India lashes out against ‘powerless’ UN Security Council

[Chinese-Dragon]

India in 2015 is more qualified to stake the claim for the permanent seat on UNSC than PRC in 1971.

China got her UNSC seat as US wanted China's stature upgraded to confront USSR.

Now it's India's turn to receive the same from US to confront China.

There was only 1 criteria to become a member of the P5. To have been a major independent power on the Allied side of WW2. That's all, nothing else.

India of course did not actually exist back then, that's why they were never considered for a seat. Britain already had a P5 seat anyway.

 

[dadeechi]

There was only 1 criteria to become a member of the P5. To have been a major independent power on the Allied side of WW2. That's all, nothing else.

India of course did not actually exist back then, that's why they were never considered for a seat. Britain already had a P5 seat anyway.

PRC was established in 1949. How can it be part of allied forces in WW2?

 

[waz]

Welcome criticism to be honest. SA Asian nations have sent their men the world over to protect the weak and helpless. I could only just imagine the carnage that would ensue had Pakistan/Indian/Bengali troops not been in many African states e.g. Congo. Operating procedures are clogged by silly red tape.



Pakistan’s Permanent Representative also welcomed the proposal for better consultations with troop-contributing countries. Like many others, she opposed deploying peacekeepers for counter-terrorism operations.

Pakistan and India agreeing, oh Lord the world is coming to an end .

 

[HttpError]

There can be no seat for whiners, no country would support it. Even if they are supporting but when the real time will come no will. Who wants to share power ?

 

[dadeechi]

Welcome criticism to be honest. SA Asian nations have sent their men the world over to protect the weak and helpless. I could only just imagine the carnage that would ensue had Pakistan/Indian/Bengali troops not been in many African states e.g. Congo. Operating procedures are clogged by silly red tape.



Pakistan’s Permanent Representative also welcomed the proposal for better consultations with troop-contributing countries. Like many others, she opposed deploying peacekeepers for counter-terrorism operations.

Pakistan and India agreeing, oh Lord the world is coming to an end .

A strong south asian union would give sleepless nights to the powers that be. They hope that this never materializes.

 

[waz]

A strong south asian union would give sleepless nights to the powers that be. They hope that this never materializes.

Once various problems are sorted out, the region will grow from strength to strength.

 

[Srinivas]

Welcome criticism to be honest. SA Asian nations have sent their men the world over to protect the weak and helpless. I could only just imagine the carnage that would ensue had Pakistan/Indian/Bengali troops not been in many African states e.g. Congo. Operating procedures are clogged by silly red tape.



Pakistan’s Permanent Representative also welcomed the proposal for better consultations with troop-contributing countries. Like many others, she opposed deploying peacekeepers for counter-terrorism operations.

Pakistan and India agreeing, oh Lord the world is coming to an end .

I think soon Pakistan will take u turn and oppose India and other countries including china who support UN peace keeping force in Afghanistan.

 

[dadeechi]

Once various problems are sorted out, the region will grow from strength to strength.

Actually surmounting the issues is not a big deal but withstanding the adverse fallout of that from the power that be is the main concern.

Once the nations are strong enough to withstand that fallout, the agreements would be made public.

I foresee this happening in the next 10 years time.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

PRC was established in 1949. How can it be part of allied forces in WW2?

In the UN charter, permanent seats are given to 5 "countries", not governments.

So it can pass from government to government, as long as they are the officially recognized representative of said country.

For example:

USSR seat -> transferred to -> Russian Federation

Republic of China seat -> transferred to -> People's Republic of China

India on the other hand did not exist back then, it was merely a part of the British Empire, nobody considered it a country. That's why it wasn't considered for a seat. Britain already had/has a seat.

 

[Shotgunner51]

RIP to the 85 peacekeepers killed in their UN mission regardless of their nationalities, they deserve highest honour.

On topic, how does the funding works?

Say on UN missions, do peacekeeper-sending countries fund all the costs from their own inland revenue? It seems unfair to South Asian countries, as well as to Ethiopia & Rwanda (they are also among T5 peacekeeper sending countries), if they have to bear the costs. Or is it funded by UN?

 

[dadeechi]

In the UN charter, permanent seats are given to 5 "countries", not governments.

So it can pass from government to government, as long as they are the officially recognized representative of said country.

For example:

USSR seat -> transferred to -> Russian Federation

Republic of China seat -> transferred to -> People's Republic of China

India on the other hand did not exist back then, it was merely a part of the British Empire, nobody considered it a country. That's why it wasn't considered for a seat. Britain already had/has a seat.

So you are saying that ROC was the true representative of China until 1971?

 

[kadamba-warrior]

So you attack the Security Council, then you beg to join it?

How will adding India suddenly make the Security Council better? Because Modi/India is an upstanding beacon of morality?

Have you even read the International News headlines today? India is mentioned (multiple incidents in Delhi) but it has nothing to do with their moral worth being so much better than that of the P5. The opposite in fact.

To be clear I don't believe morality has anything to do with geopolitics, in geopolitics only national interests matter. No country deserves to get on a moral high horse above the others, and especially not India.

In your eagerness to put India down, it looks like you forgot to read the article properly. Or you commented, nevertheless, assuming that nobody else would read it too!

The article clearly states that, India is lashing out at the UNSC for lack of transparency and co-ordination which is causing avoidable casualties and rendering Peace Keeping operations ineffective!

Being the largest contributor to the Peace Keeping force, India is entitled to be enraged at the casualties (total casualties amounting to 85 this year alone, according to OP). That is called "call for accountability and transparency" in the face of mounting troop mortality!

BTW, India is speaking on behalf of all countries that are contributing to the peace-keeping forces!

Where is India even talking about morality? To be sure, I searched the whole article for the word "Morality" but couldn't find one! How did you even manage to bring the "life expectancy", "Child mortality" and "malnutrition" rates in this thread? Eh?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

In your eagerness to put India down, it looks like you forgot to read the article properly. Or you commented, nevertheless, assuming that nobody else would read it too!

The article clearly states that, India is lashing out at the UNSC for lack of transparency and co-ordination which is causing avoidable casualties and rendering Peace Keeping operations ineffective!

Can you read? Thread title: "India lashes out against ‘powerless’ UN Security Council."

First paragraph: "Calling the Security Council ineffective and powerless, India has lashed out against its lack of accountability and transparency in mandating peacekeeping operations and blamed it for the rising casualties among peacekeepers."

Yeah because the UNSC is so powerless and India is a superpower right? So why are you begging for a P5 seat?

Attacking the UNSC while begging for a permanent seat at the same time. At least make up your minds.

Using the deaths of peacekeepers in order to further your low agenda of trying to become a permanent member of the UNSC.

 

[dadeechi]

Can you read? Thread title: India lashes out against ‘powerless’ UN Security Council.

Yeah because the UNSC is so powerless and India is a superpower right? So why are you begging for a P5 seat?

Attacking the UNSC while begging for a permanent seat at the same time. At least make up your minds.

Forget about the title. "Don't judge a book by its cover"

Did you read the content of the article?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Forget about the title. "Don't judge a book by its cover"

Did you read the content of the article?

Sure, Modi is using the deaths of Peacekeepers as "political point scoring", trying to push India's agenda of getting a P5 seat by accusing the UNSC of being powerless and ineffective, obviously since it doesn't include the superpower India.

If he really valued the lives of those Peacekeepers he wouldn't be point scoring over this issue.