Islamic Bloc wants Permanent Seat at UN Security Council

[Providence]

Yes, the whole world knows that you people are fake champs of democracy!

I would have given you a proper elucidated answer but you sound like a typical run of the mill yahoo who will refuse to acknowledge anything told. So happy ranting !! ciao.

 

[anon45]

UNSC for it's current form is not because of fundamental human nature but because of what it is supposed to do ! The nature of it's function makes it as such !

UNSC exists in its current form because its current form are the victorious allies in WW2, in other words, the strong (at the time). It exists in its current form today also because no country wants to give up or dilute its prized place in being able to unilaterally veto something detrimental to their interests.

I can guarantee you that if the roles were reversed for China and India, the exact same thing would happen.

Power politics is human politics.

And your foes want theirs!

Im sure.

So, don't point finger at theocracy because to many people that's also human nature but of course, that's not possible for uncle sam for uncle sam is the champion of hypocrisy!

Faith in something (or perhaps the desire to understand and make sense of things) is a natural extension of human nature.

Government by Religion is not a natural extension of human nature.
It provably isn't, because it is not observed all around the world.

There are numerous countries where religion is not a part of the state or its policies, both past and present.

 

[Providence]

UNSC exists in its current form because its current form are the victorious allies in WW2, in other words, the strong (at the time). It exists in its current form today also because no country wants to give up or dilute its prized place in being able to unilaterally veto something detrimental to their interests.

I can guarantee you that if the roles were reversed for China and India, the exact same thing would happen.

Power politics is human politics.

Well there are two layers to that argument basically. One is the composition of the council which you have amply pointed out.
The second part of it is how come seemingly non-democratic countries are in the council and it's working not democratic ?

That is not because of human nature but by nature of it's function. If UNSC would just have been a pseudo legislative body then democratic setup would have made sense. (Which is why the general assembly is democratic ).
UNSC is also a pseudo-judicial cum executive council as well. executive and judiciary by the nature of it's work can never be a democratically functioning organisation. UNSC is where the buck stops.

This is as simple a reason there can be for it being undemocratic. And it would continue to be so in future.

 

[anon45]

Well there are two layers to that argument basically. One is the composition of the council which you have amply pointed out.
The second part of it is how come seemingly non-democratic countries are in the council and it's working not democratic ?

That is not because of human nature but by nature of it's function. If UNSC would just have been a pseudo legislative body then democratic setup would have made sense. (Which is why the general assembly is democratic ).
UNSC is also a pseudo-judicial cum executive council as well. executive and judiciary by the nature of it's work can never be a democratically functioning organisation. UNSC is where the buck stops.

This is as simple a reason there can be for it being undemocratic. And it would continue to be so in future.

Fair enough, I see your point.

 

[T-Rex]

[

Faith in something (or perhaps the desire to understand and make sense of things) is a natural extension of human nature.

Government by Religion is not a natural extension of human nature.
It provably isn't, because it is not observed all around the world.

There are numerous countries where religion is not a part of the state or its policies, both past and present.

As I said hypocrisy is the backbone of the US thinking. If the US was so honest about secularism it would have done something when people were killed in india by terrorists for eating beef. But of course it's just a tool like the ISIS.

 

[Pakistani sipahi]

Let them liberate their Palestinian brethren against israeli oppression with balls, then they can demand for a permanent seat. 1.6 billion couldn't standup against few thousands, what they are going to do with a permanent seat?

We will liberate them God willing , but first let us kick the Indian @ss .

 

[Maravan]

We will liberate them God willing , but first let us kick the Indian @ss .

Its been more than 60years now... You sound like indian PSU, will/can/would/could... Let's see whether i am able to see a liberated palestine in this life time.

 

[anon45]

[

As I said hypocrisy is the backbone of the US thinking. If the US was so honest about secularism it would have done something when people were killed in india by terrorists for eating beef. But of course it's just a tool like the ISIS.

Why?

So you rage against us for interfering and rage against us for not interfering?

Do you just want consistancy?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China has the largest number of:

1) Taoists in the world
2) Buddhists in the world
3) Atheists in the world
4) Chinese folk religion in the world
5) Confucians in the world

So let's have 5 more seats.

 

[tranquilium]

Well there are two layers to that argument basically. One is the composition of the council which you have amply pointed out.
The second part of it is how come seemingly non-democratic countries are in the council and it's working not democratic ?

That is not because of human nature but by nature of it's function. If UNSC would just have been a pseudo legislative body then democratic setup would have made sense. (Which is why the general assembly is democratic ).
UNSC is also a pseudo-judicial cum executive council as well. executive and judiciary by the nature of it's work can never be a democratically functioning organisation. UNSC is where the buck stops.

This is as simple a reason there can be for it being undemocratic. And it would continue to be so in future.

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. UNSC's true purpose and the one it filled well is simple----preventing major powers from starting a world war III.

Now, the politically correct statement would be "peace is achieve by letting everyone's voice be heard and achieve understanding between different nations". Of course, that will also be blatant lie, or at least a theory that does not work well in the real world. In reality, the WORKING method to preserve peace is ensuring people capable of starting a world war have a place and medium that they can use to settle their interests without opening fire. I won't sugar coat it, much of that is done at the expense of smaller and weaker nations/groups. Take the recent Syria case for example, the true nature of the case and Russian/China veto should be interpreted as such:

1. US and EU has interest in Syria in form of remove Assad for another candidate more suitable to US and EU interest.
2. Russia has existing interest in Syria and is in favor of preserving Assad to keep that interest.
3. China has no interest in Syria, but do not wish US/EU to expand its interest in Middle East.

Unfortunately for the Syrians, even though they are the rightful owner of their homeland, their interests are certainly not the ones considered at UNSC. However, at risk of being devil's advocate, I would have to point out even though Syrians in general (Assad and rebels both included) got the raw end of the deal, US, EU, Russia and China walked out with their interests temporarily satisfied. (Or at least settled) And without firing on each other. This will sound cold, but the reality is that whatever damage Syrians can do, it is certain minor comparing to a open conflict between major nations.

Which brought us back to Islamic bloc's suppose ambition to a seat at UNSC, the answer is that unless the Islamic bloc can achieve a political unity and present sufficient force and influence to match the major powers, it is not likely to happen. Similarly, this is why even though India and Japan has attempted to gain access to UNSC for decades, it is still no closer to do so.

 

[Azizam]

I made a religion by myself. I also need veto power to protect my interests.

 

[Genghis khan1]

UNSC is only effective for weak nations. Once a country reach strong economical and military status, there is not much UNSC can do about them. If OIC really wants UNSC to dance for them; they need to develop Industry and joint military force while properly utilizing their resources. Considering all the Land mass, Population and Resources owned by OIC countries , UN and NATO will mean nothing if they unite and work together.

 

[Providence]

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. UNSC's true purpose and the one it filled well is simple----preventing major powers from starting a world war III.

Now, the politically correct statement would be "peace is achieve by letting everyone's voice be heard and achieve understanding between different nations". Of course, that will also be blatant lie, or at least a theory that does not work well in the real world. In reality, the WORKING method to preserve peace is ensuring people capable of starting a world war have a place and medium that they can use to settle their interests without opening fire. I won't sugar coat it, much of that is done at the expense of smaller and weaker nations/groups. Take the recent Syria case for example, the true nature of the case and Russian/China veto should be interpreted as such:

1. US and EU has interest in Syria in form of remove Assad for another candidate more suitable to US and EU interest.
2. Russia has existing interest in Syria and is in favor of preserving Assad to keep that interest.
3. China has no interest in Syria, but do not wish US/EU to expand its interest in Middle East.

Unfortunately for the Syrians, even though they are the rightful owner of their homeland, their interests are certainly not the ones considered at UNSC. However, at risk of being devil's advocate, I would have to point out even though Syrians in general (Assad and rebels both included) got the raw end of the deal, US, EU, Russia and China walked out with their interests temporarily satisfied. (Or at least settled) And without firing on each other. This will sound cold, but the reality is that whatever damage Syrians can do, it is certain minor comparing to a open conflict between major nations.

Which brought us back to Islamic bloc's suppose ambition to a seat at UNSC, the answer is that unless the Islamic bloc can achieve a political unity and present sufficient force and influence to match the major powers, it is not likely to happen. Similarly, this is why even though India and Japan has attempted to gain access to UNSC for decades, it is still no closer to do so.

Agree with you to a lot of extent. And it has been pretty effective I would say in preventing another world-war. We cannot let small geopolitical events to cascade into a world-wide showdown. The UNSC members through trade-offs among them ensures that.

As for OIC, they have never been a cohesive unit. Although it is a political entity, the underlying unifying factor is religion. With this dichotomy at play, what you call a "credible" force can never emerge. The shia-sunni rift is just one of the many major reasons for that.

UNSC is only effective for weak nations. Once a country reach strong economical and military status, there is not much UNSC can do about them. If OIC really wants UNSC to dance for them; they need to develop Industry and joint military force while properly utilizing their resources. Considering all the Land mass, Population and Resources owned by OIC countries , UN and NATO will mean nothing if they unite and work together.

You sound as if each islamic country is just waiting for a phone call from another and voila, a leading power would emerge.
Reality is far from that

The country heads of OIC know that but they sell horse-shit to their people back at home just to keep the charade going.

 

[BABA AGHORI]

OIC is not a religious block, if so the same can be said about the EU.

What 'I' stands for in OIC ? OIC is a religious block which try to make a political clout.

 

[Genghis khan1]

What 'I' stands for in OIC ? OIC is a religious block which try to make a political clout.

OIC function isn't to talk religion or spread religion. It is a political block of countries with same religion.