in favour of India. :) (thanks to heroic diplomatic efforts from V.K Krishna Menon ).
Those who oppose the Indian entry in to security council fear that it will enable India gain an enduring and stable position on Kashmir and that dream of kashmir(including honey moon in Srinagar :p ) will have to be set aside for ever.
That's true. But Indonesia, Nigeria and Egypt are three Muslim countries that are home to some 350 million Muslims (a quarter of the world's Muslims) so there would be more than adequate representation of Muslims.
Though, in the spirit of peace and reconconciliation maybe India and Pakistan can occupy the South Asia seat on a rotational basis? :)
[/QUOTE]
If you are considering spirit and reconciliation ,you got to consider Israel and Palestine also for that.If this is the trend,more countries will voice for their rights.In my opinion the permanent council must be expanded from time to time based on many criterias including each nations contributions to the U.N.
Entry in to the permamnent security council should not be based on any religion but if at all that to be considered,it must be considered on secularism and religious harmony prevailing in a state.
Inclusion of pakistan along with India seems to be a distant possibility since many countries do seem to opposing it or not interested in it.
Pakistan has not officially claimed it though India has been claiming it for a very long time and India has the support of many members in both the permanent security council and general assembly.(For a very long time ,it seems that Indians have been trying their level best to get these sweet words from every visiting foreign premier). :)
permanent seats should be given to not countries, but to the president of regional organisations.
We can probably keep the existing 5 members.. for they are there for their 'influence' in rest of the world.. and in that light.. France and UK though marginal countries now, do have major influence in rest of the world .. starting from their former colonies.
but best to look at long term reality ... no perm seat for UK & France .. give it to president of EU
As for abolition of security council, dont be absurd... would you try to run a government without a cabinet? you need to have some people in charge. and i don't think i would be very much in favour of having a country size of Zimbabwe or Finland dictating world policy. Maturity of a state and its population also has to be taken into account. sadly a whole lot of countries fail on this juncture..
my Security council would be based on the following exisitng members
US
Russia
China
(for without them.. the organisation would not work)
and the additional seats go to
1. president of EU
2. president of ASEAN
3. president of Arab League
4. president of SAARC
5. President League of African Nations (forgot what the actual name is)
6. president of latin american countries (if there is one)
most of these are on a rotating basis to different countries presiding the organisation, and it would give decent representation to all regional countries... but they would represent the organisation's overall position.
This would lead to more regional dialogue and therefore stability.