should India accept unsc permanent seat without vito power

Status
Not open for further replies.

mukeshkumar007

Active member
Dear All,

Here I attached an article on the point of "Should India Accept UNSC permanent seat without Vito power " ...

http://www.bhaskar.com/defaults/editorial_article1.htm

Both writers arguments in above article seem right. In my views India first should accept the permanent seat with vito power or with vito power (But it should not leave the effort to get vito power by taking the support of china and Russia) . And after that it should try to make a balance in unsc.
I hope that India Will get VITO POWER in unsce.
By the way what you think on this issue.
 
I don't think they should. Permanent seat without veto was offered to india earlier too, which they rejected. Permanent seat without veto is not really permanent.

or they should abolish veto altogether.
 
UNSC permanent membership without veto is nothing but an observer status. If India accepts this, it will have to be a mook spectator only. If we accept this, our position will be like a "bina latth ka chaudhary", who though invited to the Panchayat but not allowed to put forth his point. Hence, we should not accept it. The big five will try their best not to dilute their power and will not agree to the full membership. The article attached by Mukesh sums up the position quite well. I am of the view that with the present regional political situation in our South Asia coupled with our stupid bureaucratic system weakens our position.
 
Agreed!

ramksehrawat said:
UNSC permanent membership without veto is nothing but an observer status. If India accepts this, it will have to be a mook spectator only. If we accept this, our position will be like a "bina latth ka chaudhary", who though invited to the Panchayat but not allowed to put forth his point. Hence, we should not accept it. The big five will try their best not to dilute their power and will not agree to the full membership. The article attached by Mukesh sums up the position quite well. I am of the view that with the present regional political situation in our South Asia coupled with our stupid bureaucratic system weakens our position.


I totally agree with Sehrawat Ji.

What are we - when we are "bina latth ka chaudhary"?


Shailendra
 
I agree with u in this matter b'coz there are temporary members in unsc,they are also like permanent member without veto.India was also a temporary member of unsc before.
If india accepts this offer that means a seat without power.to make a balance in un we need veto.
 
base of the problem

The main problem is there is hardly anyone bother about future i mean leave 2 or 3% of indian percetage who realy bother about the things and most of them are out of power(political decision making ) coz most who are in power are just bothered in making the common indian(who is bussy in the full-filling his daily needs)fool on the basis of religion,castism and other ailment present in our society.the basic thing is there is no feeling of nationality coz empty stomachs dont think of nations positions in front of the world they think of 2 time food. secondly it's the responsibilty of media to provide the right and correct information to the common people, but u must have seen the media is just keeping our younger genration in a state of illusion where they only think of the philosphy(western philoshphy) they see the are not seeing the real world they only see which the mdia is showing them.i think politicians know it very well that if the common india will wake there would be no dirty politics left and than we can proudly fight for every single reason from veto to kashmir and we dont have to ask any other country to take step on the point of national security.
 
Last edited:
Dear Amit,

It is not that only 2-3% are bothered about the welfare of country. It is the other way round. Everyone, about 97-98%, who have no say in decision making think about the country but once they join 2-3% decision makers, they forget the country and start working for the welfare of their ownselves. In India everybody is a "desh bhakt" till he gets a chance to show his "desh bhakti". Once he gets a chance to show his "desh bhakti", the first, second and third steps to show this is through "parivar kalyan" and the fourth step never comes in his political life, before that he becomes a "mahan neta".
 
In my view the whole concept of Veto is ridiculous and aganist democratic norms. India should join the UNSC even without veto and then mobilise the world opinion against veto power. Veto power makes mockery of UN and it must go away totally.. No single country should be given the powers to stall the proceedings.

RK^2
 
rkumar said:
In my view the whole concept of Veto is ridiculous and aganist democratic norms. India should join the UNSC even without veto and then mobilise the world opinion against veto power. Veto power makes mockery of UN and it must go away totally.. No single country should be given the powers to stall the proceedings.

RK^2

Veto or no Veto getting a permanent seat in UNSC is still a distant dream, I wonder why would present permanent members allow someone to join them at high table. Especially China would never want two new permanent members from what she thinks is her sphere of influence. This veto issue is just thrown in to further complicate the matters. And to be honest in present geopolitical scenario UN has become irrelevant, Iraq war is a fine example, or for that matter how many of us would like to see the UN resolution on plebiscite in Kashmir to be implemented?
 
abhishek said:
Veto or no Veto getting a permanent seat in UNSC is still a distant dream, I wonder why would present permanent members allow someone to join them at high table. Especially China would never want two new permanent members from what she thinks is her sphere of influence. This veto issue is just thrown in to further complicate the matters. And to be honest in present geopolitical scenario UN has become irrelevant, Iraq war is a fine example, or for that matter how many of us would like to see the UN resolution on plebiscite in Kashmir to be implemented?

I agree with you Abhishek. Existing 5 veto powers will never like to share their power. As a matter of rule, power is never shared. Power has to be taken. New power blocks are already emerging on world scene. America is litterally pleading with China to bring N. Korea to the negotiating table. Europe is becoming almost irrelevent on international power scene. This is the time for India to play its cards well. After a very long time in history we got a window of opportunity. If we miss this time, God can only help India...Let us all work for our rightful place. Unity of 1 billion people can shake the world many times over...

RK^2
 
Well I feel India has flat chance in global politcs. Tony Blair Back in Office along with USA friends Bush. Duo hardly care about UNO. So i feel India should do away with UNO and try to leverage on its resource. I feel UNO had lost its teeth so it dosen't matter even if we don't get veto power

sameer
 
ssgrewal said:
Well I feel India has flat chance in global politcs. Tony Blair Back in Office along with USA friends Bush. Duo hardly care about UNO. So i feel India should do away with UNO and try to leverage on its resource. I feel UNO had lost its teeth so it dosen't matter even if we don't get veto power

sameer

Top priority for India has to be always to maintain a very strong modern Army. India should remain engaged to every big power, but trusting neither in short and long run. If history is an indicator, Indians have made more than their share of blunders by trusting the outsiders. Affairs of nation can not be left totally to the government. Its citizens need to be always watchful. Chinese are most notorious and their face expressions can never be good indicators of their intentions. UN membership or no membership, India can not afford to relax on defence front. Peace is always a very fragile instrument. India must remain prepared without any external support.

If we can not become permanent memebrs of UNSC, then better we work on weakening the whole UN like what Americans have done..

RK^2
 
Last edited:
rkumar said:
I agree with you Abhishek. Existing 5 veto powers will never like to share their power. As a matter of rule, power is never shared. Power has to be taken. New power blocks are already emerging on world scene. America is litterally pleading with China to bring N. Korea to the negotiating table. Europe is becoming almost irrelevent on international power scene. This is the time for India to play its cards well. After a very long time in history we got a window of opportunity. If we miss this time, God can only help India...Let us all work for our rightful place. Unity of 1 billion people can shake the world many times over...

RK^2
I do agree with you Rajendrji that it is the time for India to play a big and relevant role to work for the peace and prosperity at International Platform. But permanent seat in unsc with veto power can increase its confidence and value. As Abhishek said that existing country don't want to see another country at their place, I think India with another G-4 countries should start an international movement to make agree with their issue (veto power) by taking and uniting third worlds countries. India should try to make a balance in UN. For that India have to make its foreign policy more sharp and aggressive.
Unity of 1 billion people is also more essential to achieve that place. now our politician should leave the religious political drama like Ayodha Issue & Godhara issues. We have full resources (like youth power, good economics condition, lot natural resources, intelligent scientist so and so) to get our previous status at international level.
Some people say that India look well from the outside but in inside its condition is still pitiable. They may be little right because the rural condition of India is not admirable. To get the goal of equality Government should deploy some development programs with honesty in rural areas to bring out the good and health output. India's GDP have near 7 percent but it is unfortunate that some basic resources still are not available in many villages. Therefore Indian government will have to make sure that the process of economic reform will benefit to every common man not only to the upper class. So that the unity of 1 billion people remain safe and alive.
We can play our role at international level well if we have good internal condition as well as economically and social.
I am sure India will not miss this chance if once our politician became honest.
 
If one looks at the mess late Mughals and then British created in India, we have not fared so badly. Needless to say, we could have done much better. If one looks at the role of USA, it has hardly played any positive role after second world war. This is what Nixon and Kissinger had to say when India was enter the 1971 war to liberate Bangladesh ( taken from just declassified US papers);

1.... Dhaka kept sending cable after cable to Washington about the “indiscriminate killing” of the populace of East Pakistan by the army, but Nixon maintained his original position, saying, “The people who bi.ch about Vietnam bit.h about it because we intervened in what they say is a civil war. Now some of the same bas.ards ... want us to intervene here - both civil wars.” ...

2. Kissinger flew secretly to Beijing from Pakistan in July 1971. Indian forces began to gather at East Pakistan’s borders in May. Washington told India that it was opposed to military intervention in the civil war. Nixon said that if India intervened militarily “by God we will cut off economic aid.”

3. On May 26 Nixon said that “the goddamn Indians” were promoting another war. Kissinger agreed: “they are the most aggressive goddamn people around.”

4. Nixon told an NSC meeting on 16 July that the Indians are “a slippery, treacherous people.” He felt that they would like nothing more than to take advantage of the opportunity to destroy Pakistan.

5. Kissinger agreed that India seemed bent upon war. He thought that China would enter any such war on Pakistan's side, but concluded that might not dissuade India.

6. Kissinger's assessment was that “the Indians are bas.ards anyway. They are plotting a war.”

7. India launched an attack on East Pakistan on 22 November. Pakistan sought to offset the pressure on its forces in East Pakistan by launching an attack on 3 December from West Pakistan. Pakistan's air force struck at six Indian airfields in Kashmir and the Punjab and Pakistani artillery began shelling at several points along the border. Kissinger told Nixon that the fighting in the west had been initiated by India. Nixon responded, “It's a tragedy the Indians are so treacherous.”

8. Nixon decided to introduce the carrier Enterprise and its supporting vessels into the Bay of Bengal to apply military pressure on India. Nixon instructed Kissinger to ask the Chinese to move some forces toward the frontier with India. Kissinger went to New York and met Huang Hua, China's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He told the Chinese diplomat that Nixon wanted China to know that if China took action, the United States would oppose the efforts of others to interfere with China. There were no qualifications to Kissinger's diplomatically worded but clear assurance that the United States would be prepared for a military confrontation with the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union attacked China.

9. At one point, the US thought that China was going to move militarily against India. That raised the likelihood that the Soviet Union would be given an excuse to strike China. Kissinger said, “If the Soviets move against them and we don't do anything, we will be finished.” Nixon asked, “So what do we do if the Soviets move against them? Start lobbing nuclear weapons in, is that what you mean?” Kissinger responded, “If the Soviets move against them in these conditions and succeed, that will be the final showdown … and if they succeed we will be finished.” He added that “if the Russians get away with facing down the Chinese and the Indians get away with licking the Pakistanis ... we may be looking down the gun barrel.”

10. Nixon concluded at the end of the discussion that “Russia and China aren't going to go to war.” Nixon's prediction was borne out when it developed that China had no intention of threatening military action against India

11. Pakistani forces surrendered in East Pakistan on 16 December and India announced a ceasefire. With a “nudge” from Ambassador Farland, President Yahya accepted the ceasefire. Pakistan. Nixon and Kissinger felt that they had achieved their fundamental goal of preserving West Pakistan intact and congratulated each other on having “scared the pants off the Russians” and having come through the crisis “amazingly well.” The papers conclude that “India, however, had emerged from the crisis confirmed as the preeminent power on the subcontinent, and Soviet support for India during the crisis had enhanced Soviet influence in India. The United States would have to adjust to that reality.”

Moral of my posting the above is that big powers will never jump into the wars of third world countries. No country is fool enough today to go on war just because USA wants. As a nation we must never forget history, else we will be consumed. WE must continue building our defence strong and economy strong, come what may. Americans talk of democratising the world, however, they rarely supported India agaist China and Pakistan, both totalitarian countries.

RK^2
 
Last edited:
What UNO

Dear Mukesh,

V have talked a lot about veto or no veto. I ask, UNO or No UNO ? Does it realy matter whether or not we have an organisation like UNO ? Today or for that matter never anybody has cared about what UNO says. Niether League of Nations nor UNO has been able to achieve anything significant for world piece. We must instead of asking for veto in a vertually defunct organisation gather economic and military power. The world today (proved 100 times in the history) understands only the language of Economic and military powers. Japan and Germany have a big say in the world affairs though they are not the permanent members. So, I don't think it will make any difference even if we have veto power in UNO but not have a strong economy and military.

Let us put up synergic efforts towards making India a strong economy.

ram ram.

vinod Dhatrawal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top