不满没有否决权，印度网友提议退出联合国 [美国媒体]

United Nations: Why doesn't India haveveto power?

联合国：为什么印度没有一票否决权？



India represents nearly 1/5 of humanity.Still, it is not allowed a fair place at the UN. How can India continue to be apart of such an unfair organization? Is this likely to change within a fewdecades, as India grows more and more stronger on the world stage? Or would itbe best for India to boycott such a biased organization altogether?

印度代表着差不多全世界五分之一的人类。然而，印度在联合国却没有一个与之相称的公正的席位。印度怎么能够还继续呆在这个如此不公正的组织里呢？随着印度在世界的舞台上越来越强大，在未来的几十年里这一状况有可能改变吗？或者对印度来说最好的方式，是不是干脆拒绝参加这个有偏见的组织？


Anonymous（匿名）
Veto power in UN belongs to the victors ofthe Second World War – the big five – USA, Russia, France, UK and China. Asthey are the creators of the United Nations, rest of countries merely joined UNafterwards. Japan and Germany, in spite of being leading economies of the worldfor decades, do not have a high chair in UN Security Council. Therefore, thereis no real reason to believe the countries of the World with huge technologicalfirepower, historical advantage and economical might, will share Veto withIndia merely because of-late India's economy has gained some strength.Withdrawing India from UN is an economical suicide, that’s not an option.

联合国的否决权属于第二次世界大战的战胜国 —— 五巨头 —— 美国，俄国，法国，英国，和中国。而且它们是联合国的五个创始国，其它国家只不过是在随后加入了联合国。日本和德国，尽管在过去的几十年间成为了世界领先的经济体，但在联合国安理会依然也没有常任席位。因此，没有任何理由相信，拥有这个世界上最强大的军事科技力量，占尽历史优势，和经济强权的五大国，会和印度分享一票否决权，仅仅是因为印度的经济最近取得了一些成就。印度退出联合国，是一种经济自杀行为，那不是一个好的选择。

Now, analyse even the smallest chance ofIndia becoming veto wielding power of UN. Specifically, the route which Indiaoff late is trying. If India can muster the supports of two-third of UNmembers, it can change the UN charter through UN General Assembly, on the linesof membership of China converting from ROC to PRC. Moreover, this route willavoid a certain China Veto in the Security Council. The central problem withthis approach is that, India does not excite the voting members forcing them toremain neutral, by default. More significantly, the largest block of votingcountries have Left leaning governments (South America) and Muslim governments(Middle-east, North Africa), these governments are well aware of India’s shiftto Right, that has turned them from neutral to negative. So, it’s a long night,before India can even force a voting on its permanent membership, let alone getthe membership.

现在，来分析一下印度成为能够在联合国行使否决权的国家哪怕是最小的可能性。特别说一下，以下这个途径印度此前也一直在尝试。如果印度能够召集到联合国成员总数三分之二的支持者，就可以通过联合国大会修改联合国宪章，参考中国的成员资格从中华民国转变为中华人民共和国的方法。而且这个途径可以避免中国在安理会对印度入常投下的必然的否决票。现在这个方法的中心问题是，印度无法促使这些投票国家，让它们保持一般默认情况下的中立立场。更重要的是，最大的几个投票国地区，有的有一个左翼政府（南美洲），有的是穆斯林政府（中东，北非），这些政府都非常清楚印度的立场是偏右翼，这就让它们对印度入常的态度从中立变成了反对。所以，印度要改变哪怕一个国家对它入常的立场都很难，更不用说最后完全获得否决权了。

HariTsv（印度人）
If boycotting was to be an answer toproblems, kindly refer to what such boycotts have achieved and you willunderstand - it achieved zilch.

如果抵制联合国是解决问题的答案，那将取决于这样的抵制行动会获得什么，然而你将会明白，这样做什么也得不到。

India doesn't have veto power because weare not permanent members of the UNSC - currently dominated by USA, China,Russia, France and UK. Except China - the other 4 have been vociferouslysupporting India's being a permanent member of the UNSC.

印度没有一票否决权是因为我们不是联合国安理会常任理事国 —— 当前由美国，中国，俄国，法国和英国把持。除了中国 —— 其它四个常任理事国都在口头上支持印度成为安理会常任理事国。

China is yet to say either a"yes" or a "no".

中国现在还没有说“支持” 或 “不支持”。

In my lexicon, the "undecided"nature of China means NO!

以我的理解，中国“尚未决定” 的本质就是“不支持” ！

There is a simple reason behind this.

这背后的道理很简单。

India is the only nation that can beardChinese dragon in its own den.

印度是唯一 一个敢对中国龙，龙口拔牙的国家。（厉害了，我的三哥！）

I wrote about this way back in 2012! Hereis the link: http://tsvhari.com/template_arti...

我早在2012年就写过这个方法！这是链接：http://tsvhari.com/template_arti...

But then, I do not move in a Merc limousinesurrounded by black-cat commandos to be taken seriously.

但是此后，我没有坐进被黑猫突击队严格保护的豪华防弹奔驰轿车里。（译注：黑猫突击队是印度的国家特种部队，作者的意思应该是指自己没有得到政府的重用。）

And do not for a moment thing that USA,Russia, France and UK support India's candidature for UNSC permanent seat outof love for India.

然后不过一会儿的功夫，美国、俄国、法国和英国出于对印度的爱（译注：作者应该是在讽刺），都纷纷支持印度的联合国安理会常任席位的候选资格。

Routinely, all the four nations manage tosell military hardware at exorbitant prices to us and us - thanks to greedytraitors amongst us who accept bribes to okay them.

按照老一套的步骤，接下来这四个国家就会处心积虑地以高得离谱的价格卖给我们军事装备，然后我们还得“感谢” 我们政府中间那些接受贿赂的贪婪的卖国贼。

I had explained this phenomenon again -long ago.
http://tsvhari.com/template_arti...
http://tsvhari.com/template_arti...

我很早就揭发了这个现象，现在再一次给出链接：http://tsvhari.com/template_arti...

Let us face it: As a nation of compradors -India may never get a UNSC permanent seat. And if we do, our veto power will bebought and sold like onions in Delhi fish market!

让我们直面吧：作为一个官僚买办国家 —— 印度也许永远都不可能获得联合国安理会常任理事国席位。但是如果我们直面这个问题，那么我们获得一票否决权就像在德里（印度的一个城市）的菜市场上买卖洋葱一样容易！

AngusTatchell（英国人，伦敦政治经济学院-政治与国际关系专业学生）
India currently does not possess UNSecurity Council veto power because it was not considered one of the original'Great Powers' that won the Second World War (who were the ones chosen by theUN at its foundation to facilitate the imposition of security decisions).

印度当前没有联合国安理会否决权是因为它不在赢得二战的创始 “元老” 之列（这些国家创立联合国的初衷是为了便于强制执行它们所作出的安全决议）。

Despite India being a admitted as a memberin the UN in 1945 (before it became an independent nation-state) and havingcontributed 2.5 million soldiers to the BritishArmy during the Second World War, it was still overlooked during the formationof the UN's Security Council. The United Kingdom was (along with France, theUS, the Republic of China and the USSR) given a Permanent Seat inthe UN Security Council, and these permanent members (the "P5') were alsogranted veto power over the decisions of the council.

尽管印度在1945年被承认是联合国的一个成员（在它成为一个独立的民族-国家之前），并且在二战中为英军贡献了250万名士兵，但它还是在联合国安理会组成时被忽略了。大不列颠联合王国（和法国，美国，中华民国，苏联一起）被授予安理会常任席位，并且这些常任理事国（即“五常”）还被授予了对任何安理会决议的一票否决权。

This was justified at the time becausethese states were the most militarily successful and powerful countries in theworld. At the time of formation India's economic and diplomatic power andinfluence was not considered to be significant enough to justify having a worldleading position in the UN.

这在当时还是很公正的，因为这些国家是当时世界上战胜国和强国。在那个时候，印度的经济实力和外交影响力还不足以强大到在联合国取得主导地位。

Whilst the military prowess of the P5 hascontinued to dominate since (accounting for 55% of global military expendituresin the world today) other countries, such as India, have risen to positions ofrelatively significant global power too. The UN is still exploring thepossibility of reforming the Security Council with the case of givingIndia permanent status being a very strong one supported by all of the P5.India's population is the second largest in world, its economy is the 7th andit has the 3rd largest active military. It is also by far the greatestcontributor to UN Peacekeeper forces in terms of personnel.

在五常的军事力量继续保持领先优势的同时（五常军费总和占当今世界全球军费支出的55%），其它国家，比如印度，也同样上升为全球相对重要的强国。目前联合国正在探索改革安理会的可能性，以便让印度获得安理会常任席位，由于五常的支持，这一迹象正在越来越明显。印度的人口数量世界第2，经济实力第7，拥有世界第3大常规军队。它还是迄今为止在人员上对联合国维和部队贡献最大的国家。

India will most likely be the first countryafter the initial P5 to be granted UNSC permanent status, and so only lacksveto powers at present due to historical reasons and the slow reformationprocess of the UN.

印度是最有可能成为继五常之后第一个被授予联合国安理会常任理事国地位的国家，而且目前暂时没有否决权只是因为历史原因和联合国改革进程过于缓慢导致的。

VenkateshReddy（印度人）
1. The natural tendency of people in powernever accepting to share power is a typical case here. The powerful 5 are notwilling to share their historical privileges.

1．出于人的本性，一个有权力的人是绝不会接受和别人分享权力的，在印度入常这个问题上就是经典的例子。

2. The rigid rules of UNSC . Any reform tosecurity council has to be approved by 2/3rd majority of united nations generalassembly and subsequent acceptance of P5.

2．联合国安理会僵硬的规定。任何对联合国安理会的改革必须得到联合国大会三分之二的大多数的通过，随后还要得到五常的承认。

3. G4 (Germany , Brazil , India , Japan)united bid has some inherent contradictions . Germany is opposed France andBritain, Japan is opposed by China etc. G4 has become more of a liability thanasset

3．四国集团（德国，巴西，印度，日本）联合入常有着某些内在的矛盾。德国被法国和意大利反对，日本被中国反对，等等。四国集团与其说是资产，还不如说是累赘。

4. The consensus group comprising Pakisthan, South Korean etc. are opposing the reforms

4．“团结谋共识” 集团包括巴基斯坦，韩国等等都反对改革。

5. India non signatory status related tomajor non-proliferation regimes is also an hindrance

5．印度在核不扩散机制中的非缔约国地位也是一个主要障碍。（译注：印度、巴基斯坦与以色列三国皆不签署不扩散核武器条约）

6.India's border disputes with theneighbouring countries has also being an irritant.

6．印度与邻国的边界领土争端也是影响因素。

For any multilateral institute to maintainits relevance , reformation is of outmost importance . The failure of UN insyria , Iraq glaringly describes the existing deficiencies .In the last 70years the global strategic scenario has changed considerably . UN failed torecognise the changing circumstances .

对于任何多边机构来说为了维持它的公正性，改革是至关重要的。联合国在叙利亚、伊拉克问题上显而易见的失败昭示着它目前的不足。在过去的70年里，世界的格局已经发生了相当大的变化，联合国没有认识到变化的国际环境。

India , a regional power comprising 1/6thof humanity , a responsible nuclear power , with 2nd largest contribution to UNpeacekeeping forces deserves a place in the global high tables .

印度，一个由六分之一人类组成的区域性大国，一个负责任的核大国，一个对联合国维和部队作出第二大贡献的国家，理应在全球最高圆桌上得到一个席位。

The changing strategic alignments on theinternational scenes are creating new hopes . The acceptance of TEXT BASEDNEGOTIATIONS is a step in right direction .

国际舞台上战略联盟的改变正在创造新的机会。接受基于文本的谈判让我们朝着正确的方向前又进了一步。

John Cate（一生都是美国人，43年有41年生活在美国<截至2016年>）
Because of the way the U.N. Charter waswritten. Only the five permanent members of the Security Council have aveto--the United States, Russia (formerly the USSR), France, UK and China. Thecharter was written in 1945, and in 1945, India wasn't even an independentcountry yet, but still a colony of the British Empire.

因为联合国宪章就是这么写的。只有安理会五个常任理事国才有一票否决权 —— 美国，俄罗斯（之前是苏联），法国，英国和中国。宪章写于1945年，而在1945年，印度甚至还不是一个独立的国家，而仍旧是大英帝国的一块殖民地。

There has been off-and-on discussion formany years about adding a few of the world's other most populous and/oreconomically powerful nations as permanent members, and if that ever came topass, India would be one of the first countries added, along with Germany andJapan (both of which were omitted for obvious reasons in 1945), and possiblyBrazil, Indonesia, and South Korea.

在过去的几年里，已经断断续续的有关于增加一些世界人口大国和/或经济强国进入安理会常任理事国的讨论，而且如果一旦获得通过，印度将会成为第一批加入的国家，与德国和日本一起（这两个国家都在1945年因为显而易见的原因被排除），还可能有巴西，印度尼西亚和韩国。

JamesVarkey（印度人）
Boycotting the UN is not an option sinceeverybody else is a member and will obey its orders. boycotting the UN willlead to sanctions upon sanctions for us leading to economic destruction.

拒绝参加联合国不会是印度的一个选项，因为其他所有国家都是联合国成员并且遵守它的法规。
拒绝参加联合国将会导致对我们一波接一波的制裁，最后导致我们经济崩溃。

By the way, though the UN is dominated bydemocratic powers, it’s not democratic. PRC did not even have UN membership fora long time. India should and will remain a part of the UN.

顺便说一下，虽然联合国由民主国家主导，但是它本身却并不民主。中华人民共和国在很长时间里，甚至连联合国的成员资格都没有。印度应该并且也将继续留在联合国。

As time goes, our clout will increaseleading to a position along with the big powers.

随着时间的推移，我们的影响力将不断增长直至和世界强国并肩。

Veto powers were by the way not given tothe most powerful or populous countries of the lot but to the US' allies (afterall what power did the ROC (Republic of China(Taiwan)) have. It didnt evencontrol most of China)

而且还要说一下，否决权以前并不是给予那些最强大或人口最多的国家，而是给予美国的盟友（别忘了ROC（中华民国（台湾））一度也有这种权力，它甚至在当时没有控制中国的大部分地区）。

Bob Cory（英国人）
As wikipedia says
The United Nations Security Council"power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the fivepermanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia,United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption ofany "substantive"  resolution,as well as decide which ...

根据维基百科，联合国安理会的 “一票否决权” 指的是，联合国安理会五个常任理事国（中国，法国，俄国，英国和美国）可以单独行使否决权，使它们能够阻止任何“实质性” 决议的通过，还可以决定。。。

This is historic: I guess that in thefulness of time, the UK will drop out and maybe Japan and India take its place,assuming there is a mechanism to allow such a move

这是具有历史意义的：我猜在适当的时候，英国将会退出安理会，然后也许是日本和印度取代它的位置，假设有一种机制允许这样的情况发生。

Otherwise, it may require all 165 countriesto agree - the devil will be in the UN small print ie "how do you changethe membership of the Security Council?"

否则，印度入常可能就必须要求所有的165个国家同意—— 魔鬼隐藏在联合国规章的细节里， 比如“怎么样才能改变安理会的成员资格？”

SunilChoudhury（印度人）
Money power determines the importance ofany member in UN or its sister organizations including World Bank and IMF.India may represent 1/5 of the humanity but it doesn't matter to apseudo-democratic body like UN.

金钱的力量，决定着任何联合国或其姐妹机构诸如世界银行和国际货币基金组织的成员国的重要性。印度也许代表着五分之一的人类，但是这对于一个伪民主组织比如联合国来说，起不了任何作用。

Yes it may change within a decade, as Indiagrows more and more stronger at world stage. Now India is at Rank 4 in Worldmilitary power rankings, It is ahead of the western powers like France, UK, andGermany, which were once the major powers when UN was made. And India is thethird strongest economy on whom the world is dependent enough.

是的，随着印度在世界的舞台上越来越强大，在未来的十年里这一状况有可能改变。如今，印度在世界军事力量排名中排第4名，在一些西方强国比如法国、德国之前，这两个国家在联合国创立时曾经一度是主要强国。而且，在世界经济对各国经济体依存度排名中，印度是排行第三大的经济体。

Boycotting such an organization may lead tocold war and India will be treated as a threat to Peace, Instead of doing that,India could claim a permanent seat and veto power in UN, but for that we willneed a strong government first.

抵制这样一个组织可能会导致一场冷战，而且印度将会被视为和平的威胁；相反不这么做，印度还是有可能在联合国取得一个常任席次和一票否决权，但是要想实现这一点，首先我们必须要有一个强大的政府。

Michelle Zhou（中国人）
Because India is one of the G4, it’s notasking for one seat, but four seats. Which is impossible.
Let’s not forget that the creation of U.N.was to prevent another world war. The veto power was given to super powers forthem to jaw-jaw instead of war-war. P5 is inefficient enough, P9 (India’sproposal) will be impossible to get anything done. India is in alliance withGermany, Japan, and Brazil - the G4. The result of this proposal is: 4 fromEurope, 3 from Asia, 2 from N+S America, and 0 from Africa. Does that soundsfair?

因为印度是四国集团成员，四国集团要求的不是一个席位，而是四个席位，而这是绝不可能的。我们不要忘了联合国的创立是为了阻止另一次世界大战的发生。给予超级大国否决权是为了让他们吵来吵去，而不要打来打去。五常现在就已经够低效了，九常（印度的提案）将会什么事也做不了。印度和德国、日本、巴西联盟—— 所谓的四国集团。这个提案的结果是：4个来自欧洲，3个来自亚洲，2个来自北美和南美，0个来自非洲。这样听起来公平吗？

UK and France are pushing for Germanybecause they understand two is already too much for EU(including UK). The US ispushing for Japan only because China against it. Russia doesn’t like to sharepower either, and the US hated it the most! Wikileaks Exposes US’Double-Game on UN Security Council Expansion.

英国和法国一直强推德国因为他们知道对于欧盟（考虑到英国脱欧影响，目前这里欧盟指的还是包括英国在内）来说2个已经够多了。美国强推日本也是因为它知道中国肯定反对。俄罗斯不想与任何人分享权力，其实美国比俄罗斯还讨厌和别人分享权力。新闻链接：维基解密揭露美国在安理会扩容上玩双面手法。



If there ever is going to be a reform, notcounting (US. China, Russia) because you cannot get rid of them. The reasonablerunning up should be: France representing EU, Nigeria representing AU, Brazilrepresenting Latin America, and then India (or Japan). But the US is pushingfor Japan, and three for Asia is not reasonable because other communities onlygets one seat!

如果安理会真想要改革，就一定要考虑到（美国，中国，俄罗斯）的利益，因为你不可能摆脱他们。最合理的运作应该是：法国代表欧盟，尼日利亚代表非盟，巴西代表拉丁美洲，然后是印度（或者日本）。但是美国强推日本，而亚洲如果有三个安理会理事国将是不合理的，因为其它共同体只有一个席位！

Edit: If India could put forward a workableproposal (AU, Brazil, India only). Stop imagining China as the enemy andimprove relationship with Pakistan. Joining P-members is totally possible.

如果印度能够提出一个切实可行的方案（只有非盟，巴西和印度加入），并且不要把中国当作假想敌，而且最好还要和巴基斯坦搞好关系。加入常任理事国就完全有可能了。