UN Security Council out of tune, serves no one's purpose: India

[arp2041]

Though i think India very well deserve the UNSC permanent seat with a veto power, but i think we should not be seen as a desperate nation for this one. US,China, Russia, UK & France i.e. the current permanent members were made so b'coz they were the victors of the WW2 & also there economic, political & military might was such that they can't be left out if we want any real world peace the very objective of UN, so let our military, political & economic power show for itself that without India the objectives of UN fails & thus giving India a permanent seat is a must, this is a thing which will take time & we just need to be patient.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

>>serves no purpose
>>please let us be permanent member

>>wut

Serves no purpose in its current form .

 

[Abii]

I agree, the UN must be reformed.

The current format is a complete joke.

IMO every single member must be equal and have equal power in the UN. The fact is, the majority of the world will always vote against the West and this scares them.

 

[Android]

Though i think India very well deserve the UNSC permanent seat with a veto power, but i think we should not be seen as a desperate nation for this one. US,China, Russia, UK & France i.e. the current permanent members were made so b'coz they were the victors of the WW2

i thought france lost WW2

Though i think India very well deserve the UNSC permanent seat with a veto power, but i think we should not be seen as a desperate nation for this one. US,China, Russia, UK & France i.e. the current permanent members were made so b'coz they were the victors of the WW2

i thought france lost WW2

 

[Amolthebest]

Its high time to disband veto system. Why those 5 countries have more say than other countries. Its comic when UK have more say than Indian in international affairs. Mockery of democracy.

 

[Developereo]

Its high time to disband veto system.

Without the veto, no one, including India, will give a damn about being a permanent member of UNSC.

 

[arp2041]

i thought france lost WW2

That was the initial phases of war where France lost it's territory to Axis powers, so was the case with USSR & China, also UK's capital was bombed like hell by Nazi Germany, but finally all these countries were on the winning side/victors & thus got UNSC permanent seat as a victory symbol.

 

[Nair saab]

That was the initial phases of war where France lost it's territory to Axis powers, so was the case with USSR & China, also UK's capital was bombed like hell by Nazi Germany, but finally all these countries were on the winning side/victors & thus got UNSC permanent seat as a victory symbol.

If that was the criteria for a UNSC seat then British India was the biggest Contributor to that war both in Terms of Men & Money... Then India, Pakistan & Bangeldesh should get 1 seat each... with that logic atleast more deserving then Loosers like France

 

[Amolthebest]

If that was the criteria for a UNSC seat then British India was the biggest Contributor to that war both in Terms of Men & Money... Then India, Pakistan & Bangeldesh should get 1 seat each... with that logic atleast more deserving then Loosers like France

Not only France, China too.Pathetic performers in war besides France and Italy

 

[arp2041]

If that was the criteria for a UNSC seat then British India was the biggest Contributor to that war both in Terms of Men & Money... Then India, Pakistan & Bangeldesh should get 1 seat each... with that logic atleast more deserving then Loosers like France

mate ur argument fails on the point that India participated in the war as British India (not an independent country) whereas all the five nations were independent nations at the time & post ww2. Also just to clarify here that UN was formed by the allied powers, so there can be no doubt that they will demand more say in it's affairs.

 

[Amolthebest]

mate ur argument fails on the point that India participated in the war as British India (not an independent country) whereas all the five nations were independent nations at the time & post ww2. Also just to clarify here that UN was formed by the allied powers, so there can be no doubt that they will demand more say in it's affairs.

Why some countries who won some war before almost 75 years still rule the UNO. ? What would it take to Change UNO pattern? 3rd world war?

 

[arp2041]

Why some countries who won some war before almost 75 years still rule the UNO. ? What would it take to Change UNO pattern? 3rd world war?

That's exactly what India is saying. No we will not be needing another WW for change in UNSC (there will be no world left for change anyways), but change in the UNO charter, which is like making dramatic changes in Indian constitution, for that there should be consent of 75% members of UNO + approval of all 5 permanent members, so it will need a lot of time, as i said before, patience is the key.

 

[third eye]

Without the veto, no one, including India, will give a damn about being a permanent member of UNSC.

Missed the point.

Veto implies that the decision making of other members of the SC - including the rotational members is flawed.

It must go.

Resolutions should be passed by voting among all members of the SC. This would be a test of diplomatic skills of all members equally.

 

[Awesome]

India: UNSC sucks, but it will all be okay if you take us in!

If India had any honor, it would argue to eliminate a tyrannical scheme such as UNSC.

I'm glad Pakistan has been one of the few nations that has had the guts to say UNSC should be abolished.

 

[third eye]

India: UNSC sucks, but it will all be okay if you take us in!

If India had any honor, it would argue to eliminate a tyrannical scheme such as UNSC.

I'm glad Pakistan has been one of the few nations that has had the guts to say UNSC should be abolished.

Missed the woods for the trees.

As the title suggests the existing system of UNSC sucks and needs reform. Not the UN.

For the record India is already in - since 1947.