India may not need UN Security Council sit to prove its global leadership, UN oun the other hand needs India to secure its own legitimacy after Bush's Iraq attack
Special Correspondent
Nov. 8, 2010

Who needs who? Does India need UNSC seat to prove its worth or United Nation needs India in its security council after what America did to Iraq under the leadership of George Bush - ''weapons of mass bluffing?''

Interestingly President Obama hinted that India needs to prove itself before India can become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. In specific words of Obama:

“Now let me suggest,” President Obama said to an audience already quite lured to Obama’s easy hypnotism of words, “that with increased power comes increased responsibility. The United Nations exists to fulfill its founding ideals of preserving peace and security and advancing human rights.” Bluntly put: The permanent seat is some way off, meantime start proving to us you fit the bill. Before anyone had had a chance to divine what he was leading up to, he had clipped on the caveats — the nuclear brinkmanship of Iran and the suffocation of democracy in Myanmar.

On both counts, Obama appeared to suggest, India had been remiss.

On both counts, India must now come to play a role if it seeks a leadership role in the world. He was, in fact, prepared to be uncharacteristically blunt.

“When peaceful democratic movements are suppressed — as in Burma —then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent. For it is unacceptable to gun down peaceful protesters and incarcerate political prisoners decade after decade. It is the responsibility of the international community — especially leaders like the United States and India — to condemn it.

“If I can be frank, in international fora, India has often avoided these issues.”

But does India need to prove its capabilities in global leadership? How can President Obama defend the actions George Bush, the man who lied to the world about weapons of mass destruction and invade an independent country breaking all norms decency and civilized behavior?

Saddam Hussain was no good. He was as bad as leadership of Myanmar, Pakistani President Musharaff, Chinese communists regime that butchered democratic movements of Tinnaman square and Tibetan monks for their aspiration of independent Tibet. Does that mean United Nations must attack all these nations and put in place some puppet regime that will follow the so called ''world order?''

Does India really need a lesson in international politics and ''responsible behavior'' after what America supported Pakistan did to Bangladeshi men and women in 1971? It was India that rescued Bangladeshi men and women from the butchers of Pakistan in spite of relentless threats from US President Nixon at that time.

If China can become a member of the UN security council without any period of probation, so can India. The fact of the matter is UN needs India more than India needs UN.

India may not need UN Security Council sit to prove its global leadership, UN oun the other hand needs India to secure its own legitimacy after Bush's Iraq attack
Special Correspondent
Who needs who? Does India need UNSC seat to prove its worth or United Nations needs India in its security council after what America did to Iraq under the leadership of George Bush - 'weapons of mass bluffing?'
READ MORE>>

Japan execises protest, Japanese Ambassador to Russia Masaharu Kono returns back to Tokyo
Special Correspondent
Japanese Ambassador to Russia Masaharu Kono, who had been recalled from the country to protest Russian President Dmitri Medvedev's visit to the disputed Southern Kuril Islands, has returned to Russia.
READ MORE>>

MORE ARTICLES >>