Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 79

Thread: reforms @ UNSC

  1. #46
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    UNSC is no SC because it doesn't provides any security to anyone, specially if the threat is from one of the P5s. Dilawar is correct in this respect. Not only India, even countries like Japan, Germany, Brazil, South Africa et al shoud stop lobbying for getting a permanent seat and rather concentrate on consolidating their own politico-military clout.
    Delta,

    The UNSC provides a great degree of security to the P5 from threats emanating from each other. No over-ambitious proxy has so far been able to leverage the P5 into a massive hot war because its actions were diplomatically curbed by the overriding veto. It has a simple uncomplicated wisdom of its own. If any country is given a permanent seat and absolute veto in the future, it will be India (and only India of the "G4"). Why? It may become the one and sole country which can really drag the world into a massive hot war upon instigation from a P5 proxy and in violation of a UNSC resolution. The simplest solution would be to include it in the P5 (note I still say P5) and forefend that scenario.

  2. #47
    Banned Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 07
    Posts
    65
    Hi Cactus. Obviously the UN has some success stories. So has the NPT too.

    However any assorted organization would have come to India's help just after Independence. Indians remember US aid and wheat shipments in the 50 till date as an individual country. The Bengal famine had only one reason..diversion of large stocks of food to feed the allied forces during the War, Famines never occurred in democratic India after independence like they did in China in the 60's.

    Please don't read too much into my take here. I would'nt have minded the UN one bit if India was in the UNSC. Thats hypocrisy in a way really i acknowledge. By India not being in the UNSC a lot of our neighbours started going the wrong way and courting the CCP. But being in the UNSC would have integrated India much earlier into a positive global framework. The UNSC veto is a powerful one indeed.

    JMT BTW.
    Last edited by dilawar; 12 Oct 08, at 17:55.

  3. #48
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by dilawar View Post
    Hi Cactus. Obviously the UN has some success stories. So has the NPT too.

    However any assorted organization would have come to India's help just after Independence. Indians remember US aid and wheat shipments in the 50 till date as an individual country. The Bengal famine had only one reason..diversion of large stocks of food to feed the allied forces during the War, Famines never occurred in democratic India after independence like they did in China in the 60's.
    Sir, I don't dispute that in 1950s someone might have come to India's aid... I will say however that we cannot imagine what the price for that aid would be. Given its poor and poorer options, IMHO it took the most decent one possible. I don't think India could have gotten any better deal - overall - than it did from the UN.

    Quote Originally Posted by dilawar View Post
    Please don't read too much into my take here. I would'nt have minded the UN one bit if India was in the UNSC. Thats hypocrisy in a way really i acknowledge. By India not being in the UNSC a lot of our neighbours started going the wrong way and courting the CCP. But being in the UNSC would have integrated India much earlier into a positive global framework. The UNSC veto is a powerful one indeed.
    Sir, I effectively believe the same thing (see my post to Delta)... but I don't think (i) that India is ready yet, and (ii) that it is hypocrisy. PRChina essentially bought its seat with the 250,000 lives of men it sacrificed in Korea and the unknown tens of thousands it again did in Vietnam. If India doesn't wish to buy it with blood, it has to be able to buy it with something else... something I don't see happening for 15-20 years.

  4. #49
    Regular Akaloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Posts
    106
    A UNSC in the not too distant future may look like this...

    BRAZIL
    CHINA
    EUROPEAN UNION
    INDIA
    JAPAN
    RUSSIA
    UNITED STATES

    These countries pretty much have the biggest populations and strongest economies. (Note the EU is not a country)
    Last edited by Akaloc; 13 Oct 08, at 03:27.

  5. #50
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Cactus View Post
    Delta,

    The UNSC provides a great degree of security to the P5 from threats emanating from each other. No over-ambitious proxy has so far been able to leverage the P5 into a massive hot war because its actions were diplomatically curbed by the overriding veto. It has a simple uncomplicated wisdom of its own. If any country is given a permanent seat and absolute veto in the future, it will be India (and only India of the "G4"). Why? It may become the one and sole country which can really drag the world into a massive hot war upon instigation from a P5 proxy and in violation of a UNSC resolution. The simplest solution would be to include it in the P5 (note I still say P5) and forefend that scenario.
    Cactus,
    I concede that the UNSC has prevented the member countries from waging war against each other for more than 5 decades, however, it has not prevented other non member countries from waging war and thus is not a common and general solution provider. As Dilawar has remarked, I too would prefer to be a hypocrit, would India get's a permenent seat. Gordon Brown has been lobbying for a permenent seat for India and if political statements are an indicator, even France and Russia support India's bid. Then what's stopping the P5s from extending one to India? US? China? Given the recent warm up between India and the US and the electric bolt speed with which the 123 deal was finalised, its evident that if the US wants something done for India, it can do so with or without China's willingness. Then what's the reason for the delay? Now that all the permenent P4s have no reservations regarding India getting a permemnent seat and China's silence regarding the issue, one wonders what exactly is stopping the UNSC from reforming itself.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  6. #51
    Senior Contributor xrough's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 07
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    1,295
    Akaloc,

    I think having an organization in the SC will face a future conflict since EU countries still has its own independent approach in different scenarios thus could lead to conflict of interest in the future. Btw, do you include UK in the EU that you mentioned?

  7. #52
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Gordon Brown has been lobbying for a permenent seat for India and if political statements are an indicator, even France and Russia support India's bid. Then what's stopping the P5s from extending one to India? US? China?
    Major,

    I'm afraid you fell into that propaganda trap. The ONLY reason why the US, France, and the UK feel safe to support India and Japan, etc, is that they know that China would oppose just as China knows that her support for Brazil and Germany would be opposed by others. In other words, it's a game the P5 plays to gain brownie points with the likes of India, Germany, and Japan. The P5 has no intention of thinning their ranks.

  8. #53
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Major,

    I'm afraid you fell into that propaganda trap. The ONLY reason why the US, France, and the UK feel safe to support India and Japan, etc, is that they know that China would oppose just as China knows that her support for Brazil and Germany would be opposed by others. In other words, it's a game the P5 plays to gain brownie points with the likes of India, Germany, and Japan. The P5 has no intention of thinning their ranks.
    Sir,
    I didn't fall into the propaganda, infact I know it perfectly to be just propaganda and nothing else. Note the timing and place, he was visiting India and went back home with a jubilant India behind, basking under the British lip service. I was contesting Cactus on the hypocrisy and irrelevance of the UNSC and the possible expansion of P5.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  9. #54
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Delta,

    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Cactus,
    I concede that the UNSC has prevented the member countries from waging war against each other for more than 5 decades, however, it has not prevented other non member countries from waging war and thus is not a common and general solution provider.
    Isn't that worth something? The League of Nations collapsed in less than 25 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Then what's stopping the P5s from extending one to India?
    India has to be willing to pay the price of entry - which it is either unable or unwilling to do so at the moment.

  10. #55
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Cactus View Post
    Delta,
    Isn't that worth something? The League of Nations collapsed in less than 25 years.
    Cactus,
    Not worthwhile. Because only selective nations are reaping the benefits.
    Not a characteristic of a world body.
    India has to be willing to pay the price of entry - which it is either unable or unwilling to do so at the moment.
    You might be right in that. However, I have a strange feeling that with the 123 agreement in place, the chances of the IA getting involved with the US's future missions have increased. So may be GoI has finally decided to pay the prices.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  11. #56
    Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 08
    Location
    Land of Seven Sisters
    Posts
    132
    If US consider India I thinks rest P5 member should not oppose India's stand. Recent development indicates such development in India's favour, further economic prosperity should also complement such development in India's favour.

  12. #57
    Regular Akaloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 08
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by xrough View Post
    Akaloc,

    I think having an organization in the SC will face a future conflict since EU countries still has its own independent approach in different scenarios thus could lead to conflict of interest in the future. Btw, do you include UK in the EU that you mentioned?
    I removed France and the UK in favor of a EU seat in the hope that EU would become more of a superstate in the future, with a unified foreign policy. There shouldn't be any conflict of interest then. Even if there was, it should be like a conflict of interest between California and New York.

  13. #58
    New Member
    Join Date
    15 Oct 08
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    9
    point to note, the un reps from the various countries on the sc are there to highlight their respective countries or allies interest and any future expansion of the sc will see the same thing continue. if a certain resolution is against a country intertest, the resolution wont even pass. especially if it concerns the P5.

    the sc should be equal in power, meaning no one should get the right to veto any resolution. any future expansion should see that all sc members working together to further the interest of the united nations instead of carrying their countries instructions.

    deals would usually be made to allow the resolution to be passed, and sometimes the new resolution just well doesnt work anymore

    even if certain resolutions are passed, the un doesnt usually have the manpower to carry it out without asking countries to contribute troops, funding etc. future reforms can also be done to rectify that. maybe allow the un to have a contingent of manpower that allows it to enter hotspots to begin the groundwork for carrying out the resolutions. strengthening the various ngos that they have ties with.

  14. #59
    Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 08
    Location
    Land of Seven Sisters
    Posts
    132
    India plays a prominent role in war against terrorist, such initiatives should be a plus point for India for a claim in UNSC.

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor BenRoethig's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jan 04
    Location
    Dubuque, Iowa, United States
    Posts
    1,458
    They need a lot of changes to the United Nations. First, the veto power needs to go. Nothing gets done while it exists. Second, there needs to be requirements for sitting on committees...like your citizens having rights. No more police states chairing the human rights commission. Third, it should be what it was intended to be: a forum for discussion and not some half-assed attempt at world government that is accountable to no one. Fourth, the ICC needs to become a real, respected court and not a political tool. No more trying to arrest our soldiers as a political stunt while letting those who commit genocide do as they wish. If not, it has no reason to exist. Also, a couple years in prison is no where near an appropriate punishment for the deaths of thousands of people.
    F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •