|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:34 am Post subject: India slams UN Security Council |
 |
|
| Quote: |
India slams UN Security Council for failing to meet obligations
UNITED NATIONS: India has lambasted the 15-member Security Council for failing to meet its obligations of maintaining international peace and security, saying it is the result of its "un-representative" character and consequent lack of political will.
In a sharp criticism of the Council's inaction as the "tragic events" unfolded in Lebanon recently and the West Asian peace process was derailed, Indian Ambassador Nirupama Sen likened the Council to Emperor Nero who was fiddling while Rome was burning.
"The main problem that beset peacekeeping are not lack of resources or even personnel, but an un-representative Security Council which lacks the political will to act and when it does, does so in a manner that is entirely inadequate," he told the United Nations General Assembly.
Asking the Council members to shore up their participation in the peacekeeping operations, Sen said it is a "distressing reflection" on their willingness to share the burden of maintaining international peace and security when overwhelming number of troops in the peacekeeping operations are contributed by the developing nations.
Stressing that reform of the United Nations, which the major power are demanding, would be incomplete without the expansion of the 15-member Council, he said it needs to be made more representative and effective if it is to satisfactorily perform the role mandated to it by the Charter.
It is imperative, Sen said, that any expansion and restructuring of the Council must include developing countries in both permanent and non permanent categories.
Pointing out that developing countries remain "grossly under-represented" in the Council even though most of its decision affect them, Sen said the voice of developing nations and their empowerment in the international arena is vital for levelling the "so called playing fields."
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1056464
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| go india, go. Nice to hear at least one country out there calling out the security council. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| go india, go. Nice to hear at least one country out there calling out the security council. |
UN has become a joke. The US has given up on them long time ago.
Now it's the US way or no way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| go india, go. Nice to hear at least one country out there calling out the security council. |
UN has become a joke. The US has given up on them long time ago.
Now it's the US way or no way. |
I notice the countries complain when its there side thats wronged. The world complained about Israel failing to meet the UN security council demands at first, yet not one person nor has the UN complained then Hezbollah has not mey ANY AT ALL of the requirements, such as a unconditional release of the captured soldiers and disarming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think India has a point, in that the structure and rules of procedure of the UNSC need to be modernized. But the problem with their argument, is how to do it. The UNSC was designed, as I understand it, to prevent another world war (among other things) which is why each of the permanent members have a veto. I can see why Russia, China and the US have/need veto powers, because any one of those states could start a third world war if the world community of states were to collectively initiate actions that were sufficiently provocative.
But in the 21st century, I'm not sure if the UK or France still need a veto. France has grown from the defeated minor ally of World War II into a (relatively) major power with an independent nuclear deterrent and foreign policy. The UK's nuclear deterrent and foreign policy, in contrast, seem to have become more and more dependent on the US.
But I don't see either of those nations voluntarily giving up their veto.
I wonder if the issue is not whether or not to modify the permanent membership of the UNSC, but instead to debate and redfine - if necessary - the UNSC's role. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
