__________
(From NPR)
President Obama on Monday endorsed India's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, saying in a speech in New Delhi that the U.S. and the South Asian nation have one of the "defining partnerships" of the 21st century.
The president's backing for the U.N. seat came in a speech to India's parliament on the third and final day of his visit.
"The just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate," Obama told members of parliament.
"That is why I can say today - in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member," he said to loud applause inside the colonnaded sandstone structure dating from the days of British rule in India.
But none of the five permanent members –- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China -– is in any hurry to relinquish their veto-wielding seat on the Security Council, so as a practical matter, India would need to wait for a possible expansion of the council, which could take years to bring about.
//www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131155914
5 comments:
I think this is a good idea as, by offering India a permanent seat on the Security Council, the United Nations begins to acknowledge that the status quo in the world since its inception in 1945 has changed. While some voting members of the Security Council are no longer major powers in the world, other nations, including India and Brazil, which will become powerful and influential in the coming decades are given no representation on one of the most powerful international bodies.
This would be a nice recognition of the fact that the Security Council was designed during a colonial era, but honestly the SC needs to just be abolished. All it serves as is a way to be obstructionary and makes the UN seem utterly useless. With no veto powers, the world community could in fact make progress for once.
Agreed with Anagha, in that change has been a long time coming for the United Nations. While it is probably not a sound idea to require the removal of one of the five countries on the Security Council, expansion is certainly needed. India, at least, needs to be given a seat.
However, I disagree with TJ, as removal of the Security Council would be dangerous. There is a reason that governmental processes are slow, and difficult to bring about. Rapid, swift and rushed change is often not good change. Things need time to adapt. While abolishment of these things we hate seems a great idea, in the end it could be disastrous.
I personally believe that the veto power of the five perminant countries is quite rediculous. The amount of power each of these countries has is too much and I personally would rather have these vetos completely eliminated than India joining as a perminant member. With these vetos in place there can be no real reform from the bottom up. From the countries that truly need the help that the UN is supposed to provide. I'm not saying that these five countries should be equal to the other countries, but i do think that they should not be able to override everything just because it is not appealing to them.
International diplomacy is key when it comes to promoting a national image both within the country and globally. And by offering India a seat on the Security Council, the United States did boost its image. Also in turn, India had its image and position reaffirmed as well. It was a smart decision as when comes down to it because India's influence is definitely one that should be carefully watched in the decades to come.
Post a Comment