|
Contributor: cell
Date: 2003-03-19 14:14:15
The security council's fixed membership is not the issue in this current
slaughter. The issue as stands is that the voting Western African
nations who are current areas of exploration, and civil unrest are simply
pawns of the northern European nations that have been integral to their current
civil unrest. This unfortunate situation has arisen because of the
American reluctance to pay their U.N. dues. It is a complex situation
in so much as America being the #1 global protector does in fact have
said right; it unfortunatly does not do much for their international
image. It's kind of like the Police chief refusing to buy tickets to the
policemen's ball.
Does India have a shot at security council status? The fundamental
impediment to that occuring is their national standard of living. It is
puerile to assume that military strength is the fundamental logistic in
the selection of the security council. Its formation is the result of
political allegiances based on trade necessities. If India can become
a big market player, with a substantial army, and rise to the occasion
in a local conflict: e.g. exploit Parkistani labour under the guise of being
Sri Lankan, and then diffuse an ensuing conflict, establishing their own
political representatives in positions of power, whilst maintaining local
media supremacy, thereby convincing both Sri Lankan and Pakistani
populations that they are in fact being represented by their democratically
elected leader of choice then they have a shot.
Reply to this message
|
