Non-Permanent Seat in UN Security Council for India !!

[raniraja]

No internet links yet. News on TV. India gets by 187 votes.

India becomes UNSC member after 19 yrs
Updated on Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 21:20

United Nations: India on Tuesday got a seat on the Security Council as a non-permanent member after a gap of 19 years through the elections held in the United Nations General Assembly.

India got 187 votes.

Earlier Kazakhstan pulled out from the race earlier this year and there is no other challenger from the region.

While the Asian, African and Latin American seats are going uncontested with only one candidate each, the two seats for Western Europe and others Group are being fought for by Canada, Germany and Portugal.
Read more

2) Non-Permanent Seat in UN Security Council for India !!
Replies:53 Views:512
Original forum: Defense
- Winner of Crown of the week ending Fri, Oct 15, 2010

[kkkk]

link

interestingly, its possible that Brazil, India, China and even South Africa all of them will be on UNSC in this period and can influence a lot.

[PeaceSeeker]

non-permanent member of the UNSC......YIPPPEEEE



WHATTA CRAP

[raniraja]

Originally Posted by kkkk

interestingly, its possible that Brazil, India, China and even South Africa all of them will be on UNSC in this period and can influence a lot.

Yeah.. BRIC countries.. all emerging economies. And brother, it's not crap, it's good for us.

[PeaceSeeker]

The power wielding nations know very well how to keep the india and its people quiet with moongfalli.

give them some moongfalli goodies like a non-perm member of unsc, commonwealth games venue, nuclear deal blah blah. this keeps 3rd world country like india quiet and makes the fourth world ones like pakistan a little jealous. india gets fooled in international fora just like indian public is made (hutiya by our own system.

what exactly happened to the nuclear deal? will something come out of it in our lifetime it almost made our central govt fall

[raniraja]

I'm sure this will also have economic ramifications. The permanent members do control a lot of defence related business. The other members too will get a share of the pie, apart from a say in the defence matters. Peanuts or whatever, it won't hurt India in any way. Do you see anything bad with it? Does it mean that we will be expected to toe the permanent members' line?

As for NPT, it can be kept hanging where we are concerned.

[PeaceSeeker]

no, nothing BAD about it except that its kinda insulting for supposedly the world's largest democracy, 2nd most populous country, emerging power, IT superpower etc etc not getting what it deserves.
when France conducted those nuclear tests, there was so much hulla gulla done by world, especially uncle sam, but they gave a damn. China almost always has its antennae up on the slightest bureaucratic slip by any country including uncle sam.
india on the other hand approaches everyone with folded hands 'pls saar give us unsc permanent membership, we deserve it saar, we r the world's larget democracy saar'.
the saars say, ' o yeah yeah, u definitely deserve it. u being the largest democracy r the natural fit for it'. and then nothing happens for years. than thru some election process, we get this non-perm membership after 19 years. all happy happy for the time being.
ditto for almost every worthwhile thingy. this defensive attitude gives us nothing except insults and we continue doing it.
why dont we once reject what is being offered

[Duplicate]

Originally Posted by PeaceSeeker

no, nothing BAD about it except that its kinda insulting for supposedly the world's largest democracy, 2nd most populous country, emerging power, IT superpower etc etc not getting what it deserves.
when France conducted those nuclear tests, there was so much hulla gulla done by world, especially uncle sam, but they gave a damn. China almost always has its antennae up on the slightest bureaucratic slip by any country including uncle sam.
india on the other hand approaches everyone with folded hands 'pls saar give us unsc permanent membership, we deserve it saar, we r the world's larget democracy saar'.
the saars say, ' o yeah yeah, u definitely deserve it. u being the largest democracy r the natural fit for it'. and then nothing happens for years. than thru some election process, we get this non-perm membership after 19 years. all happy happy for the time being.
ditto for almost every worthwhile thingy. this defensive attitude gives us nothing except insults and we continue doing it.
why dont we once reject what is being offered

Who else has got the permanent seat after UN security council's foundation? All the permanent members are original members... That time China was ruled by a western puppet, so it got the seat. If it were to be decided after 1950, even China would not have gotten the seat and maybe not even France.
Germany and Japan are much bigger economic power than India and enjoy a much wider support in council, still they haven't managed a breakthrough, so where does India or Brazil stand?

Anyways, There is nothing so great about it, if I am not wrong then countries like Pakistan have also been a non-permanent member.

[ashdoc]

Originally Posted by Duplicate

If it were to be decided after 1950, even China would not have gotten the seat

china did get a seat after 1950 .......earlier it was taiwan which had a seat.

[echarcha]

United Nations is irrelevant today. Its just a organisation run by people who have no other legitimate means to earn an honest living. UN is just a body which is ineffective and used by nations from time to time just to create a scene of something serious being done about something.

Its useless.

[badriprasad]

Originally Posted by ashdoc

china did get a seat after 1950 .......earlier it was taiwan which had a seat.

India was offered permanent seat and veto powers ... Nerulala was busy jerking Tito and Nasser.

[Duplicate]

Originally Posted by ashdoc

china did get a seat after 1950 .......earlier it was taiwan which had a seat.

Bullcrap... Taiwan didn't exist then... it was China only... After communist uprising and abdication of power in mainland, ROC was forced to limit itself to an island now known as Taiwan. Going by your logic, undivided India should be called Pakistan.

[Duplicate]

Originally Posted by badriprasad

India was offered permanent seat and veto powers ... Nerulala was busy jerking Tito and Nasser.

Kindly throw some more light on it.

[ashdoc]

Originally Posted by Duplicate

Bullcrap... Taiwan didn't exist then... it was China only... After communist uprising and abdication of power in mainland, ROC was forced to limit itself to an island now known as Taiwan. Going by your logic, undivided India should be called Pakistan.

ROC was given china's seat in the security council inspite of it holding only taiwan .it was only later that communist china got it.

my only intention was to prove that communist china got it after 1950.

[jeetiaf]

permanent seat in UN means India need both military firepower and financial muscle to take the responsibility, right now India is growing economy and our share in global trade is just 1.5%, bigger status in UN security council means bigger responsibility in global cause, India have scores of problem of his own, right now troops are committed only in Congo, bigger status means Somalia, Sudan, Botswana etc etc, for all these things we need both finanacial and military muscle. No problem from millitary’s side but financially we are not strong enough to take burden of this responsibility, our own defense budget is high and committing resources in global cause means more burden on tax payer. Nothing wrong, if our pocket allows it but we should avoid extra burden on genuine tax payers in India. India needs to increase its global power. US never listens to UN, it appears UN’s fate is similar to League of Nations.

India as its own set of problem, in new hunger index we are at 67th position, china at 9th, Pakistan at 52nd, Myanmar at 50th, Nepal at 56th and finally Bangladesh at 68th. We are placed in alamaring category.
Same is true for our global poverty index, and our purchasing power parity, we are at middle income level at $1000 per capita income level we are middle income earning group.
In our country top 8% household have wealth equal to 46% of rural wealth, some how it appears that dividends of development in not reaching bottom level as evident from hunger and poverty index.

While there is nothing wrong in projecting ourselves as global power but we need to be serious to address our domestic issues where we are continuously falling. And what a superpower status means to an average Indian who is finding it difficult to earn two meals of bread, nothing, our immediate need is to raise our status of living at least upto the level of Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Malaysia.



jeetIAF