What's new

India UNSC membership. Withdraw Pakistani UN membership?

membership with out solve disputes should we widrow from UN?

  • yes

    Votes: 39 59.1%
  • no

    Votes: 22 33.3%
  • don't know

    Votes: 5 7.6%

  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
LOOKS like funny but its already happen if india will got in 2015 UNSC as veto power membership should we sidrow from UN and kick UN ??????? is it posible they give to india membership without solve the issues with pakistan?????.:)

please don't be troll or mess with thread i go for a visit monday i will be back and check results.its reqest to all.:cry:

No Imran bai :what: if ppl of Pakistan have so much of problem with we Indians getting a permanent seat then you can change the system only by being a part of the system. Not from the outside.

And anybody who thinks rationally will tell u the same. But one thing is for sure some day or the other we will get it. So why resist instead why not start new rounds of negotiations an resolve all disputes :toast_sign:
 
Stepping out of the UN is not an option for pakistan, which in the end amounts to self imposed isolation when none is required out of which nothing concrete will be achieved and I seriously doubt such a move will be allowed to happen both by the bigger powers and by the pak army which has very strong interests to be protected. One has to think on lines as to what Pakistan brings on board to the UN, the reason behind it and the replacement.

Pakistan today contributes extensively to the UN peace keeping force, now the main reason that gets done is because of the handsome salaries that get earned, and these postings are either seen as an appreciation to the good one has delivered at the home front or are delivered as a reward because the juniors were able to keep themselves in the good books of the seniors. Can this be replaced if Pakistan were to withdraw, yes, though there remains a quota to the extent one country can deploy but when faced with constraints UN can increase on the number of people that can be deployed from each country and there are many countries including India which will be more than happy to chip in.

The other and a more important aspect is a nuclear Pakistan, and that to an extent is the bargaining muscle that Pakistan has, now if a nuclear weapon armed state were to walk off the UN then that in itself would be diluting the UN to an extent which will possibly bring bad press across the globe for the UN but I feel with very strong USA interests vested in Pakistan with a polity and military completely aligned with those interests, that would be a maneuver very difficult to bring about. The down side in here if done could be that this will bring about a suspicion on the intent of Pakistan and a possibility of Pakistan being painted as a rouge state, the last thing you want to do is go against the USA’s interests in a world over shadowed by the might of the USA.

Will India get the UNSC seat? Yes, how soon? Seems like within this decade, at max with a decade and a half, had the bush administration been around the world press would have been abuzz with India being brought to the UNSC, and the sole reason of that happening will be the compulsion for the USA to do it, or else china will become a headache at the world stage for them a little too difficult to handle, and they need a counter balance.

As the things stand today, china is no where a problem one sees and they will fall in line as they fell when the nuke deal happened, and pranab mukherjee has been quoted as saying, “(Chinese) President Hu Jintao reiterated the assurance given by Chinese Premier (Wen Jiabao) to Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh) in April last year that China understands and supports India's aspiration to play a bigger role in the UN, including in the Security Council” link.

The problem is the USA which wants an assurance coming from India that we will align to their way of strategizing, and be in their loop on all major issues and this is an assurance very difficult to come by though one might see a behind the door understanding but in a vibrant democracy where a regime change happens every five years that is very difficult to come about. How will this part be negotiated, very difficult to say but yes India will to an extent give in on its independent foreign policy.

Someone said, Pakistan should be brought in for being a muslim state, answer for that is, that wont be happening since that claim has been staked by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and there is no bigger voice for the muslims than that of the Saudis.
 
@ Keen Interest,
a very good summation of the present scenario, well done.

@ all,

Judging from the poll. i would say that many members of the forum do not understand that importance of membership of the U.N. for any country.

It will be a political and geographical suicide for Pakistan were it to withdraw from the U.N membership. We would have no platform to raise our voice on, we would have no right to sue in the International Court of Justice, we would be totally isolated from the world and our citizens would have no rights anywhere. International Law would not recognize us, and we would be termed as Belligerents by the whole world at large.

I do not think that is the way to go, do you?

What we should do is to have good working relationships with our neighbors and friends and let the world know that we are a responsible nation. Trifles like U.N. permanent membership will follow soon thereafter.

regards,
 
I'm not able to understand what the creator of the poll meant to gather opinion on. It's highly confusing.

Can somebody explain in clear words what the poll is meant for?
 
i only said pakistan should push for a seat if india gets it, nothing wrong with trying.

i think nobody can argue that if the un secirity council is to mean anything to the whole world then the islamic world, the latin american world and the african world deserve a seat on the council,but heaven forbid that scenario, it would be too democratic - oyu must let the anglo americans rule
 
Highly unlikely that india will ever get veto power getting permanent UNSC seat
reason..india has illegally occupied Chinese land and until that problem is not resolved there is not even a remote chances of midget india getting up to that UNSC seat.

Case closed. No need to proceed further.
 
HI
Not to mention if India will be joining forces with USA to counter China, then Chinese are not naive that they will contribute in making India stronger in world politics by voting in India's favor. However international politics is very complicated & simple simultaneously so its not easy to say anything at this stage
 
UN seat is just a bargaining chip by US against Russia. But well its old saying UNO means "U" for united states and "NO" for rest of world.
 
SinoIndusFriendship....you are correct if not in next 25 years atleast 7-12 states will be separated.
They follow the russian line the poorest line of all thus you follow daddy whose marriage was a disaster they'll get the same end. :tdown:
 
So according to u a nuclear bomb is a requirement for becoming a permanent member???

Neither Necessity nor Sufficiency condition

But the fact

5 UNSC permanent members (五大常任理事國) = 5 Nuclear states (五大核國)


Do you think that very small and non-poweful states like Latvia, Belgium, Senegal, Qatar can become UNSC permanent members :bunny:
 
Asia Times Online - The best news coverage from South Asia

China is not so petty, no matter what the Pakistanis would have you believe.

The news was 2004, and indian - china relationship is very unstable. I dont think china will support indian without solving the disputed land issue. So, consider the countries who have possibility to get UNSC seat and rank the possibility from high to low will be: German>Brazil>Japan>india.

BTW: If china would support india on UNSC, I think Hu Jin Tao will be eaten by live by chinese people.:lol:

Added: And by the way, china said support india is bcoz we know US willnt agree this, we dont need jump to the front, it is the fight between Russia and US. Japan is in the same case, with US supporter but not Russia. But, if US changed his mind, I think chinese leaders know what should they do very clearly.
 
Last edited:
India getting a seat on the U.N. Security Council? Their legs are getting pulled.

Veto Powers (dying of laughter)
 
UN is stupid. Just leave it altogether. I mean, a US president, (Woodrow Wilson), started the League of Nations but the US Congress voted against it. This was back in WWI.

You don't need a middleman to settle disputes. As we have seen, the UN is unable to do anything and often times the peacekeepers are corrupt. U.N. 'peacekeepers' rape women, children. Hell, they are even immune to justice. U.N. and Former U.N. Officials Immune From Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Suit (Labor and Employment Law Blog).

If we leave the UN, we may not be able to use the International Justice Court to sue others, but we won't be sued ourselves. We won't lose any 'voice' because most of the Western world doesn't give a damn anyway. We can still have diplomatic relations with any other country we want. The US had cordial relations with Iran since 1856, with no help from the UN. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations.
 

Back
Top Bottom