07-20-2005, 08:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No to India as UN veto power
Sunday 29th May, 2005
Gurjeet Singh, Sikh Federation (UK)
http://www.panthic.org/news/129/ARTICLE/...05-29.html
London, England (KP) - In September the Sikh Federation (UK) said it would be a disaster for the UN if India was made a permanent member of the UN Security Council with the veto power. In a letter to the UK Prime Minister the Federation set out why India should be denied permanent membership.
The Federation argued that India had little or no respect for the UN and its decisions. It has defied the UN on Kashmir, been condemned by the Council for carrying out nuclear tests, refused to become a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and was not prepared to accept the right to self-determination, which is enshrined in International Covenants on Economic, Social, Cultural,  Civil and Political Rights.
The Federation reminded Tony Blair of the UN Security Council's resolutions and outrage following India and Pakistan's nuclear tests and quoted Robert Fowler, the Canadian representative on the UN Security Council at that time, who stated: "Countries that deliberately undermined peace and security and flout the will of the international community had voided their claim to Security Council membership, let alone a permanent place in the management of the post-cold war world."
The Federation stated in the letter to Tony Blair that Sikhs would "always oppose India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council until it accepts without any condition that Sikhs are allowed to freely exercise their right to self determination, including the ability to establish an independent sovereign Sikh state, Khalistan."
Recent media reports suggest India is failing in its lobby for permanent membership with the veto power. It has been reported, Ms. Shirin Tahir-Kheli, the Special Adviser to the United States Government on UN reform, was in Delhi last week, to discuss the question of the Security Council expansion and India's status in the matter along with that of Japan, Germany and Brazil, the so-called G-4. This followed the US caution that the G-4 if granted permanent UN Security Council membership, that this would be without the critical veto power. The privileged status of the veto will remain the exclusive turf of the Permanent Five, P-5, who are also the Nuclear Five, as recognised in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Envoys of the rival groups pursuing different models for expansion of the Security Council met last week under Secretary-General Kofi Annan's chairmanship and agreed to continue their dialogue aimed at reaching "broadest possible consensus" on UN reform. The next meeting of the Group of Four - India, Brazil, Germany and Japan - seeking permanent seats on the Council and the Italy/Pakistan-led 'Uniting for Consensus' Group, which stands for its enlargement in the non-permanent category only, will be convened by the General Assembly President, Jean Ping. The President of the 191-member Assembly had initiated the process to reconcile the differences between the two groups.
Japan and Germany, two Axis powers defeated in World War II, have over the past half century joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and become major world players, and to their credit, together contribute over 29 per cent of the UN budget. As such, these two, now enjoy the higher moral ground and hope to be considered for permanent membership of the UN Security Council with veto powers. However, Germany and Japan undermined their quest for a permanent UN Security Council membership with veto powers when they allowed India, with an annual UN contribution of a mere 0.3 per cent, to join them in their 'hunt' for permanent veto status in the UN. A Sikh Federation (UK) spokesman said: "India's UN Security Council permanent membership ambitions look ridiculous when one looks at India's contribution of 0.3 per cent to the annual UN budget.
In comparison, many UN member countries - Italy being a very good example - contribute much more to the UN budget than India, and are being ignored in the G-4 'Derby' for permanent UN Security Council seats. 22 countries - Argentina; Australia; Belgium; Canada; Italy; South Korea; Mexico; Netherlands; Spain; Sweden; Austria; Denmark; Finland; Greece; Israel; Norway; Philippines; Poland; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Africa; and Turkey each contribute more than India and more than 25 per cent of the total budget.
The rest of the world (160 countries) contributes less than 5 per cent. Yet Indian officials in New York have been trying to impress and convince the diplomats of these 160 countries - with generous use of 'Lifafa' diplomacy (bribes in simple words) to vote for the G-4 resolution to be tabled in the UN General Assembly sometime in June 2005.
Having committed itself to seeking permanent membership of an expanded UN Security Council 'Only with veto power', India has lately, it seems, seen the reality. A US writer in Washington DC recently described it a "shameful spectacle" to see the Indian leaders and officials "begging and crawling in front of every visiting foreign dignitary" to support India's candidature for permanent membership of the UN Security Council. The Indian government coalition has finally realised, despite over 150 Indian diplomatic missions abroad who are supposed to be 'listening and lobbying' all over the world, that China and the United States, the real big veto powers at the UN, will oppose India's UN Security
Council ambitions.
Now a process of de-escalating the Indian demand, for a permanent UN Security Council seat with veto powers, has started in New Delhi in the guise of seeking wider transformation in the UN - something which India had chosen to forget earlier. Bhai Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK) said: "The world will probably have no objection to Germany and Japan, becoming permanent members of the expanded UN Security Council as they have joined the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty before declaring their UN ambitions. But, an irresponsible nuclear-armed country like India, who refuses to sign the NPT, and whose hungry scientists/technicians roam the world, from Iran to Brazil, proliferating nuclear technology for money, must never be granted a permanent seat at the UN Security Council."
He continued: "India should not be given permanent membership to the UN Security Council with the veto power as it does not accept the UN's decisions and principles. India does not respect basic human rights and continues to deny Amnesty International access to Panjab and is still unwilling to allow the UN Rapporteur on Torture to investigate in Panjab. We believe India's poor record on human rights and disregard for the international community combined with India's volatility, right wing fanatics and old regional animosities with nuclear rivals makes it impossible to accept India as a permanent member."
Gurjeet Singh, Sikh Federation (UK)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunday 29th May, 2005
Gurjeet Singh, Sikh Federation (UK)
http://www.panthic.org/news/129/ARTICLE/...05-29.html
London, England (KP) - In September the Sikh Federation (UK) said it would be a disaster for the UN if India was made a permanent member of the UN Security Council with the veto power. In a letter to the UK Prime Minister the Federation set out why India should be denied permanent membership.
The Federation argued that India had little or no respect for the UN and its decisions. It has defied the UN on Kashmir, been condemned by the Council for carrying out nuclear tests, refused to become a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and was not prepared to accept the right to self-determination, which is enshrined in International Covenants on Economic, Social, Cultural,  Civil and Political Rights.
The Federation reminded Tony Blair of the UN Security Council's resolutions and outrage following India and Pakistan's nuclear tests and quoted Robert Fowler, the Canadian representative on the UN Security Council at that time, who stated: "Countries that deliberately undermined peace and security and flout the will of the international community had voided their claim to Security Council membership, let alone a permanent place in the management of the post-cold war world."
The Federation stated in the letter to Tony Blair that Sikhs would "always oppose India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council until it accepts without any condition that Sikhs are allowed to freely exercise their right to self determination, including the ability to establish an independent sovereign Sikh state, Khalistan."
Recent media reports suggest India is failing in its lobby for permanent membership with the veto power. It has been reported, Ms. Shirin Tahir-Kheli, the Special Adviser to the United States Government on UN reform, was in Delhi last week, to discuss the question of the Security Council expansion and India's status in the matter along with that of Japan, Germany and Brazil, the so-called G-4. This followed the US caution that the G-4 if granted permanent UN Security Council membership, that this would be without the critical veto power. The privileged status of the veto will remain the exclusive turf of the Permanent Five, P-5, who are also the Nuclear Five, as recognised in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Envoys of the rival groups pursuing different models for expansion of the Security Council met last week under Secretary-General Kofi Annan's chairmanship and agreed to continue their dialogue aimed at reaching "broadest possible consensus" on UN reform. The next meeting of the Group of Four - India, Brazil, Germany and Japan - seeking permanent seats on the Council and the Italy/Pakistan-led 'Uniting for Consensus' Group, which stands for its enlargement in the non-permanent category only, will be convened by the General Assembly President, Jean Ping. The President of the 191-member Assembly had initiated the process to reconcile the differences between the two groups.
Japan and Germany, two Axis powers defeated in World War II, have over the past half century joined the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and become major world players, and to their credit, together contribute over 29 per cent of the UN budget. As such, these two, now enjoy the higher moral ground and hope to be considered for permanent membership of the UN Security Council with veto powers. However, Germany and Japan undermined their quest for a permanent UN Security Council membership with veto powers when they allowed India, with an annual UN contribution of a mere 0.3 per cent, to join them in their 'hunt' for permanent veto status in the UN. A Sikh Federation (UK) spokesman said: "India's UN Security Council permanent membership ambitions look ridiculous when one looks at India's contribution of 0.3 per cent to the annual UN budget.
In comparison, many UN member countries - Italy being a very good example - contribute much more to the UN budget than India, and are being ignored in the G-4 'Derby' for permanent UN Security Council seats. 22 countries - Argentina; Australia; Belgium; Canada; Italy; South Korea; Mexico; Netherlands; Spain; Sweden; Austria; Denmark; Finland; Greece; Israel; Norway; Philippines; Poland; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Africa; and Turkey each contribute more than India and more than 25 per cent of the total budget.
The rest of the world (160 countries) contributes less than 5 per cent. Yet Indian officials in New York have been trying to impress and convince the diplomats of these 160 countries - with generous use of 'Lifafa' diplomacy (bribes in simple words) to vote for the G-4 resolution to be tabled in the UN General Assembly sometime in June 2005.
Having committed itself to seeking permanent membership of an expanded UN Security Council 'Only with veto power', India has lately, it seems, seen the reality. A US writer in Washington DC recently described it a "shameful spectacle" to see the Indian leaders and officials "begging and crawling in front of every visiting foreign dignitary" to support India's candidature for permanent membership of the UN Security Council. The Indian government coalition has finally realised, despite over 150 Indian diplomatic missions abroad who are supposed to be 'listening and lobbying' all over the world, that China and the United States, the real big veto powers at the UN, will oppose India's UN Security
Council ambitions.
Now a process of de-escalating the Indian demand, for a permanent UN Security Council seat with veto powers, has started in New Delhi in the guise of seeking wider transformation in the UN - something which India had chosen to forget earlier. Bhai Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK) said: "The world will probably have no objection to Germany and Japan, becoming permanent members of the expanded UN Security Council as they have joined the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty before declaring their UN ambitions. But, an irresponsible nuclear-armed country like India, who refuses to sign the NPT, and whose hungry scientists/technicians roam the world, from Iran to Brazil, proliferating nuclear technology for money, must never be granted a permanent seat at the UN Security Council."
He continued: "India should not be given permanent membership to the UN Security Council with the veto power as it does not accept the UN's decisions and principles. India does not respect basic human rights and continues to deny Amnesty International access to Panjab and is still unwilling to allow the UN Rapporteur on Torture to investigate in Panjab. We believe India's poor record on human rights and disregard for the international community combined with India's volatility, right wing fanatics and old regional animosities with nuclear rivals makes it impossible to accept India as a permanent member."
Gurjeet Singh, Sikh Federation (UK)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->