
UK backed India’s permanent membership in the UN Security Council and called for reform of other international institutions.
# The permanent five represented on the Security Council reflect the post-war power structure when it was founded in 1946.
# International institutions, if they are to be credible in terms of their ability to grapple with contemporary challenges they can’t ignore countries like India and China.
# Issues like the environment, counter terrorism, and social justice should be recognised in the reform of all the international institutions.
# To alleviate the suffering and impoverishment of the third world, an African country should become a member alongside Brazil, Japan, Germany to give fresh momentum to power distribution.
"America will soon be a third world county."
In many aspects, we already are...Don't get me wrong, I love America. But Bush's neo-con approach is troubling.
Dominant powers will continue having their way (like US invaded Iraq in 2003), while the UN keeps debating.
In this case, it is only proper to delegate tasks and have a consultative assembly among other nations on how they perceive things. The status of other countries, especially in the developing ones, is far different from the perspective of the rich nations. So it is only helpful to get in touch with rather smaller nations who could help and impart some understanding about the global concerns of other countries.
It is a matter of political will and the urge to really help those who are in need. The UN Council should reexamine its principles and create a dialogue among nations who are willing to take an active stance in solving the global crises.
Making countries like India permanent members of security council will mean more hostile nations against Islam because India is Pakistan's enemy no. 1.
Not acceptable at any cost with India in and Pakistan out.
EXPANDING IT MAY ADD MORE DIMENSIONS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL BUT IT IS BASICALLY USELESS NOW.
I am disappointed. Who is going to be the new members? Japan and India? What kind of role they can play because if they are permanent members they have to be US allies too. Japan is an American ally, India is gradually becoming one. Whose purpose they are going to solve in the security council? Neither Iranian's nor Pakistani's. We don't need SC at all.
Local Opinions (46)
"America will soon be a third world county."
In many aspects, we already are...Don't get me wrong, I love America. But Bush's neo-con approach is troubling.
Dominant powers will continue having their way (like US invaded Iraq in 2003), while the UN keeps debating.
In this case, it is only proper to delegate tasks and have a consultative assembly among other nations on how they perceive things. The status of other countries, especially in the developing ones, is far different from the perspective of the rich nations. So it is only helpful to get in touch with rather smaller nations who could help and impart some understanding about the global concerns of other countries.
It is a matter of political will and the urge to really help those who are in need. The UN Council should reexamine its principles and create a dialogue among nations who are willing to take an active stance in solving the global crises.
Making countries like India permanent members of security council will mean more hostile nations against Islam because India is Pakistan's enemy no. 1.
Not acceptable at any cost with India in and Pakistan out.
EXPANDING IT MAY ADD MORE DIMENSIONS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL BUT IT IS BASICALLY USELESS NOW.
I am disappointed. Who is going to be the new members? Japan and India? What kind of role they can play because if they are permanent members they have to be US allies too. Japan is an American ally, India is gradually becoming one. Whose purpose they are going to solve in the security council? Neither Iranian's nor Pakistani's. We don't need SC at all.
Global Opinions (46)
"America will soon be a third world county."
In many aspects, we already are...Don't get me wrong, I love America. But Bush's neo-con approach is troubling.
Dominant powers will continue having their way (like US invaded Iraq in 2003), while the UN keeps debating.
In this case, it is only proper to delegate tasks and have a consultative assembly among other nations on how they perceive things. The status of other countries, especially in the developing ones, is far different from the perspective of the rich nations. So it is only helpful to get in touch with rather smaller nations who could help and impart some understanding about the global concerns of other countries.
It is a matter of political will and the urge to really help those who are in need. The UN Council should reexamine its principles and create a dialogue among nations who are willing to take an active stance in solving the global crises.
Making countries like India permanent members of security council will mean more hostile nations against Islam because India is Pakistan's enemy no. 1.
Not acceptable at any cost with India in and Pakistan out.
EXPANDING IT MAY ADD MORE DIMENSIONS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL BUT IT IS BASICALLY USELESS NOW.
I am disappointed. Who is going to be the new members? Japan and India? What kind of role they can play because if they are permanent members they have to be US allies too. Japan is an American ally, India is gradually becoming one. Whose purpose they are going to solve in the security council? Neither Iranian's nor Pakistani's. We don't need SC at all.
"America will soon be a third world county."
In many aspects, we already are...Don't get me wrong, I love America. But Bush's neo-con approach is troubling.
In this case, it is only proper to delegate tasks and have a consultative assembly among other nations on how they perceive things. The status of other countries, especially in the developing ones, is far different from the perspective of the rich nations. So it is only helpful to get in touch with rather smaller nations who could help and impart some understanding about the global concerns of other countries.
It is a matter of political will and the urge to really help those who are in need. The UN Council should reexamine its principles and create a dialogue among nations who are willing to take an active stance in solving the global crises.
Dominant powers will continue having their way (like US invaded Iraq in 2003), while the UN keeps debating.
Making countries like India permanent members of security council will mean more hostile nations against Islam because India is Pakistan's enemy no. 1.
Not acceptable at any cost with India in and Pakistan out.
EXPANDING IT MAY ADD MORE DIMENSIONS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL BUT IT IS BASICALLY USELESS NOW.
I am disappointed. Who is going to be the new members? Japan and India? What kind of role they can play because if they are permanent members they have to be US allies too. Japan is an American ally, India is gradually becoming one. Whose purpose they are going to solve in the security council? Neither Iranian's nor Pakistani's. We don't need SC at all.
Home

Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mail
RSS 













































