Should India leave UN, if we don't get a veto seat in UNSC?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 15:36

Collecting some previous posts:

Post 1

RajeshA wrote:I think India should leave UN.

We should just call it broken and leave. We should take Brazil along with us. But before we leave we should put out a call, that UN Headquarters should be shifted to Beijing.

Post 2

ramana wrote:Walk out of UN negates the whole slew of UN resolutions on Kashmir: plebiscite, LOC etc.etc.. While walking out make a recommendation to move the UN Hq to Beijing to reflect the Asian century and new realities. This will uncouple the US and PRC.

Post 3

RajeshA wrote:The power of the UN derives from the fact, that it is a recognized body by all the countries of the world as the foremost forum for conflict resolution amongst its other functions. More importantly it's legitimacy derives from its recognition by the world powers. No India may not be amongst the super-powers. In fact I do not even believe that India is a regional power, but in spite of that India is a major world power in terms of military prowess and economy.

If India walks out, it would definitely be a big dhakka to the P5. We are then showing the P5 the middle finger, and telling them we don't recognize their privileged position or their legitimacy to lord over others. They can try to ignore the snub if they want to, but in reality that would be difficult. In fact, that would open the door for others to question their supremacy.

Now Japan and Germany, the two other prospective candidates would not walk out, simply because US would not allow them, and they are two countries with the most faith in the system, even if a bit disappointed. The other pissed off power is Brazil, and is definitely another candidate whose withdrawal from UN could shake UN's foundations.

So India and Brazil can get together and give the P5 an ultimatum. Either they give in and make India and Brazil veto-carrying permanent members of UNSC or they can stare at India's and Brazil's backsides. All those airs around the high and the mighty would suddenly be sucked off and they will relent.

India has other forums to meet up with other countries - G77, NAM, Commonwealth, IBSA, etc..

Post 4

Cosmo_R wrote:RajeshA ^^^

Have you floated the idea among the MEA and got their reaction?

Post 5

RajeshA wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:Have you floated the idea among the MEA and got their reaction?
Nah, would cause too many heart attacks!

Post 6

Pratyush wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Nah, would cause too many heart attacks!
use track 2 and guage reaction without causing heart attack.

Post 7

RajeshA wrote:Pratyush ji,
first of all, thank you for your confidence in the proposal.

I'm sitting a few oceans away from the gentle babus for any track 2!

The idea is in the open. People are welcome to expand on it. If anybody likes the idea and has the right connections, please feel free to let the MEA babus know of it.

Post 8

Pratyush wrote:Have already put it in the ears of at least one paanwala close to a senior babu. Will try to find more of them and put it in their heads.

The issue is the DIE is absolutely convinced about the need for UN seat. They think it is a symble of India having arrived at the big table, an H&D issue if you will.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 30 Sep 2010 15:48

There used to be a League of Nations. It died natural death. UN would outlive its utility if it does not provide adequate representations and say proportionate to the clout a State holds. However there are nations that are living beyond their real clout on UNSC with Veto Power and sooner or later would be replaced by others. USA has used it with impunity post Cold War era. Now Chinese are itching to give it a shove.

India does have many options and it should vigorously pursue them .It failed to counter the attack on NAM after demise of USSR when USA reigned free and ran amok. I would think that to remain in UN would be advantageous to India however there is no harm in making noise about leaving it. That would make many nations sit up and think seriously.

Hats off to you for so many ideas floated. Needs a change in thinking .

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 15:58

I think, especially now, USA would be willing to listen. It sees a new superpower on the horizon - China, and it doesn't want that the system it has worked so hard to set up in the world - be it UNO, World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc. all stand one day in ruins, because then its loss of power to the Chinese would be even more apparent and alarming.

So there are very good chances that USA relents.

Otherwise after India and Brazil, a whole host of countries could leave UNO - Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Arab countries, etc. And all the P-5 members will stand there all alone holding their power and vetos, all dressed up and nowhere to go.

So if USA is vulnerable, why not use that vulnerability?

In fact, if we don't use it, the others may not even notice that we are a power worthy of a veto-carrying permanent seat in UNSC

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 16:03

Wasn't it MK Gandhi, the Father of our Nation, who taught us the virtues of non-cooperation in getting our rights? So what is different?

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2010 16:04

We are living in a period of hstory where the relics of the past have no utility. The new world order needs new vision and power structure. Moreover, the old power structure is beyond reformation. Even though the old order is not completely gone it is very near to collapse.

We should extend assistance in order to expidite its downfall.

So IMO, if, the UN reforms are carried out and India does not recieve the UNSC seat, we ought to exit the UNO.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 16:46

One question one needs to keep in mind is whether USA would relent, should we give an ultimatum.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 16:47

There does not seem to be another dedicated thread to discuss India's aspirations for a UNSC permanent seat.

I would suggest we use this thread for any news and analysis and discussions on the issue.

Rajdeep · Post by **Rajdeep** » 30 Sep 2010 16:51

It would require huge balls to do that. India is one of the leaders in the peace keeping force. There are many other reasons why just pulling out of the UN is not in India's or the world's best interests. If India plans to do so in an event of not getting a UNSC vote, then it should start strengthening its position through backchannels and have some more countries with it when it walks out. If you really think of achieving world peace then we should support the UNSC. These steps though failures may develop in to something bigger and better.

Since that seems unlikely, and losing the UNSC seat is very likely, we should vote for China. Decentralization of power is the need of the moment. I fear that the subcontinent is going to see more of US military occupation and I forsee USA patrolling Jammu and Kashmir in the near future. I think we should play strategically and align ourselves with China on this and a few more issues and try to build a US-UK friendship scenario with India and China as a joint power bloc in a longer run of say in the next 15 years. This is when you will see a major power shift between India and China and see a golden age around 2025 or so.

wishful thinking.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2010 17:00

RajeshA wrote:One question one needs to keep in mind is whether USA would relent, should we give an ultimatum.

It is irrelevant whether the US agrees or disagrees WRT the Indian demand. The key player IMO is the PRC. Today I can make an ironclad grurantee that the PRC will not play ball WRT India and the UN reforms.

So I say we find a way to bring down the UNO and the global order that exists today.

Rajdeep,

PRC is alreadt a member of P5, so voting for them is meaningless

JMT

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 17:17

Rajdeep ji,

We Indians believe in the United Nations as a forum to deal with global problems. Our problem is with a UNSC structure which does not reflect present realities, most importantly that India does not wield the power, she should. We can make a true contribution to the UN only if we are given the responsibility.

We have to try to overthrow the current power axis in United Nations Security Council. India has tried to do it through peaceful pleading to the conscience of the powers. They have none. They don't want to change the status quo.

So after all this time of diplomatic nudging, India has to turn up the pressure. Giving USA an ultimatum of walking out of UN is IMHO an effective means.

Indians should take time to understand the nature of People's Republic of China. One could start here if one so wishes.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 17:24

Pratyush wrote:
RajeshA wrote:One question one needs to keep in mind is whether USA would relent, should we give an ultimatum.
It is irrelevant whether the US agrees or disagrees WRT the Indian demand. The key player IMO is the PRC. Today I can make an ironclad grurantee that the PRC will not play ball WRT India and the UN reforms.

When the Chinese showed their hand during the NSG negotiations in Vienna and their opposition to the deal became clear, it was the US that coerced them to accept the deal.

China does not want to be the lone voice, expressing their opposition to India. They like to oppose from the back-benches. Open opposition to India's membership would make them lose their legitimacy in the UNSC, as that would appear openly to be opposition on the basis of national interests and not the greater good of the world, which is the mission statement of the UNSC. Of course, each power looks after its own interests, but they need to pack it differently. So China can be brought around.

First we have to get unequivocal support from USA on the issue.

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 30 Sep 2010 17:45

the way i understand P5 is that their geography is non-negotiable. they can prey on anyone they want and try to out-hustle each other. india is not there yet. we are fast getting there. only when our friendly neighborhood becomes friendly will we be part of p5. till then we will have to play within the UN.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 17:58

V_Raman wrote:the way i understand P5 is that their geography is non-negotiable. they can prey on anyone they want and try to out-hustle each other. india is not there yet. we are fast getting there. only when our friendly neighborhood becomes friendly will we be part of p5. till then we will have to play within the UN.

In that case, we can wait an eternity.

Can it not be, that some of the members of the P5 are deliberately keeping our friendly neighborhood less friendly, so that we need not apply for permanent membership of UNSC?!

May be the friendly neighborhood would really become friendly only when we are in the big-boys club, because then they will have to worry about our veto and leave us and our neighborhood alone.

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 30 Sep 2010 18:12

Instead of leaving the UNO entirely, wouldn't leaving just the Security Council be a better option? I don't know if such a move is even possible but if done it would reflects India's stand as supporting an equal world-order while being part of other organs like the General Assembly. Such a move would also make all resolutions passed by the Security Council regarding India reakted matters void. Such a move would make our stand clear wrt Security Council while also showing the world that India supports a intergovernmental organization but on a basis of equality.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 18:24

In the first instance this position is simply to force the hand of USA and other P5 members. Indians want to be part of United Nations.

However, if India makes an ultimatum, we cannot bluff. If the others do not agree, then we would have to leave.

Leaving Security Council and not the General Assembly is meaningless. Security Council has 5 Permanent Members and only their leaving makes sense, or may be that of current members resigning. This has no meaning for India.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 30 Sep 2010 18:34

I can positively say UN has failed rather miserably in making the world a better place.
Even modest aims to stop conflicts in Africa and providing better quality of living(Read,2 square meals a day and potable water) in much of Africa has failed.
Nations who wanted a War on another sovereign nation have succeeded in making War. Eg: Gulf War 1,2; Georgia attacking Russia and Russia paying back in kind.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 18:42

When the gentle members of BRF vote on this poll, I would appreciate if one leaves a comment or two for others to better grasp the thinking of the members both in favor or against the the posed question.

Thank you very much!

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Sep 2010 19:04

we can only leave the security council if we were in it in the first place...

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 30 Sep 2010 19:26

Let me give myself the honour of pi55ing here.

In the backdrop of colonial looting, 2 nuclear weapons, splitting of nations and civil war, the P5 was formed, or rather, bestowed upon itself.

So gentle follks, the qualifications seem to be:
- Grandiose looting
- Mass murdering
- Causing untold suffering to lands you influence

What has India has to show?
- A half naked fakir preaching non-violence.
- "Claiming" no war in the last 1000 years
- Preaching Dharma to others when you can't fix your own garden fence

The P5 ain't no club for sissies. Wanna join? Take the Pakjabis out enmasse. You make the job of atleast 3 P5 members easy. Make yourself the biggest bad guy for this part of the century.
Can't do? No can do!

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 30 Sep 2010 19:26

I voted "Yes"

If we want to be part of a club boning hot chicks we get to the level of people in the clubs.

All 5 permanent members got there by playing big,being bad and getting all rowdy. Now I am not expecting India to do the same.
Having veto is one thing but being powerful enough not to be blackmailed by US and others to use it on nations like Iran or some nation which suits US is a whole different thing.
For that to happen following things would be nice to have before we get to sit there having veto.

Make our economy 2~3 Trillion Dollar and improve Infrastructure and Judiciary.
IAF MUST have at-least 3000 combat aircraft capable of global deployment.
Raise new Air borne regiments capable of deploying worldwide.
Make Indian Navy true blue water navy for true force projection.
Last but not least, test the damn ICBM's!!

Even then if we are not offered veto, we MUST leave UN.Not until we get there..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2010 19:31

No leaving is like acting like a spoilt child. What do we do from the outside? Just show how useless it is from the inside by telling the security council to go jerk off when they act stupid.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 19:47

shiv wrote:No leaving is like acting like a spoilt child. What do we do from the outside? Just show how useless it is from the inside by telling the security council to go jerk off when they act stupid.

Well for one we would be threatening the World Order they have built over the last 65 years. Would the P5 rather have India inside the tent pissing out or outside the tent pissing in? A billion people can piss a lot!

Why not push the P5 on the issue? What has India to lose?

Any way, I've seen spoilt children often getting what they want. It is the 'beebe bachche' that go nowhere!

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 30 Sep 2010 19:55

India should leave without mentioning the permanent seat to the UNSC.

The UNSC is irrelevant, weather India is made the P6 or not.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Sep 2010 19:56

India should have done this long time ago, i too have mentioned this before. A P5 without a billion people democracy and with a billion people dictatorship obviously does not fit 'representation' correctly. Giving sanctimonious speeches while hugging the likes of Mugabe, Gaddafi and leaders of Burkina Faso and likes last 60 years has not exactly got our nation much esteem. We'd have done better outside the UN fold for sure.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2010 20:03

Rajesh,

As JEM wrote all those years ago

INDIA AND A WORLD IN DIS-EQUILIBRIUM

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 30 Sep 2010 20:11

Stay in and make UN a laughing stock like Israel does

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 30 Sep 2010 20:16

I voted NO.

India shouldn't have joined UN in the first place (like it did with NPT) without a UNSC perm-membership. There is no point in walking out now, as it will make a laughing stock out of India.

Instead India should do what ShivaS (Regal adj: 1: of, relating to, or suitable for a king; 2: of notable excellence or magnificence) ji suggested.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 20:17

Pratyush wrote:Rajesh,

As JEM wrote all those years ago

INDIA AND A WORLD IN DIS-EQUILIBRIUM

Pratyush ji,
Thanks! The article is more than 10 years old. And all is still valid. But on the issue of UN reform we have not moved even an inch.

If India does not try to do something, how would we know if we could have succeeded?!

If we are not willing to fight wars for our land, or retaliate for terrorism, or we are not willing to question Tibetan status, or we are not willing to challenge the P5 of UNSC, then I would like to know, what exactly do we mean by Indian Foreign Policy?

Is the job of our Foreign Policy simply to respond to some absurd accusations by Pakistanis in the UNGA bringing us down to their level! That is defeatist, indeed!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 30 Sep 2010 20:19

Altair wrote:I voted "Yes"

If we want to be part of a club boning hot chicks we get to the level of people in the clubs.

All 5 permanent members got there by playing big,being bad and getting all rowdy. Now I am not expecting India to do the same.
Having veto is one thing but being powerful enough not to be blackmailed by US and others to use it on nations like Iran or some nation which suits US is a whole different thing.
For that to happen following things would be nice to have before we get to sit there having veto.

Make our economy 2~3 Trillion Dollar and improve Infrastructure and Judiciary.
IAF MUST have at-least 3000 combat aircraft capable of global deployment.
Raise new Air borne regiments capable of deploying worldwide.
Make Indian Navy true blue water navy for true force projection.
Last but not least, test the damn ICBM's!!

Even then if we are not offered veto, we MUST leave UN.Not until we get there..

In the meanwhile, withdraw into the background and stop this nonsense of peacekeeping operations.

With draw all troops as they are needed to save children fallen into tube wells and troops are also needed to rebuild fallen bridges back home.

Concentrate on economic consolidation and nation building and desist from all silly UN lipstick work.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2010 20:22

Rajesh,

Exactely, its high time we do some thing about it. Lets make the UN irrelevent.

JMT

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 20:24

ShivaS wrote:Stay in and make UN a laughing stock like Israel does

Israel is not sitting in judgment in UNSC and lording over others as one of the P-5.

Israel is always on the ropes for their policies viz-a-viz Palestinians, from 10,000 Muslim countries and their fans. They just show the middle finger to those who want to interfere in their issues of security.

If that is all we are aiming for, at ducking blows while laughing hysterically, then we have really small ambitions.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 30 Sep 2010 20:29

Pratyush, thanx for posting that link. I'd forgotten I wrote that and now that I've read it again, I'm quite pleased with myself. Not a bad article that

This is the part that would be relevant I suppose:
_________
Pillars of global order in the cold war era – namely the UN and the nuclear club – are being shaken. India has breached the nuclear barriers with Shakti I-V and done it with containable negative repercussions. With Shakti, we have effectively signalled our military veto power from outside the UN Security Council’s permanent membership – a group which is looking increasingly anachronistic.

Yet being outside the P5, India lacks the ability to veto UN resolutions that are inimical to us – like the one passed after the Shakti tests, and the one which is occasionally waved about by China when it demands that we roll back our nuclear programme. Russia has represented our interests reasonably well, but as the post-test resolution showed it cannot be depended upon in all critical situations in view of its own vulnerabilities.

Thus it is in our interest to pursue a permanent membership seat, and at the same time do our best to ensure that the credibility of the P5 – indeed even the UN - is undermined. In this way, we can either get permanent membership (at which point we can seek to strengthen the UN) or hasten the organisation’s demise. Either way we improve our relative position. What we must seek to avoid is an indefinite extension of the status quo. This should not prove too difficult, even if only because change is inevitable. Germany, Japan, Brazil and Italy are among countries battering at the door of the P5, and still more – Iran, N. Korea and Japan – quietly preparing the ingredients needed to cook up a nuclear storm, only if necessary of course.

Therefore, it will not be our burden alone to seek change in the status quo. We merely need to be watchful and prepared to exploit new openings that are bound to emerge. In other words, we must become skilled at turning fluid situations into long-term gains, at spotting opportunity in confusion, at turning opportunity into advantage. Indeed, there are indications that, after a long bout of uncertainty and dithering, the Indian foreign affairs and defence bureaucracy has begun to take a more pro-active approach to our strategic concerns.

In the meantime, we are bound to be rocked by the elements of violence exported by our neighbour Pakistan. The Christmas Eve 1999 hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC 184 from Kathmandu to Delhi is a case in point. It demonstrated the new war that India is facing, a war in which the aggressor, a weaker power, denies aggression because that is the low cost option. But this too presents opportunities which Indian decision makers are beholden to exploit. The "proxy war" which Pakistan is waging against India can be the petard on which that country is itself hoisted.

Indian diplomacy must focus on forging links or enhancing existing ones with like-minded countries. Media management must create the linkages between global terrorism and Pakistan in the mind of the international community. Most of all, it will require that our diplomats shed the traditional preference for reticence for naming names and calling a spade a spade.
______________

Interesting that quite a few things have turned out as anticipated...

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Sep 2010 20:36

ot I always wondered why we had given up on publishing BR monitor. Even the SSM has been given up

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Sep 2010 20:37

shiv wrote:No leaving is like acting like a spoilt child. What do we do from the outside? Just show how useless it is from the inside by telling the security council to go jerk off when they act stupid.

Agreed. Far better to remain within and undermine at every turn. We can undermine more effectively from inside the UN than we ever could by taking ourselves out of it.

"Leaving" is pushing things to the point of a confrontation that really isn't necessary. We should choose how and when to be confrontational, and I do not see any benefit in being confrontational at this time and in this instance.

We are, however, one of the largest contributors to UNSC-mandated peacekeeping missions. While this can be a good thing in some circumstances... giving our armed forces experience of operations in different combat environments, etc... a careful analysis of the benefits is needed for each deployment, and we should only send troops where the benefits to us are tangible (e.g. mountainous areas where we could use more experience.)

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 30 Sep 2010 20:41

Rudradev wrote: We are, however, one of the largest contributors to UNSC-mandated peacekeeping missions. While this can be a good thing in some circumstances... giving our armed forces experience of operations in different combat environments, etc... a careful analysis of the benefits is needed for each deployment, and we should only send troops where the benefits to us are tangible (e.g. mountainous areas where we could use more experience.)

Not to mention all deployments are starting point for invaluable global HUMINT presence. esp in hotzones

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 30 Sep 2010 20:42

It's like the child running away from home because they didn't get the new videogame. Same result - impossible to reform the global system if you want to do a North Korea and isolate yourself.

Far better to stay inside, be Chanakian and work the geopolitics to get what you want.

No runaway kid ever got the new videogame, but lots of shrewd kids who know how to play along with the system and keep the system happy always get what they want!

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 20:42

oink, I got boinked

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 20:48

RamaY wrote:I voted NO.

India shouldn't have joined UN in the first place (like it did with NPT) without a UNSC perm-membership. There is no point in walking out now, as it will make a laughing stock out of India.

Oh there are many countries out there who are not feeling listened to by the P5.

Even if we were a afraid of becoming a laughing stock, even though I think neither would be a laughing stock nor we should be afraid of it, we need not really tell everybody why we are leaving the U.N.

In fact when we see that our request for veto-carrying permanent seat in UNSC is not being given due consideration by USA and PRC, we can make a fuss about any of the 1000 issues in discussion at any given time, say that the UN is broken and simply leave the UN. We can say, that when UN was established India had great hopes from the institution, but it has not lived up to its promise, so we are leaving.

On the right modality for leaving, one can give it some thought, when the question arises. But if we wait for somebody to all of a sudden become generous and give us the veto-carrying permanent seat like the rest of the P-5 have, then we will be waiting a long time. One needs to do something to push the issue.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 30 Sep 2010 20:50

The UNSC with the P5 was created in order to prevent the possibility of another devastating war.

Keeping that in mind, shouldn't Pakistan be a member of the UNSC with veto powers?

I think India should support Pakistan's candidacy. Will appease the the WKK, secular and Chinese spirits, and also clears the way for India's candidacy. Another point in favour of helping the Pakistanis get long range missile capability

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 20:50

Should India leave UN, if we don't get a veto-carrying permanent seat in UNSC soon?