Regarding the UNSC, Mr. Mukherjee said: “I do hope that as and when the expanded Security Council along with the general reforms of the United Nations takes place, India's claim for being a permanent member of the Security Council will be considered and accepted.”
When India is not ready to play it's part in the by taking care of problems in its neighbourhood (like AFPAK), this level of engagement keeps India relevant in the world. Plus the UN pays a better wage than GoI.shiv wrote:In WW2 Indian troops served as the chowkidars of the British empire. After WW2 the victors appointed themselves the guardians of the world and promised sucker countries like India of a fair system and that "their help" with more chowkidars, would be welcome. Indian troops under firangi command are not chowkidars of the world. They need to come back.abhischekcc wrote:Of the roughly 24000 troops that UN has on duty around the world, about 11000 are from India and BD each.
I got the same feeling when I read this in Hindu yesterday....what did Japan/Uganda/Austria etc did do or get in their capacity of a "Non-permanent UN security council member"? did it give them any benefits? by analyzing these answers we can see if India is just given titular position or does give any muscle to India?Altair wrote:
India "awarded" Non-permanent UN security council seat.
Read:"You can bark all you want but you cant bite"
I don't think India ought to be compared to countries like Ukraine or Bangladesh who are largely in it for the money.vera_k wrote:When India is not ready to play it's part in the by taking care of problems in its neighbourhood (like AFPAK), this level of engagement keeps India relevant in the world. Plus the UN pays a better wage than GoI.shiv wrote:In WW2 Indian troops served as the chowkidars of the British empire. After WW2 the victors appointed themselves the guardians of the world and promised sucker countries like India of a fair system and that "their help" with more chowkidars, would be welcome. Indian troops under firangi command are not chowkidars of the world. They need to come back.
Holy Moly! What a vividPhilip wrote:This "temporary" honour for India,sitting on the UNSC,"barking but unable to bite",so well put,perfectly exposes the hugely unfair UNSC hierarchy.I have many a time compared it to a "bordello",where the world's nation are all gathered together,some from time to time are "rogered" by the P-5,while others are rotated on a regular basis the privilige to watch like voyeurs the P-5 screw the world's nations,but cannot participate (like India).The beauty is that some like the US,often do not want to pay for services rendered,condemning the "quality of service" and fornicate for free,with the whole sordid establishment run by a handpicked "Adam"!
example! I wonder how China got in on the party.Nehru and Mao were at the bordello. Knowing Mao's healthy appetite for wimmens the other regular customers did not want to let him in and thought Nehru would be less intrusive. But the latter was besotted with Edwina and said "Hey guys - Mao can have my place"TonyMontana wrote:Holy Moly! What a vividPhilip wrote:This "temporary" honour for India,sitting on the UNSC,"barking but unable to bite",so well put,perfectly exposes the hugely unfair UNSC hierarchy.I have many a time compared it to a "bordello",where the world's nation are all gathered together,some from time to time are "rogered" by the P-5,while others are rotated on a regular basis the privilige to watch like voyeurs the P-5 screw the world's nations,but cannot participate (like India).The beauty is that some like the US,often do not want to pay for services rendered,condemning the "quality of service" and fornicate for free,with the whole sordid establishment run by a handpicked "Adam"!
Wow. I think it takes another world war to change the door list. But I'm afriad that the next bordello will be in a cave.shiv wrote: Nehru and Mao were at the bordello. Knowing Mao's healthy appetite for wimmens the other regular customers did not want to let him in and thought Nehru would be less intrusive. But the latter was besotted with Edwina and said "Hey guys - Mao can have my place"
The rest is history.
Lesson of the story? Be friends with America.shiv wrote: Speaking of history - the Chinese had appealed to the toothless monster that preceded the UN - the league of nations for help against the invading Japanese. But all the nations of he league - that included some current and chronic bordello customers like the US and Britain were in a "Let's appease Japan" mode and did not raise a finger to help China. The Kuomintang, under Chiang Kai Shek were left to fight Japan pretty much on their own until much later when the US finally applied sanctions on Japan (sea power!!) stopping the supplies of steel and oil to Japan. That led to Pearl Harbor.
Strong words from a member of foreign affairs dept. Does it convey something or just lot of hot air in front of sino India relationsDubbing India's ambition of a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council as a "foolish idea", former Foreign Secretary M K Rasgotra on Monday said the dream may take 20 years to fulfil.
Chairing a panel discussion on the political basis of Sino- India relations here, Rasgotra, who is a member of Congress' Foreign Affairs Department, said, "I think we have a fetish about permanent seat in the UNSC...it is a foolish idea. I don't know who has floated it."
He said while newspapers were abuzz with speculations that US President Barack Obama will support India's bid in the UNSC, Rasgotra claimed that the dignitary will not give us a permanent seat though he "will give us a lot of words".Hope GOI recognises the fact sooner the better
Very true- when India can show that it is a major power on its own standing. No need for asking.According to him, the seat will come to India when the world recognises India as a major power and a military power.
Really sadCongress spokesperson Manish Tiwari, who was one of the panelists, later said the views expressed by Rasgotra were personal.
"These are not the views of the Congress party...a permanent seat remains an aspiration. The UNSC should reflect the geo-political situation of the 21st century," Tiwari said.
Exactly my thoughts
Looks like This gentleman is a true Indian. He doesn't want to ask/beg others for something. He wants to earn it by working hard for it. He also knows how to get it.He said the fulfillment of India's quest for a permanent seat in the UNSC was 10 years, "possibly 20 years away".
...
According to him, the seat will come to India when the world recognizes India as a major power and a military power.
With US President Barack Obama declaring support for India's bid for a permanent seat, China may move beyond its stated position by announcing a more pointed support for New Delhi's place on the global high table during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit next month. The Chinese premier is expected to visit India Dec 16-17, his first trip to the country in five years.
Sources disclosed that Beijing may surprise New Delhi and belie critics who think the US support was meant to counter China's ascent on the global stage.
A day after Obama endorsed India's bid for permanent seat in the UNSC, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Tuesday said in Beijing that China was ready for consultations over the issue and values India's status in the international affairs and understands India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations. Beijing's willingness to discuss the issue is seen here as "a step forward" ahead of Wen's visit.
Beijing has already begun to acknowledge India's surging global status. Recently, Beijing elevated China's ambassador to India Zhang Yan to the position equivalent to that of vice foreign minister, a status it gives to only Chinese ambassadors to P5 countries.
This is a pattern. Every time the US inches closer to the US, Beijing watches it carefully and tries to assure India that it's is not against India's rise.
Britain, France and Russia have already pledged support for India's permanent seat in the global body. French President Nicholas Sarkozy and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev are also set to visit India in December and are expected to reiterate their support for India's UN aspirations, making 2010 the year of India's UN diplomacy.
Any fallout!!http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 908824.cmsBritain backs India's UNSC bid for permanent seat
SEOUL: Britain today extended its support to India in its campaign for becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a move that comes close on the heels of a US backing.
The support came at a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his British counterpart David Cameron at a meeting here on the margins of the G-20 summit.
External Affairs ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash, briefing reporters on the meeting, recalled that Britain had earlier supported India's case for non-permanent membership of the UNSC.
The Prime Minister and Cameron had been meeting regularly even before the latter's state visit to India recently.
The two had met in Toronto in June after his election as Prime Minister of Britain and in 2006 when he had come to New Delhi after his election as leader of the opposition.
The spokesman said the two countries shared a strategic partnership from 2004 which was converted into an enhanced partnership during Cameron's visit in July.
UK has been India's major trading partner with trade at USD 11 billion and British investment in India placed at USD 6 billion.
Should Alba (Scotland) vote for independence, then basically UK is really finished! Cymru (Wales) too may go its separate way, if Plaid Cymru has its way! Northern Ireland would again descend into turmoil and it too could see a partition looming.Lilo wrote:Looks like the Islamic Emirate of England,Occupied Scotland,Held Wales and Annexed N.Ireland is going to loose Scotland in a few of years.
I hope Scots take away their share of "crown jewels" from the Queendom .
Scotland independence vote looms after separatist win
EDINBURGH (AFP) – Scotland moved closer to a vote on independence after the party of nationalist First Minister Alex Salmond secured a historic majority Friday in elections for the Edinburgh parliament.
In the first overall majority for any party since the parliament opened in 1999, the Scottish National Party (SNP) battered the once dominant Labour Party to win 69 seats in the devolved 129-seat Holyrood assembly.
Salmond pledged to hold a referendum on Scottish independence within the next four years, something he could not deliver in his first term as the SNP were outnumbered by unionists.
I presume you are responding to the original question of this poll! Actually the poll is not really active anymore!ManuT wrote:No, only so that India's absence from the UN is not used against it at sometime in the future.
thanks for pointing that out. Now 1 more thread to follow. 
When the Preamble to the Charter of the UN was conceived in San Francisco, it spoke of “equal rights” of “nations large and small”. The UN was a byproduct of World War II and continues to reflect the reality of a mid-20th century world. While the tortuous bureaucratic process of Security Council reform moves along like snails in molasses, the 21st century is ignored. Germany, the pre-eminent European power of today; Japan, the second-largest donor to the UN’s coffers; Brazil, India and South Africa remain on the margins of the decision-making process.
Obviously, that’s frustrating for countries like India. And that sense was recently echoed by India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri while participating in an “informal thematic debate” on ‘The United Nations in Global Governance’. Ambassador Puri said, “I am not entirely sure about our relevance beyond those of us who are actually involved in the industry of the UN. I think the marketplace’s perception of us is quite different.”
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/india ... 42745.htmlAccording to Yechury, India must disassociate itself from making a joint bid for permanent membership along with three other countries – Japan, Germany and Brazil – who too want in. Given the historical strains in China’s relations with Japan – going back to Japanese occupation and wartime aggression – China would never support Japan, and India would lose out if it tied itself to Japan’s bid.
devesh wrote:I don't see how India's participation in all those peacekeeping missions has "helped" us. nobody has acknowledged India's contribution in this arena. other than Indian press reports, no foreign press even gives a rat's ass about this. it has no influence on India's power projection. on the contrary, when we are so willing to send troops in "multi-national" arrangements, while dithering on what to do about subcontinental issues, it clearly sends a message of weakness; that we are more comfortable when we can hide behind the veil of multinational agreement. but when it comes to national interests, we are incapable of being aggressively assertive.
India's UN role has a lot of parallels to India sending troops to fight in British wars.
The U.S. has not been encouraged by the performance of India, Brazil and South Africa during their temporary tenure on the UN Security Council, Ambassador Susan Rice said yesterday.
Splits between the so-called IBSA group of countries and the U.S. arose as protest movements swept the Middle East. India and Brazil, along with Russia, China and Germany, abstained from a UN resolution that formed the legal basis for military intervention in Libya.
As Syria sent troops out to suppress protesters, Brazil, India and South Africa blocked UN moves to pressure the Assad regime and sent diplomats to Damascus last month to engage leaders there. All three countries are serving two-year temporary terms on the Security Council and aspire to permanent seats, a goal the U.S. may block.
“It’s been a very interesting opportunity to see how they respond to the issues of the day, how they relate to us and others, how they do or don’t act consistent with their own democratic institutions and stated values,” Rice said at a briefing with reporters. “Let me just say, we’ve learned a lot and, frankly, not all of it encouraging.”
Rice said that issues related to the protection of human rights, democracy and the protection of civilians raised U.S. concerns about the IBSA group.
“Whether in the context of Libya, or Cote d’Ivoire or Sudan even,” Rice said, the countries have taken positions “that one might not have anticipated, given that each of them come out of strong and proud democratic traditions.”
Post-Colonial Viewpoints
That criticism is simplistic, said Fabienne Hara, the vice president of multilateral affairs at the International Crisis Group. Hara, who recently returned from meetings in Brazil and consults widely with other diplomats, said the IBSA countries approached the Libya situation with their own set of concerns.
“They were all quite surprised that this turned into a NATO-led operation with a bombing campaign, with a variety of targets including Tripoli,” Hara said.
For countries with colonial histories that now champion non-interference, as India and Brazil do, the NATO action had ugly historical echoes, said Mark Quarterman, director of the program on Crisis, Conflict and Cooperation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“There’s almost a third-world sense, a post-colonial sense, that they were meddled in, in ways that didn’t redound to their benefit, and now the same countries are claiming humanitarian reasons for meddling,” Quarterman said.
Embargoes
The IBSA countries have pointed out that while there was an arms embargo and a call for a cease-fire, it applied to Qaddafi’s forces, while France sent arms to the Libyan rebels.
An oil embargo was put in place against Qaddafi and his officials, while Qatar helped the rebels sell oil with the NATO- led coalition’s awareness.
All this led to concern about what the UN would do when Syrians began taking to the streets. “The reason why there is no resolution on Syria now is because of Libya,” Hara said, “the aftermath of this very bitter debate that members of the Security Council had after the Libya bombing.
‘‘They were extremely reluctant to authorize any kind of resolution that could be the first step to’’ another Western intervention, Hara said.
Brett Schaefer, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said that political positions of South Africa, India and Brazil should not come as any surprise.
‘Not Democratic’ Alliances
‘‘Most often, they’ve chosen to ally themselves with countries that are not democratic, are not politically free and are not economically free, and at times have shown themselves to be hostile to promoting those very values in the United Nations,’’ Schaefer said in a telephone interview.
Schaeffer said that the IBSA countries’ performance serves as a counterargument for those who say the Security Council is not representative of the world.
Expanding the Council ‘‘doesn’t mean it would be more effective or responsive to the world’s problems, nor possess the will or inclination to act than the current council as it stands,” Schaeffer said. “There’s a great deal of evidence to indicate the opposite: That a larger security council would be more paralyzed, less likely to act to address political crises around the world.”
That view is shared both by the US's new UN ambassador, Samantha Power, and by President Obama, who, three years ago, suggested that India be added as a permanent member. As Power pointed out in an article in 2004, while the permanent five once spoke for 40% of the world's population, these days they speak for only 29%. The obvious solution is enlargement and the replacement of the veto system with majority voting first introduced to avoid the conditions that led to the failure of the League of Nations.