Articles Comments

Blog site of iVarta.com » Corruption, India, Media, Politics, World » Do the UN, and India deserve each other?!

Do the UN, and India deserve each other?!

Share:        
SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend



No representation for 1.2 billion Indians on the UN Security Council

“Any Human Rights Council reform that allows countries with despicable human rights records to remain as members, such as Libya, Iran, Syria, China and Saudi Arabia, is not real reform.” - Michael McCaul, US Congressman from Texas

“Hezbollah-Controlled Lebanon now presides over the UN Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over a body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security. You couldn’t make this thing up.” - Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel

“Do not reveal what you have thought upon doing, but by wise council keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution.” - Chanakya, 370-283 BC – Council to Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, 340-293 BC, and author of the seminal “Arthasastra.”

Recently, our dear family friend, a brilliant cardiologist, Dr. K., (no, not Dr. Kevorkian) from Lufkin, Texas, also, an astute and savvy political observer, offered up an anomaly that stuck with me like Gorilla glue. It was the UN Security Council, with the glaring absence of India, as a permanent member. India, despite a population of 1.2 billion, is not represented at the UN Security Council, yet, India has been a nuclear power since 18 May, 1974; it is a technological giant servicing the launch of European satellites into space, and is the home of the largest literate middle class population in the world. Once you let a few moments pass, these facts boomerang back, and hit you squarely in the jaw.

Why is India not a permanent member of the UN Security Council? Whose fault is it? Unfortunately, the answer to this strange anomaly is not locked, as an esoteric formula in some mysterious labyrinthine vault at the UN, nor in it’s political machinations. The answer resides in India itself. And, for that matter, is this membership worth pursuing? While the idea might be quite alluring, we must put the UN Security Council under a microscope, to see if it is really worth some Indian blood and sweat.

It is quite astounding to note that this discrepancy, of India not being on the UN-SC as a permanent member, is not on the radar of the Indian political establishment. What is even more baffling is the fact that there seems to be no grass-roots efforts, nor any clamor amongst the political activists, commentators or journalists for it. Not that this “privileged” membership at the UN would suddenly elevate its status, or drastically mitigate India’s current conundrums, especially the terrorist threats. More than anything, it could be a global affirmation of India’s status as “arrived.” India’s absence, is more a commentary on the utter lack of national political determinism, devoid of any potency, than all the saber rattling Pakistan resorts to, in getting attention, and its way. The reality is that the local and regional politics of India are far more fiscally attractive to the politicians there, than global affairs and stature positioning. Local politics pay without any scrutiny, but, international involvement means being under a microscope. It is obvious why there is no interest.

It is a simple question. Why they don’t strike when the iron is hot, with Brazil, China and the U.S. ready to endorse India’s candidature?! India’s political establishment, especially, the ruling entity, the Indian National Congress Party, is facing a host of corruption charges, nothing new, and other regional challenges have mired its elite in a defensive mode, to organize any grass-roots efforts towards this seemingly lofty pedestal. There are ulterior motives in this disinterest, which could put the spotlight on the politicians, and their many abuses. The ruling elite in India is one gigantic collusion of corrupt, unsophisticated and illiterate groups that do not have any vision for the country, as they do not have the mental faculty to contemplate on a regional scale, let alone on a global scale, and are bogged in inter-regional politics for their own survival, and their illicit cash flows.

It starts with Sonia Gandhi, who has become deft in devising stratagems to manipulate all her illiterate, and cash hungry constituents. As I see it, the optics on Indian politics is infinitely repulsive, the political establishment there, collectively act exactly like furtively exigent maggots on a carcass, falling over each other, in one clammy and putrid clusterf–k, the carcass being the country. In this corrupt feeding frenzy, they are unaware of their global surroundings, especially, the implications or the consequences of their ignorance. And, if a firestorm was careening towards them, they would have no idea of the impending peril, and be incinerated along with the carcass. This is exactly how the Indian political machinery comports itself. They, the politicians there, are quite enamored and preoccupied with their own rhetorical flatulence, to pay any sort of attention the global winds of change. They have forsaken the security, and the greater good of its citizens, to become active nihilists in the perverse pursuit of pecuniary pacification.

The political culture at the UN, like in India, is rife with inextricable and endemic corruption, perhaps in a perverse manner they deserve each other. The intent behind the forming of the UN was noble, but during the course of the last six decades, everything about the UN had become ignoble. It is a political club, where small country despots and dictators get the platform and forum to get their fifteen minutes of spotlight, and chum around with other despots, and the representatives of larger democracies, particularly western democracies, to cut illicit deals in arms in the name of security, education, health and resources. I am convinced that the UN is one organization, where political altruism and correctness is the first amendment in its charter, hence their failed mission.

If the criteria for permanent membership on the Security Council is based on your nuclear status or population, then why isn’t India on it? Here are some facts to digest. If population is one of the determining factors, France with a population of 65 million, United Kingdom with 62 million, and Russia with 142 million, should not be there at all, unless the UN-SC is a country club for the white and yellow Europeans and Asians. If three countries out of five permanent members, hosting an economically devolving trend, with a combined population of 269 million are trying to represent and police 7 billion, it is nothing but a bloody elitist joke. If funding the UN is the sole criteria for being a permanent member, then, the only member worthy of being on it is the U.S., which incidentally derives no benefit at all, from the convoluted and dangerously liberal and biased UN, for contributing $176 million every year. The U.S., thankfully has the capacity and capability to exercise its unilateral prerogatives against global malignants, in protecting its citizens, but there is no protection against your own corrupt politicians.

The UN-SC Resolutions, for the most part, are “paper” resolutions, ineffective instruments, without any bite. None of these resolutions make or have made any difference to folks like Saddam Hussein, and now Iran’s Ahmadinejad, and they know it. It took a massive military expense to enforce just one resolution in 1992. Who has these resources anymore? Everyone is bankrupt. The resolutions, numbered from S/RES/1995 through S/RES/2018 for “Peace & Security in Africa” start with terms like: Recalling; Reaffirming; Taking Note; Looking Forward; Reiterating; Expressing; Mindful; Acting Under; Welcomes; Strongly urges; Decides; Stressing; Strongly condemns; Demands; Encourages; and Requests. It makes me wonder who is being paid what, to craft and draft these vacuous resolutions, to police the 70 plus ruling thugs and rogue governments across the globe, who pay no attention to these resolutions, and continue on with their agenda. I could not resist amusement, while I read some of these resolutions. Read the Resolutions; Reports of the Security-General, and the Mission Reports available at www.un.org.

The question is the answer itself: Is it really that important to become a permanent member of the UN-SC, when the benefit from it is nothing other than a membership to an organization, that will employ some obsolete Indian PhDs, and, which allows nations like Bosnia, Gabon and Nigeria to become one year members, in a show of altruism? Here is the list of one year memberships ending in 2011-12: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Columbia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa. I would like to know what kind “security counsel” do we get from a place like Columbia, a country that cannot even police, let alone eradicate the country’s drug cartels.

How about Gabon? The name itself reminds me of a vicious viper, the most venomous, with the fastest strike in the snake world: the Gabon Viper. Besides that, Gabon is country with 1.5 million population, sitting on oil reserves that doesn’t benefit its citizens. It was ruled for decades by another Muslim thug, the utterly autocratic kleptomaniac: Omar Bongo, who died in 2009. In their first “democratic elections,” and not surprisingly, Ali Bongo, the late dictator’s son, was declared elected from a field of several candidates. These candidates were never heard from, as the local and international journalists were censored and harassed with kidnappings and death threats. The biggest news from Gabon today is that they want to stage a football tournament for the African nations. It sounds like the new “president” wants to follow the model of Commodus. Folks: this is Gabon, who was given a membership to the UN Security Council. If Gabon, with its bright new ruler, is on the Security Council offering “input and expertise” on global security matters, then, they don’t need India, which has its own security issues, do they?

This disinterest within the political elite of India, in the pursuit of a UN-SC membership, has its roots in a system that engenders indecision, and deters decisiveness and political assertion, due to the fragmentary nature of the Indian political structure, and the election process. The fundamental flaw is the Parliamentary System of Democracy that allows multiple political parties participation, with regional powers. This funnels every elected constituent from distinct regions, to align themselves, or form a coalition to create a government. This coalition government is an oxymoron in effectiveness. The indecision, corruption, infighting, bickering, scheming and territorial shenanigans, within the coalition itself, renders this form of governance, politician centric, than citizen centric, Nothing gets done, except, time spent undermining the opposition, and becoming diligent and deft in finding ways to milk the institutions, or the business entity.

Let’s say a certain candidate belongs to the XYZ party, and he gets elected, will he be loyal to his party, the nation, or to the president of the party? In India’s case, Man Mohan Singh may be the PM, but his position belongs to the President of Congress Sonia Gandhi. What can this type of representation mean for the country, where the priority is the party’s president, than the nation? This type of electioneering process, also enables regional thugs to become “Netajis.” Can corrupt, illiterate and boorish Netajis, like Lalu Prasad Yadav and others like him, ever know what a UN Security Council membership means? Come to think of it, the UN, in a perverse manner, probably will like Yadav, for his ignorance, corruptability and as an exotic prop at their assemblies, needing an interpreter, to show how inclusive they really are.

The burgeoning middle class of India, are already fed up, and beginning to understand that the Parliamentary System of Democracy is an utter failure. The Indian politicians also hinder the real progress of India by being constantly anachronistic, and being a drag on the business progress, to a great extent. There are no issues on the ballots, no referendums for the citizens to vote yea or nay on. For example: if this UN-SC permanent membership issue for India was put forth as a referendum, on a ballot, at least the literate middle class would vote on it, presenting a manifest public opinion for the government to take action on. This would also come to the notice of the world press, and eventually the UN Secretary General, precipitating action from that organization. It is done here in the U.S. with great regularity, as direct participation of the citizenry, real democracy in action, in deciding priorities and issues for their own governance. No such thing in India, at least for now.

Well, here’s an idea: The fastest way onto the UN-SC permenent membership, and, also to get the world’s attention, India needs to wage a war with Pakistan, destroy and annex it, claiming ancient rights to lands, then, occupy Bangla Desh and annex it, with identical claim, then, move on to Kashmir, and kill or expel all Muslims, and re-establish Kashmiri pandits there. Move on to Nepal, destroy the Maoists and return the country to its origins, and ultimately, ban all the bandhs, and destroy all the naxalites, and regional seperatist movements. Become decisive, and aggressive on its borders, like China. The permanent UN-SC members were all unilateral aggressors through the centuries – they have long histories of unilateral engagements. India is a huge trading partner with most industrial nations, and if India were to suddenly attack Pakistan, the U.S. would gleefully and silently back India, and the other powerhouses would turn away, by issuing condemnation statements, and continue on in business with India. Nothing establishes reputation, and expectation than a fast unilateral action against a permanent enemy. I am convinced that within one year of any unilateral movement against anybody, will deliver India’s UN-SC seat. India is a population behmoth, with a chicken’s heart for political resolve, no wonder nobody pays any attention to it, especially at the UN. I am a little facetious here, but there is this reality that we cannot deny. Action wins hearts and minds.

The UN, for all its warts and blemishes, with its original intent, still has some redeeming aspects to it. A permanent membership to the UN-SC will certainly make India an elite nation. It could equalize and stabilize currency exchange issues; more clout at the IMF; accreditation for the national bond issues and debt; humanitarian involvement; a vote on the regional borders, national or international boundary disputes; and the valuation and stabilization of security markets. The intangible, and the ancillary benefits could be many, but, does any politician in India have the foresight, and the vision, to comprehend this, beyond their own political survival and pockets? Isn’t India better than Gabon or Columbia? Can the Indian elections process get its citizens to deliver their priority? Extirpate the images of Yadav at the UN, and think again. There are about 70 dictators “running” their countries today, and all it takes is one. I will close here by asking you: will UN’s altruism provide the answer, is it really the instrument for tackling the brutal reality out there?

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Written by


Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this blog/article are the author's own and not of this website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this blog/article. This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice, quotes from other reference materials or any other information in the blog/article. The same disclaimer applies to all the comments on this blog/article. Our visitors are free to forward this page URL (web address) to others in emails or put the links on individual facebook, twitter webpages strictly for non-commercial use. But the entire article should not be published/republished on other sites without the prior permission from us.
 

Filed under: Corruption, India, Media, Politics, World · Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Responses to "Do the UN, and India deserve each other?!"

  1. Steve Shay says:

    While Mr. Peddada states that America derives no benefit from the UN, the following contradicts his statement. The Big Apple makes a lot of financial benefit off of hosting a ragtag collection of thugocracies plotting to destroy democratic nations, including the very nation that hosts them.

    A past estimate put New York City’s annual economic gain from having the UN headquartered there at $3.3 billion. In addition, visitors attending UN conferences held in New York infuse millions into the City’s economy; the annual opening of the General Assembly session alone is comparable to a major international convention or sporting event. Moreover, this type of annual
    conference is not affected by economic recessions, so these large expenditures will be made each year, which can be
    especially bene!cial in a down economy. Finally, New York City bene!ts greatly from tourism – the UN hosts an average
    of over 1 million visitors in New York every year, providing business to local hotels and restaurants.

  2. Raju Peddada says:

    Steve:
    Great points, but you forget that these are beggers who come to NY, they infuse not “their” money, but “our” money into our economy, hence not much affect on NY economy, which is always teetering near insolvency. The beggers (most banana republics, and despots of about 150+ countries), who come there to meet and greet the G-5 (the 5 top industrial nations) reps to exchange mineral or oil or other rights in exchange for sweet infusion of aid into their “economy” (actually their pockets). The pittance of $3 billion they may infuse by buying Louis Vuitton bags and high class white prostitutes is actually offset by more than $100 billion they receive as “aid” from the US for their Swiss accounts. They come to beg and we give, it is a den of thieves with no honor… Kofi Anan, the last SG has 5 accounted villas, atleast 20 unaccounted, 3 in manhattan alone. This is why our honest and conservative UN ambassador Mr. Bolton, didn’t last long… I am waiting for his memoirs. No matter how you look at the UN, it is a huge loss and dollar drain for the US. If this UN was in, let’s say, France or Brussels, it would have gone bankrupt decades ago… we keep funding this abomination in the name of altruism and egalitarianism. NY is better served with a demolished UN building, and in its place a spiffy business-office complex could benefit the local economy more. Have you ever seen the African clowns that walk out of that building during recess, spilling into the lower east side… these are not infusers of cash, they are beggers, buddy.

  3. Raju Peddada says:

    Hahahaha… is this true? I once knew an undersecretary for the Indian ambassador there, in the late 90s, this person told me that every ugly African despot, with their huge entourages, had streams white-asses waltzing into the rooms at 7pm and getting out at 7am, before their limos came to pick them up. An Indian woman requested her suite to be changed because she could not handle the cacophony of orgasms in a chorus every minute of the night. It was a huge pay day for the “white whores” getting banged by these black dicks. The blacks always preferred the white asses… as a matter of fact, the visiting opec shieks to Texas also want the white pussies. The whore expenses, amounting to thousands of dollars per person, per night, were submitted as “diplomatic expenses” by these black travelling jokers, most of them thugs, calling themselves diplomats from countries you never heard of. The UN is a big customer base for the NY whores… there’s no denying it. Some of these black mambas used a girl a night, every day of their 14 days visit, with $30,000 to $40,000 in payments, while back where they came from, people hardly have water, food, electricity nor proper sanitation… that’s the UN for you, buddy.

Leave a Reply

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>