India, Germany on the Security Council

[Aj Windshadow]

Well recently China recomended India on being a member as i qoute "India can play a vital role in reviving the effectiveness of the UN."

What is your take on this ?

It may be noted India from its independance has played a huge role in the UN. It was the country which founded NAM ( non aligned movement ) and reduced the tensions during the Cold War.
It has supported independance in various countries like Indonesia.
It has also many times sent its troops for UN peace keeping force.
In Africa, many developmental programs have been led by India.
It has also advocated human rights in its constitution.
Most importantly, it has been battling terrorism for the past two decades and continues to play a leading role in it.

Cons:
It did not sign the Treaty for disarmament of Nuclear Weapons due to security concerns.

It does not have a military force as strong as any of the other members.

(This space basically you can fillup I'm not aware of many cons)

Also, do talk about Germany joining the Security Council.

[Canadian Tire Money]

yes, lets let a bunch of countries have vito's because the way to have the UN be more effective is to add more lays of buracracy.

[TechnoHamster]

Add Japan and Germany, kick Russia and China off.

[Aj Windshadow]

CTM both these countries have done much more than US or UK, in the overall development of UN.
They can be much more of use than other countries....
Thats my viewpoint though.

[Lejond]

And I'm sure we should just listen to everything China says :y-pet:

[Aj Windshadow]

Err...China never before supported India they have even warred before so this is pretty significant.
Also Russia has always backed India up on it becoming a Security council memeber.
France is indifferent on this context.

EDIT : better than having US on it ! It has waged more wars in the past ten years than any developed country!

[mojojojomo]

In the past half decade, Japan, India and Germany have all taken positions in global politics which, one might think, should garuntee them positions on the Security Council. The problem lies within the bureaucracy that is created by such an insitution. In giving more countries the power to veto, the UN (already critically hampered by an overburdened operating system) would become virtually redundant. Personally, i think it should go the other way, and veto be removed from the 'Big Five', and one vote be given to all, as per usual democracies. Unfortunately, for that to happen, the permanent residents on the Council would need to agree, and that's not very likely. It's even less so when you consider all those libertarian nuts, who fear the UN will eventually turn into a world government.

Add Japan and Germany, kick Russia and China off.

Won't happen. Neither Russia or China will be willing to relinquish their power.

CTM both these countries have done much more than US or UK, in the overall development of UN.


Ignoring the fact, of course, that the US and UK actually set up the insitution, and that America pays something like 65%+ of the budget of the UN.

better than having US on it ! It has waged more wars in the past ten years than any developed country!

And everyone of them, bar the last, was fought with the UN's backing, and often by it's direct order. Let's not turn this into some US bashing fest please.

[Aj Windshadow]

So the vietnam war, korean war, support of the Taliban by giving weapons condeming and making communism illegal was a all a good thing. Sure.Lets not even start about Iraq shall we.

[mojojojomo]

Which of those, aside from Gulf War II, happened in the past 10 years, pray tell? And word to the wise, the Korean War was justified, and UN mandated to boot. Also, the US didn't aid the Taliban, they aided the mujahadeen of which the Taliban were a small section. And given the nature of the enemy, and that no one could predict what would happen later, it wasn't entirely unjustified. Finally, communism was never declared illegal. That's why McCarthyism is so reviled.

[Aj Windshadow]

Agreed. they were not in the past ten years does'nt mean they did'nt happen

[mojojojomo]

Alright, let's recap what you actually said, shall we:

better than having US on it ! It has waged more wars in the past ten years than any developed country!

Only Gulf War II took place in the last 10 years. What's more, the list you presented wasn't entirely composed of misdeeds. If the US was removed from the Security Council, the sole Western power capable of effective military action (however misguided it may sometimes be) would no doubt abandon the UN entirely. When it is in a fairly precarious position already, such an event would signall the death knell for the UN. Not only would it lose it's most powerful and willing army, but also vast amounts of required revenue.

[Aj Windshadow]

There seems to be a communication gap between us. Without the original members there is no integrity of the UN as all of them are the most militarily and economically.
Agreed totally.That statement was basically to say these countries are playing the bigger role now and believe in the UN!
The veto abandonning, I'm not sure.

[TechnoHamster]

...and that America pays something like 65%+ of the budget of the UN. Actually, America pays 22%, Japan pays 19.5%, Germany pays 9.5%, France pays 6.3%, the UK pays 5.4%, Canada pays 2.6%, Spain pays 2.4%, Brazil pays 1.7%, Netherlands pay 1.7%, Australia pays 1.6%, Korea pays 1.3%, and Russia pays 1.2%. China is presumably somewhere further down the list.

[mojojojomo]

Historically, the US has paid a larger percentage than that. Regardless, when the US refused to pay (ie throughout the Secritariat of Boutros-Ghali), the UN was rendered impotent.

[Canadian Tire Money]

Aj Windshadow, i don't care who has done what for the UN. the UN is fundamentally flawed.

[undsputed1]

"Actually, America pays 22%, Japan pays 19.5%, Germany pays 9.5%, France pays 6.3%, the UK pays 5.4%, Canada pays 2.6%, Spain pays 2.4%, Brazil pays 1.7%, Netherlands pay 1.7%, Australia pays 1.6%, Korea pays 1.3%, and Russia pays 1.2%. China is presumably somewhere further down the list."

It would be a shame if you forgot the muscle behind the UN. Over 70% American in Gulf War one.

[TechnoHamster]

Historically, the US has paid a larger percentage than that. If history mattered, then Japan and Germany wouldn't be on the UN, and the 5 winners of WWII wouldn't get any special treatment.

Oh wait...

*puts 2 and 2 together*

Damn history...

[Lejond]

Put India there instead of France. Then India can go sh!tkick Pakistan and veto any UN response and save the newspapers alot of ink.

[Aj Windshadow]

Aj Windshadow, i don't care who has done what for the UN. the UN is fundamentally flawed.

Finally, someone whose viosion isn't blurred.

Make CTM the dictator of the world....flowers for Imperial, ruler of all, all mighty CTM...........
:y-kiss: