Should Organization of Islamic countries (OIC) have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council??
I think it should because every 5th person in this world is a muslim. The clout of muslims should be increased and muslims should be given their due place in the world arena
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
While as a muslim I am fully onboard with this kind of suggestion, I can easily see the arguments of opponents for this.
All current permanent members of UNSC are soverign countries. OIC is an organization of several countries. OIC does not represent any unified geo-political view point or military or common vision. It will create an inane precedence. What will be next? ASEAN to get a permanent seat too?
Another proposal will be to reserve one seat on UNSC for a member of OIC. Again, it gets you the same thing i.e. continued muslim representation in UNSC.
The bigger problem is the whole utility of UNSC. A lot of muslims (and others) think that UNSC is an impotent organization. Its about power. Countries with military and political power (say, US) use UNSC as they wish. If UNSC refuses to get behind them (e.g. Serbian issue in 1990's) they'll still attack using NATO umberella. Where it suits UNSC, they impose sanctions (e.g. Iran) and where it doesn't suit US, UNSC is very ineffective (e.g. sanctions against Israel have been rejected again and again). So the whole utility of UNSC is a big question mark.
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
Are we ignoring the OIC is incompetent in itself? There's no good is having an incompetent organization grab a seat in the grand daddy of incompetence.
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
While as a muslim I am fully onboard with this kind of suggestion, I can easily see the arguments of opponents for this.
All current permanent members of UNSC are soverign countries. OIC is an organization of several countries. OIC does not represent any unified geo-political view point or military or common vision. It will create an inane precedence. What will be next? ASEAN to get a permanent seat too?
Another proposal will be to reserve one seat on UNSC for a member of OIC. Again, it gets you the same thing i.e. continued muslim representation in UNSC.
The bigger problem is the whole utility of UNSC. A lot of muslims (and others) think that UNSC is an impotent organization. Its about power. Countries with military and political power (say, US) use UNSC as they wish. If UNSC refuses to get behind them (e.g. Serbian issue in 1990's) they'll still attack using NATO umberella. Where it suits UNSC, they impose sanctions (e.g. Iran) and where it doesn't suit US, UNSC is very ineffective (e.g. sanctions against Israel have been rejected again and again). So the whole utility of UNSC is a big question mark.
Well stated Faisal.
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
One in 6 people in the world is Indian. And India is a sovereign country . Before even suggesting any other basis of representation, India must be admitted in the UNSC as a permanent member.
One of the reasons UNSC has become marginal to the point of serving limited interests is its constitution which has left this block of 1/6 of the world unrepresented
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
I think OIC should have its own force, which is sent to any OIC country that comes under attack or threat. All OIC members should contribute to the force. OIC should have been our unifying platform.
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
One of the reasons UNSC has become marginal to the point of serving limited interests is its constitution which has left this block of 1/6 of the world unrepresented
I completely disagree that UNSC is marginal/impotent because India is not in it. Infact, there is a reasonable argument that by having permanent members with veto rights, UNSC has completely lost its credibility and effectiveness. Adding another veto-yielding member is just going to make it even more impotent. More self-interests will need to be catered to. I am all for completely aboloshing veto rights (majority rules). Permanent seats on UNSC is fine.
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
One in 6 people in the world is Indian. And India is a sovereign country . Before even suggesting any other basis of representation, India must be admitted in the UNSC as a permanent member.
just because of this argument I would oppose OIC joining UNSC.
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
I agree, OIC should be given a UN permanent seat in its own version of OIC UNO.... : - ()
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
The OIC is not a country - the UNSC consists only of countries.
The OIC should concentrate on first unifying into a single state, then think about applying to the UN.
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
The OIC is not a country - the UNSC consists only of countries.
Great job, repeating what I said in post #2 above. :p
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
theres no reason why an individual country or even oic cant be onboard the most significant decision making group in the world just after the current members have finnished dealing with them!
try again 2050
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
The OIC is not a country - the UNSC consists only of countries.
The OIC should concentrate on first unifying into a single state, then think about applying to the UN.
That's what I meant....OIC shd form its own version of UN and reserve whatever seat it wants
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
I completely disagree that UNSC is marginal/impotent because India is not in it. Infact, there is a reasonable argument that by having permanent members with veto rights, UNSC has completely lost its credibility and effectiveness. Adding another veto-yielding member is just going to make it even more impotent. More self-interests will need to be catered to. I am all for completely aboloshing veto rights (majority rules). Permanent seats on UNSC is fine.
just because of this argument I would oppose OIC joining UNSC.
This reaction is not unpredictable. We have heard this sort of "take both my eyes if it will take take one of India's" before. I am just surprised it is coming from you.
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
^ You probably didn't read the reply. My argument has nothing against India. If you say Australia should be included as a permanent member, I'd say the same thing. I believe having veto power in UNSC has made it an impotent organization. I am perfectly fine with India or Japan or Australia or whoever, getting a permanent seat. I am against the veto power.
Plus I completely disagreed with your assertion that some how UNSC is not effective because India is NOT in it. Please elaborate. You completely lost me with your thought process. How having an additional veto yielding member in UNSC make it MORE effective??
Re: Should Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Have A Permanent Seat On UNSC?
I would whole heartedly support Arab League over impotent OIC. Go Arabs!!