All of us know that India has been trying its level best to be a permanent member of UN Security Council. However, India has been told in a clear tone by big superpowers that “MEMBERSHIP YES, VETO NO”
or in other words
“You may live in our home but keep quite and dont make any nosie”
In my opinion, it is an insult to India that Delhi should not take lightly.It should be refused, point blank, without further ado.
what do you guys think? Do you guys think that India deserves to be a part of security council at the first place? If so, with or without veto? what possible role, in your opinion, india will play as a member of security council? Lets discusss
Beofre you go on to discuss india, i just want to say, i dont understand why they have a veto system. only 5 (?) countries can decide whether your bill goes against thier interest or not, and then completely veto if it does. doesnt democracy, i.e. a majority vote apply here?
India is a natural contender of this post. India should have gotton this position a long time back. India being one of the strongest country, one of the biggest economy, one of the biggest country and representing 1/6th of the world population should have a say in global decisions.
I know it might not be good for pakistan but if you think unbiasedly then india deserves this position. South asia needs a representation in the world say.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by phoenixdesi: *
All of us know that India has been trying its level best to be a permanent member of UN Security Council. However, India has been told in a clear tone by big superpowers that "MEMBERSHIP YES, VETO NO"
.....
[/QUOTE]
Bharatis could have been permanent member. Unfortunately they never had Global vision. Just like the Arrabobs, they were content on defeating their neighbors.
Bharatis now are getting a global view when millions of them left the poverty and misery back home and settled in the West.
In the next few generations, Bharatis will be able to move away from trick-or-treating Pakistan and others. Only then they will truly become Global powerhouse with all its privileges like UN SC membership etc.
I think Pakistan has a better shot at permanent membership if they get their act together in the Middle East and Kashmir. Yeah! You guys may mock me but we have every right to be among the big players.
Anti, Pakistan is n't a contender at all. THis is about India and together with India, we have Brazil and Germany. Well, if India is able to solve the Kashmir issue amicably with Pakistan, then I don't think Pakistan's criticism would be taken into regard. Getting a permanent membership, I believe isn't important but getting the perks that are attached with being a permanant member, i.c. veto power is more important and it lends authenticity to one's position. However, this isn'g gonna happen in the near future because the P5 themselves would not really appreciate that. The report on refroming the UN also mentioned expansion of the UNSC but it doesn't mention anything regarding how to go about dealing with the the issue of veto power or whether the new members, if and when they are inducted would be armed with this weapon.
India stands a better chance, no doubt given the factors listed by Kaka but we have our own reservations which I believe are genuine for the timebeing.
given the fact that India is literally a huge and prominent member of the global community with a rapidly expanding economy and already massive population and military, as well as India's rising global clout - it is inevitable that such a country will be a permanent member with veto power. i don't see how India could end up NOT being in that situation. as the spotlight increases on India's economic power, i think it will become a no-brainer. but obviously, those in power never like to share it or welcome a newcomer if they don't have to. in this case, they will do it reluctantly.
I think the question is should India refuse permanent membership WITHOUT veto power? I'd say, yeah. They should say, "rakho apni permanent membership apnay paas. Aisee ki tesee!"
Almost all 5 veto-yielding members of UNSC have regional disputes here and there. That, by itself, is not a problem. The big thing is that Indians are brown people, and the goras and peelas of the world don't really see the need to involve brown people into critical decision-making.
Plus the whole UNSC concept is archaic. All 5 countries have divergent views on world politics and they were given UNSC just to make sure they never really agree and thus war should not be authorized. You can say, UN was inherently created to be irrelevant.