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

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Sep 2010 20:51

since when India really does matter to the UN in the first place?
-----------------------

Precisely. If it doesn't matter to the UN why should India be there?

The UN without a billion people democracy truthfully won't be 'representative' any bit. See how much being outside the NPT pissed off so many countries, even though India never broke any proliferation laws.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 30 Sep 2010 20:52

Atrophy is the best policy. Politely decline troops for UN Peacekeeping operations. Send very junior officers for all UN engagements. something like some smart ass 25 yr old newbie IFS officers.

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 20:55

harbans wrote:since when India really does matter to the UN in the first place?
-----------------------

Precisely. If it doesn't matter to the UN why should India be there?

The UN without a billion people democracy truthfully won't be 'representative' any bit. See how much being outside the NPT pissed off so many countries, even though India never broke any proliferation laws.

Maybe just as matter as the rest 190+ non-P5 UN memebers, just be realistic, I am pretty sure there will be only one outcome if India threat they will quit UN if the P5 reject them: India quit UN.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 20:58

Fidel Guevara wrote: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!

First of all, I did mention we should pull off this show in collaboration with Brazil, not alone.

What's a kingdom with no subjects?

If India and Brazil leave the U.N., what makes you think that the other subjects of the P5 would stay around? Also if we still think we are a North Korea, then it could be that I really do come from a parallel universe ("Fringe"). There India has over a billion population and is on her way to become the third largest economy in the world.

We can of course sit around and hope the P5 give us some time on their videogame, or we can go out and make our own videogames. They are not that hard!

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 21:00

RajeshA wrote:
Fidel Guevara wrote: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!
First of all, I did mention we should pull off this show in collaboration with Brazil, not alone.

What's a kingdom with no subjects?

If India and Brazil leave the U.N., what makes you think that the other subjects of the P5 would stay around? Also if we still think we are a North Korea, then it could be that I really do come from a parallel universe ("Fringe"). There India has over a billion population and is on her way to become the third largest economy in the world.

We can of course sit around and hope the P5 give us some time on their videogame, or we can go out and make our own videogames. They are not that hard!

I am sure its much harder than you thought.

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 21:05

In the future, P5 may downsized to P3 (USA, EU and China), and even if all the rest world quit, it is still the P3 dominate the world politics, since the three would be more than enough to control the world's most wealth and power by then.

So UN is just like a pseduo-democracy society, in the end, only the P5 matter, without the rest, P5 can still do whatever they want to estentially control the world, despite of whether the rest world support their decisions or not.

UN actually helps the lesser powers MUCH more than the P5, since UN provide a platform to these lessers such that their vioces can at least be heard.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 21:06

forbiddenplat wrote:Indians should wise-up and don't get fooled, in this world, might is still always right, don't even trying to claim power that beyond your might, otherwise you will become a laughing stock in the world.

Judging by the commonwealth game disaster, India still has a long way to go, lets forget the unrealistic goals, build enough toilets and provide basic support to the poors should be placed at a higher priority.

Indians have the might. Indians have the military might and to some extent our economic might is not that bad either.

CWG disaster happened simply because nobody in India cares about non-cricket sports. If India was to manage the Cricket World Cup, it would have progressed perfectly.

What I hear is mommy telling beta, don't go outside, it is drizzling! At home, everything is okay. Outside it is a big bad world. If with the third/fourth strongest military in the world we have to stay indoors because it is drizzling outside, then I think we should simply retire the whole military and build toilets.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 21:10

forbiddenplat wrote:I am sure its much harder than you thought.

I am a bit of a science-fiction fan, so your words remind me of the first episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, where the Vulcans keep on telling humans not to venture too far into space. It is a dangerous territory!

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 21:14

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 30 Sep 2010 21:17

forbiddenplat wrote:In the future, P5 may downsized to P3 (USA, EU and China), and even if all the rest world quit, it is still the P3 dominate the world politics, since the three would be more than enough to control the world's most wealth and power by then.
.

The US and EU will never allow China to be elevated to nominal equality with themselves. They will keep Russia in the UNSC-P5 for exactly this purpose. Ultimately it is in the interest of all the other P5 members... US, UK, France and Russia... that China should be constrained within its corner of the world, and remain completely dependent on other nations' goodwill to secure its energy supplies via the Indian ocean. India will fully assist in this containment of China whether India is in the P5 or not.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 21:19

BTW, when PRC became one of the P5, it was nothing! So much for your criteria!

forbiddenplat wrote:As for military might, even pakistan don't afraid of Indian military might and a handful terrorists can give india a good run for their money in Bombay.

Okay, your English just tells me, you're a troll from PRC, so no need to take you seriously! See ya!

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 21:21

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 21:25

oink oink

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Sep 2010 21:28

I guess that's the general trends for people live in low latitude countries,

You seem to base your understanding on "general trends" that you perceive..but if you could get anymore stupid in your perceptions, guess you'd have to be watered twice a week..lol

Even at the time China was nothing,

So even now China is nothing eh?

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 30 Sep 2010 21:30

deleted

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 21:34

oink oink

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 21:37

forbiddenplat,

thanks for your visit. You can leave now!

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 30 Sep 2010 21:38

My choice is "No". This question reminds me of people who threaten to quit from a job, if they are not promoted. The only one who will be hurt in that case is the person who quits. It would be rather unfortunate if India decides to leave just when we are getting the clout to force our way into the council.

IMO, UN still has a lot of nuisance value. It depends on us to use it or ignore it depending on the situation, especially after we get into the Sec council. As India's economic and military clout increases, UN and the secutity council will appear downright silly if India is not part of the council. The first offer will quite possibly be one "without veto". IMO, India must not fall for that bait, ignore and subtly ridicule the offer and not accept it (if we can somehow collectively LOL on the offer, then it would be very effective). I believe this will allow us to continue to exploit the ridiculousness of UN sec council and eventually get in with full power.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 21:42

rgsrini wrote:As India's economic and military clout increases, UN and the secutity council will appear downright silly if India is not part of the council.

In ten years time, this can still be the refrain!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2010 21:44

forbiddenplat wrote: P5 can still do whatever they want to estentially control the world,

rubbish.

Somalia. Pakistan. North Korea.

And one of the P5 attacks Iraq. You seriously believe these morons control anything? Or is this another manifestation of incorrigible Americanitis?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Sep 2010 21:44

Hehe, what ever make you sleep better, I just be honest about the thoughts everyone have in the mind when it comes to india and indian people, but few getting as honest as I do,

No the fact is you are not being honest to yourself. There's lots of people doing business with India, and plenty who speak against China and others in my conversations in Europe, US and many many places. Do you see how CCP goons become active and go nuts on any foreign article when it does a one up of India on China? All you're doing is brushing a truth deep inside a carpet within yourself. Chinese have little to no cultural impact on Asia or the world..but even highly ridiculed Bollywood is watched all round. So propaganda that undermines India will be exposed for sure. And one day possibly you'll realize China has barked the wrong tree of totalitarianism to set an example to the rest of the world. What you have failed to learn is basic truths India has been espousing since time immemorial..Satyameva Jayate: The Truth always triumphs.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Sep 2010 21:46

The security council is a hangover from WW2. It is a cosy club of has beens and megalomaniacs. What the fclk does anyone in India want to give "bhau" to `that club by slobbering after it? Have we no brains?

And crying that we will quit if we don't get the bat. Bah!

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 30 Sep 2010 21:48

If India were to threaten to quit the UN on the basis of not being given a UNSC seat, it would be a laughing stock. I've heard it so many times that such and such a country will quit if it does not get its way.

The sad reality is that nobody will miss India and the move would only be self-isolating.

Rather stay in the UN and only follow rules that are in the national interest but not otherwise. This is what China did when it was not part of the UN. This is also what US did when it came to launching the Iraq invasion.

Power will not come from being appointed to some seat at the UN. It only comes from economic + military might. Personally I don't see how any future UNSC can have credibility without India or Africa. Two or three of the five members currently on the UNSC are already dinosaurs.

In this century, we are going to see the US and China compete globally for power so just sit back and enjoy the ride. Maybe even setup a 'non-aligned movement' sometime down the line when its appropriate. Those are some benefits of not being on a UNSC.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 21:59

So much baarish outside, beta geele ho jaoge!

forbiddenplat · Post by **forbiddenplat** » 30 Sep 2010 22:05

oink oink

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 22:14

forbiddenplat,

I think I was clear! You're not welcome here! Go make fun of Indians on Chinese forums or elsewhere!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 30 Sep 2010 22:16

since their leaders usually get way too big a mouth, thus give Chinese the, possibly wrong, impressions that Indians are all all-talk-no-actioners

What you don't or cannot realize is lots of democratic leaders all round the world are loud mouths. Condescending, patronizing, loud, boastful. But with that package one often gets leaders that people realize are different. Anyday MM Singh, Nehru, ABV, Gujral, PVNR were lesser lopudmouths and less boastful than Chinese leaders. Frankly that's the truth. Check out how loud and big some European and US politicians talk (say this since you've got an obvious peeve with people from lower latitudes). And as for....the ordinary Chinese they better not have too big a mouth..lest the military jackboot fill their mouths. Hence the cultural difference. Get it?

Rajesh ji..let him speak: Just exposing the shallow culture and narrowness of his thoughts for all and sundry. No wonder a kinship with the we are TFTA folks.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Sep 2010 22:28

Well just remember about wrestling a pig in the mud!

archan · Post by **archan** » 30 Sep 2010 22:50

RajeshA wrote:Well just remember about wrestling a pig in the mud!

Nevermind, the oink was an illegal sound. Had to be thrown out.

rgsrini · Post by **rgsrini** » 30 Sep 2010 22:59

shiv wrote:The security council is a hangover from WW2. It is a cosy club of has beens and megalomaniacs. What the fclk does anyone in India want to give "bhau" to `that club by slobbering after it? Have we no brains?

As they say in Tamil Siru thurumbum pal kutha vuthamum meaning "even a miniscule wooden splinter can be used as a tooth pick". It is up to us to find a use if we have it. Or absolutely ridicule it when we don't (exactly like you have done here).

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Oct 2010 00:44

RajeshA wrote: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.

I think too many fronts should not be opened at the same time. Dealing with China ( Tibet Card) would also enable us to deal with Pakistan. But opening another front with USA would sap the energy of diplomatic corps.

The best thing would be to make statements underlining irrelevance of UN forcefully from time to time and reminding it that it is a product of bygone era and need to change itself else ....

That should be enough for the time bring.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 01 Oct 2010 01:06

Americans at large hate the UN. Its only the state dept and the US government that keeps the UN in good humor as long as the UN does its bidding. The general consensus in the US. UN is bad news. We need to harness this peoples power here somehow. I don't know how we can do that though. So we need to somehow join the American (people)'s chorus and stroke that anti UN fire.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Oct 2010 01:32

How would actually something like this work?

Usually one doesn't go around making some arbitrary threats to other governments and giving them ultimatums. There is a long process of testing the waters. One puts out some feelers out there in the open using some allegedly off-the-cuff remarks from some politicians, some journalists write a few articles criticizing the UN, get the Americans to ask us what is it with the new mood, and then we tell them, there are voices within the establishment which are not happy about the position of the P5 keeping India out, and are putting pressure on others to leave UNO if there is no progress any time soon. India is also not happy about the Kashmir criticisms coming out of UN.

At the same time USA would similar signals from Brazil. Maybe South Africa could send out similar signals.

We would be testing the waters for a while, and then we'll reach some decision whether a formal ultimatum should be given or not, whether it would work or not. There will have to be a proper analysis of our chances beforehand.

There would coordination with groups in USA who feel very strongly about the UN and would be sympathetic to Indian position.

Moreover any pressure that India does exert on this score should be carefully timed. When we see, that USA direly requires Indian cooperation on some score, say Pakistan, then we should push the envelope. Timing is important.
The tactics would of course be discussed once GoI takes a decision.

Rajdeep · Post by **Rajdeep** » 01 Oct 2010 10:47

rather than a veto power seat, India should just demand a vote in the general assembly for the dissolution of the veto powers. The downside is some of the pressure that friendly states like Israel may face in an event of an absence of the veto vote.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 01 Oct 2010 11:08

It may be a foregone conclusion that veto powers may not be given to additional UNSC members.
This is what I meant by India getting UNSC membership in the reservation category!

However, India should not leave the UN. Best to drive a wedge in the system and see what
shakes loose - actually, that is the "nothing to lose but everything to gain" option.

Another approach could be to lobby to have a UNSC where a majority vote works.
Lets say there are four additional permanent members - so now we have 9 permanents.
If there are still 10 non-permanent members. The total will be 19.
How about 13 Yes votes for all procedural matters and 15 Yes votes for all substantive matters?

It is silly for India to just try to get into UNSC, it is more important to see if it means something
tangible. If the world governments cannot behave democratically at the UN, then why have a UN?

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 01 Oct 2010 11:13

If SC is not that important and potent and we really don't care, then why these tantrums to become veto carrying member of it and if it is really important and powerful, then turning our back on it would sound absolutely crazy even if Iran, NoKO, Brazil and few other countries join us in this walk out.
Why would India walking out of UN be such a great event for everyone else to be worried about ?

What is that we want from SC if we were to become its permanent Veto carrying member ?

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 01 Oct 2010 11:21

UN was formed to end the possibility of a Third World War, and in its efforts, UN has done a lot, despite so much criticism from almost all countries. The UN gets its power from the countries that believe in it. If this belief is damaged, reduced and nullfied, the UN will eventually cease to be of global importance.It is always upto the member countries to build up the image of UN, as it draws from them. In itself,UN couldnt last a day. People have enabled UN globally, so it is holding on.America may have an apparent sway over UN and so do countries like UK,China,USSR,France and Germany. With India breaking expectations all around, India needs to come into this power nexus too, and eventually it will happen.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Oct 2010 11:53

There will always be foreigners who will keep telling Indians that they are not worthy for the high table. There will be lots of Indians who will be convinced of that. Those are the mental locks we need to pick.

We deserve the high table. Period. What is the need of any additional qualifiers?

We are not perfect. But so is nobody else.

When we talk about acting like a spoilt child, then the implication is that we ourselves don't really consider us worthy or ready for wielding power. That is the colonized mind, where we have been told what our 'aukat' is. Those who think they are not ready for it, will never be ready.

So even before we consider any strategy to get to the high table, we have to absolutely believe in our worth. We have to internalize our right to have a say in how this world is molded, how the important decisions regarding our world are taken. So either the current power-brokers appreciate our right and make way for us, or we should refuse to give their decisions any legitimacy.

We refused to give legitimacy to the N-5 in NPT, so what is the need to give legitimacy to the P-5 in UNSC!

Denigrating the power of the P-5, and at the same time giving them legitimacy through one's membership of the UN is hardly compatible.

So either we sit at the table or we break the table.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 01 Oct 2010 15:23

Agreed with all your posts RajeshA ji, however IMHO, to change the system, first you need to be in the system. Or to win a match, you need to be in the match.

The problem that desh has in the UN is the complex about playing by the rules, we can only alter the status-quo if we start sabotaging all attempts made against our national interest, it is very much a tactical move-by-move game with respect to the UNSC. In every such move, India will find some allies and some opposition (latter always > former) but we have to remember that these allies are only tactical, not strategic.

Another thing which I noticed is that India leaving UN would be a tactical move, it is upto us to decide whether and how it would enable us to achieve a strategic goal. This needs to be gamed, I believe it might have been done already but a second attempt could never hurt.

Another issue is, how do we decide the timing of such a tactical move. How do we decide that the line has been crossed and we need to follow the exit route? As you very well know, timing is crucial in tactical decision making.

I am talking about timing as the current status-quo in UN has been around for a long time, what more must additionally happen for India to actually resign?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 01 Oct 2010 15:28

So either we sit on the table or we break the table.

Well said! The comparison with the N5 is apt. India was always uneasy about the NPT and so were the N5 on India not being a part of the set up. The moment representatives of India's billion population were satisfied having a vote equal to 2 million from Burklina Faso, India's case was lost in the UN. The UNSC would use leverage against India. If the UN was in any way representative, India's billion would not and should not have been tagged under a P5. So while it is true the UN may have had some benefits for smaller countries, it did'nt an iota benefit India. By putting democratic India down and totalitarian China up on the pedestal, the UN created for India's neighbours an impression that raw power alone merits attention and respect. In turn many groups based on realpolitik took over and looked up to Panda. The world over it became acceptable to think that China will dominate Asia, even while China reeled under starving millions while it exploded thermonuclear devices on the plateaus of Tibet. The example set by the UN in keeping India out will in history be remembered as a blunder.

IMHO, to change the system, first you need to be in the system. Or to win a match, you need to be in the match.

Klausji, yes. But India stayed outside the NPT system and has almost changed the rules. I don't think it's necessary to change the system always from the inside. A bad system should be changed altered from the outside. One can't get into Nazi society and change it from inside, same way one gets into the CCP system and change the way they think. Usually changes for the better for all these happen from those outside.

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