Home
Will more permanent members in UN Security Council help?
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Jan 28 2008
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.
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
Brajesh
Jan 28 2008
Banglore,
India
All the credit goes to Brown for addressing a problem which many don’t even think about. The global shift of power is tremendous and in this multi polar world we need to think of possibilities that can generate results for the welfare of the entire planet and this initiative is one of them. It’s high time that atomic bomb holders be sidelined with the new ones.
Comment Link
The question here is not of more or less members; rather it’s all about how efficiently the members are playing their roles, irrespective of the country and strength. Instead of increasing the number of permanent members, the veto power should either (a) be given to selected members on rotation basis, or (b) should be abolished altogether assigning equal power to all members (selected from all continents again on rotation basis) and final decision on all disputes should be taken according to the final vote count. It will dilute the hegemony of the five permanent members, which apparently holds no value in the modern world.
The British Prime Minister is such an embarrassment trying to set the stage for himself to play new Bush. While he should be talking of banning UNSC permanently, he’s trying to bring in more corruption, criminals and spinelessness to the already corrupt, criminal and spineless organization – UN. Our past is the key to our future, which I believe will be no fertile and no glorious if more members are brought in.
India, Brazil, Japan, Germany (G-4) and other countries too are demanding for permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, a theory says that they can get the permanent memberships only when the G-4 would drop the demand for Veto Power. Interesting!!! After all it will be worthless expansion.
One should see what is more important in United Nations. UN Reform is more important the expansion of UNSC.
I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorists, and frankly I think some of the politicians are down right nuts. But I don't find it that hard to believe that there are some people beyond our reach who want to grow their power. Think about it, what are most Americans worrying about these days, Angelina’s baby bump? I wish more people would pay more attention to politics so that those with an agenda can't ruin this planet.
Who says the UNSC expansion is not important. Even the UN High Panel Reform Committee has given the recommendations to include one or two permanent and eight non-permanent members in the UNSC. It would help the UNSC to work in much more effectively workable manner.
Of course it would help the United Nations. More than half a century has gone past and the World Body is still recognizing five biggies. This is the right time for five wise men sitting in UNSC to change the perception and take a serious look to countries like India, Brazil, South Africa, Egypt. These countries will be proved as greater friends to make the globe peaceful place to live.
I'd probably be wrong at this but I've yet to see someone specify what the great evil is in the so-called 'new world order' I always figured a 'United Earth' would be a desirable goal.
This is need of the time to include new permanent members in the UNSC and the new members will be the excellent representatives of their own regions. The expansion is needed to enhance the global security against the rising terrorism. The new to be included member should be advanced, developed and economically, technologically, militarily, politically and socially powerful countries. the division of global power will only help every country in the fight against all odds the world is facing at present.
I just started reading 'The UN Exposed' by Eric Shaw. For the love of all that is holy!! That place needs to be turned into something more useful like a put-put golf course or a city dump site. And Brown is next Bush. Take my word on this!!
India and Japan or India and Brazil are the suitable options for permanent membership in the UNSC. The other countries like Brazil, South Africa, Egypt, and Australia should get non-permanent membership on rotation.
this is from the youtube comments
"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.
"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.
Who cares whose on the Security council anyway? The only votes that count are those of the 5 veto holding powers. The other positions are just for show. Its like "look I get to stand in pit row at the race" - doesn't mean you’re anything more than a special spectator.
The UN was and is a Utopian dream, wonderful and well intentioned in theory, but impossible in reality. It needs to go away.
Yes, the global elites have caused wars and killed millions for profit, made sure that drugs and terrorism flourish, work with the Mafia, overthrown the governments, controlled the media and supported repressive regimes...and some pinheads think it's a bad idea to give control of the entire world.
I can’t imagine why such an anti-democratic institution like Security Council with permanent members can still remain. Because there is hardly anything worthwhile is done than to play a dirty politics. It’s of no use. Just put it off…
There is already enough bias in the Security Council with the five permanent members enjoying the veto power that gives them the monopoly to protect their interests even when they are of vital concerns. Any additions in member countries would only add to the disparity and clash of interests in the world. UN is good for nothing at the time and makes no difference. I really feel that UN is an obsolete, impotent and useless organization that only caters to the interests of the five permanent members who will never allow the others to enter in their monopoly and hence no use for it to remain in stature and time to abolish this expensive white elephant!
Hardly. Even with five permanent menbers, the Security Council has been largely toothless. Increasing numbers will make it even more ineffective.
Dominant powers will continue having their way (like US invaded Iraq in 2003), while the UN keeps debating.
Dominant powers will continue having their way (like US invaded Iraq in 2003), while the UN keeps debating.
yes there is the firm need for the expansion of the UN security council to end the monopoly of the five nations who already occupy the permanent positions. This will help end the crises in the world. This was the one aspect and the other one is the very claim for Indians for the permanent seat on the bases that we are the biggest democracy and population is obsolete, for this at point may be the reason for their claim but on the other, this very claim is enough for its disqualification. In India, there are the people who don’t have two times meal and half of India sleeps on the road. in such a situation should this be conferred with the permanent seat in the UN security council, and the answer to this question is the answer to the question whether the UN should be expanded or not. so the expension will certainly help but not on the grounds put forth by India.
Certainly, the permanent members in the UN Security Council have the power to scrutinize major decisions on how things work. But there is the danger of manipulation among what the members want to do.
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.
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.
Absolutely, it should be extended. and just see how the 905 conflict ends. This is supposed to be the United Nations, not a few powerful nations holding sway and making the puppet dance to their tunes.
Someone said Pakistan is opposing India's inclusion as permanent member in UNSC so what??? China, US, UK, France and Russia (all the five permanent UNSC members) have supported it. Poor Pakistanis...
This is not only the question of Veto or no Veto. Getting permanent membership in UNSC is tough job. How can the five permanent members allow others to share the cake. China would never accept anyone from Asia to share the dais. In the present geopolitical context the UN, as world Institution, has been failed and become irrelevant. World has seen its weakness on the question of Iraq war. So, countries should fight to end the veto system to make the world a multi polar world.
To dissolve the UNSC will be the correct step if the UN decides to do a reform in the organization. Why do these five nuclear countries decide what is good and what is bad for the people living in other parts of the world? They have just created a powerful club with their powers unchecked. The United Nations General assembly shows the true representation of countries all around the globe.
Where were those three other permanent members when US and UK single-handedly decided to attack on Iraq by giving false allegations on Saddam Hussein? The UNSC is the group where one out of five countries help to hide the wrongdoing of other one. There should be inclusion of more countries like India and Egypt in the UNSC to represent the voice of Asian and Middle East region at international platform.
Hiding the wrongdoings???? Have you gone mad? The former USSR used the veto power on 122 occasions and most of the times against the dominance of the US. The United States used the same power on 81 times to restrict the power of other permanent members of UNSC as absolute power. Where is the question of hiding of others' wrongdoings?
Getting permanent seats in UNSC is not so simple. The proposal of expansion has been once again sent into disarray. A group of 40 countries such as Italy, South Korea, Pakistan, Argentina, and Mexico are leading their political campaign to stop the proposed expansion of UNSC with the entry of Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil as permanent members.
Yes, of course! It is high time that the UNSC is expanded including countries like India and Brazil. The UNSC was formed keeping in mind the outcome of the WW II. In the last 60 years, the world has changed dramatically.
It is absolutely imperative that the UN Security Council have more permanent members to remain relevant. Else, it will become a farce (if it is not already).
We don't need an expanded permanent security council without representation from strong Islamic countries like Pakistan. Today the most persecuted religion is Islam and they are being threatened all over the world. We need at least Pakistan and another Islamic country like Malaysia to be permanent members.
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.
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.
DO WE NEED UN SECURITY COUNCIL AT ALL. WE HAVE SEEN THAT IF AMERICA WANTS TO DO SOMETHING IT WILL DO IT WITH OR WITHOUT SECURITY COUNCIL LIKE BEFORE STARTING IRAQ WAR.
EXPANDING IT MAY ADD MORE DIMENSIONS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL BUT IT IS BASICALLY USELESS NOW.
EXPANDING IT MAY ADD MORE DIMENSIONS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL BUT IT IS BASICALLY USELESS NOW.
The hell with the UN Security Council. Who wants it? Can it do anything? It is an impotent body. More than preventing wars, it is endorses wars and sanctions killing people. Who would want to join it and become US's slaves? The US will only allow its slaves to join.
I would suggest we have more permanent members and the veto powers of all the members are taken away. This will ensure a more democratic United Nations.
If India is not in the Security Council, it is going to remain a meaningless body. I mean what has France and UK to do there? Tiny nations with tiny armies with nukes. India is the world's largest democracy, has one of the largest militaries in the world, is a booming economy, and has the world's second largest population.
Why should there be no representation from the South East Asia in the UNSC? After all, it is the world's most economically dynamic region. What exactly should be the criteria for a permanent seat? We don't need huge armies, we don't need huge economic powerhouses. Even a peaceful and peace brokering nation like Thailand and Norway can become UNSC permanent member.
it will only hepl when there are countyries like Iran in it. otherwise will not help..............
NOT IF INDIA WITH BAL THARKEY AND MODI IS IN POWER WE MUST NOT ALLOW THEM TO UNITED SECUTRIY COUNCIL. THEY ARE KILLERS LIKE HITLER.
This is an irrelevant question. The question should have been like this - IS THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL A FARCICAL BODY?
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.
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.
hmmmmmmm.......gud thot.......ne1 joins wud be a nice......we need more security......ppl r killin ppl...........sec is imp.........definate help........
It is absolutely imperative that the top world stabilising body is democratised more than it is now. It now seems like a council of village headmen who has grown old and imbecile, yet dictating terms on how the world should run. Veto powers are simply out of sync with times. The Security Council is actually a defunct body that the US uses to legalise many of its internationally criminal activities. Instead give The Hague more power. But is it possible?
There is an English proverb - TOO MANY COOKS SPOIL THE BROTH. A respectable world council will turn into a joke with cheap countries having a say.
HELP WHOM? USA? RUSSIA? CHINA? UK? FRANCE? OR SIMPLY THE OPPRESSED WORLD? THIS IS A JOKE!
A General Assembly majority vote is what we need to pass resolutions on world matters, not a mumbo-jumbo vote with veto powers by just five countries.
Add your Comment
