India's hallucilnatory rulers mount blitzkreig in their bid for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council despite India's pidly 0. 341 % annual contribution to the UN Budget
Sikhs protest in New York on Sept. 23 to oppose India's bid but China will decide India's fate
"An upstart is a sparrow eager to be betrothed to a hornbill" - Malay proverb
Washington, D.C., Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - Sikhs (3 million free in the diaspora and 22 million captive in India) oppose the Indian rulers hallucinatory fishing expedition for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council, (ignoring such deserving countries as Canada and Italy) and will protest on September 23, 2004, outside the U.N. Please see Press Statement "Why This Protest By Sikhs Against India" (which will be issued at the New York protest) appended after the concluding paragraph of this newsletter.Nearly a year ago the leadership of the Sikh diaspora suggested to the respected Sikh-friendly Canadian Prime minister, Mr. Jean Chretien, (following his October 25, 2003, historical visit to the holiest Sikh shrine of Darbar Sahib, in Amritsar Punjab) that Canada ought to try to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council when, and if, it expands. (For details of the suggestion see Khalistan Calling dated November 5, 2003, headlined, "Canada as a Permanent UN Security Council Member," by clicking at: home/khalistancalling/2003/november05.aspx)
Four years earlier, and many times after that, this column has wondered what dubious arguments &/or statistics the Indian rulers will put forward in London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Washington - and at the UN General Assembly - when they stake a claim, to a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council, a premier organ of the United Nations? (See our column dated September 05, 2000: home/khalistancalling/2000/september05.aspx and our column dated June 07, 2000, home/khalistancalling/2000/june07.aspx) We are still wondering, as we see no statistics or arguments which remotely favour India's outlandish bid.
Could it be, we wondered, that India’s 'huge' annual contribution to the United Nation's budget (like Japan, Germany and Italy) has qualified it to acquire a veto-weilding permanent membership (a la the U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China) in an expanded UN Security Council? Security Council is a prestigious organ of the United Nations, which international organization was founded, by fifty one countries in 1945, to maintain international peace and security and to develop international cooperation in economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems.
We therefore, did some research. We discovered that as countries prosper around the world their economic muscle is converted into responsibilty at the United Nations which depends on annual assessments paid by its membership for its annual budget. Member countries pay according to their economic muscle and how well they are doing. If any country does well economically - like Japan, Germany and Italy for example - their annual UN assessment for the UN Budget increases.
We also discovered that ONLY eighteen member countries (out of the 191 countries who are now member states of the United Nations) had contributed 1%, or more, as their individual assessment to the UN Budget of a little over US$. three billion in the year 2003. These eighteen countries are listed below, with their annual % assessment shown in brackets:- Argentina (1.459 %); Australia (1.627 %); Belgium (1.129 %); Brazil (2.390 %); Canada (2.558 %); China (1.532 %); France (6.466%); Germany (9.769%); Italy (5.06475 %); Japan (19.51575 %); Korea, Republic, South (1.851 %); Mexico (1.086 %); Netherlands (1.738%); Russia (1.2 %); Spain (2.51875 %); Sweden (1.02675 %); United Kingdom (5.536 %); and the highest contribution by any member state of 22% by the United States. (For details see The Europa World Year Book -2003: Vol. 1: ISBN 0956-2273)
The above mentioned eighteen countries together paid 88.657 % (yes nearly 89 %) of the UN budget while the remaining 173 member countries paid (11.343 %) of the balance. INDIA, (with the world's third largest Armed forces - population 1, 065 million, area 1, 269, 345 sq. miles, Foreign Exchange reserves claimed at over 115 billion U.S. dollars) contributed ONLY 0.341 % in 2003 (yes about one third of one percent) for the annual upkeep of the United Nations as compared to Japan (2003 contribution of 19.52575 %); Germany (9.769%); Italy (5.06475 %); and 2.558 % contribution by Canada in 2003 . Incidently, tiny countries like Austria, Denmark, Greece, Israel, Portugal, Singapore and a few others, individually contributed a much higher percentage of the UN's 2003 Budget than India's miniscular levy of 0.341 %. Despite the above mathematical facts, simple arithmatic really, India's rulers, obviously suffering from hallucinocis (there can be no other explanation for such mad and unbridled ambition) have had the chutzpah of aspiring for a permanent veto-weilding membership of the powerful UN Security Council, a la the US, UK, France, China and Russia.
INDIA, despite a very small annual contribution to the UN has been lobbying (&/or bribing) the UN General Assembly African members to achieve that goal. It is also piggybacking on some powerful wannabe permanent Security Council members like Japan and Germany. Indian officials have conveniently overlooked the fact that Italy, Canada and Spain contributed 5.06475 %, 2.558 % and 2. 52875 % respectively to the UN's 2003 budget, as compared to India's pidly contribution of 0.341%, and as such these three countries, based on their higher UN assessment, trump any claim by India to a permanent membership of the prestigious UN Security Council if, and when, it is expanded. Obviously India's bid is not based on its 0. 341% annual contribution to the UN budget!
If India's claim to a permanent UN Security Council seat is based on its land area of 2, 973, 190 sq kilometers then Canada (9, 220, 970 sq km); Brazil (8, 456, 511 sq km); and Australia (7, 617, 931 sq km) have a prior right, because they are larger, and must be considered before India as they are larger. Perhaps India is claiming a permanent UN Security Council seat on the basis of India’s nuclear pretensions. If that is a qualification then nuclear armed states like Israel and Pakistan also have a claim to permanent seats in the UN Security Council like the current five permanent members (US. Russia, China, UK and France) who are also nuclear powers.
When we suggested that Canada ought to join the UN Security Council 'permanent membership derby', in November last year, ( > /Main/K_Calling/kc11052003.htm <) we compared it with wannabe member countries like India, Italy and Mexico. Comparitive figures were culled from the UN's Human Development Report-2003 and the CIA World Fact book to see which country is better qualified. (> http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/cty_f_IND.html < and > http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/profileguide.html <) Also when New York's prestigious firm, Goldmann Sacchs, was induced by the Indian government to release a phony doctored report, which bracketted India with the U.S. and China, we ridiculed that disinformation with a hundred solid statistics in an Open Letter which urged the firm to withdraw its doctored report, full of Indian disinformation, headlined, 'Dreaming with BRICs: The path to 2050". In our Open Letter dated December 17, 2003, we furnished numeous charts. (home/khalistancalling/2003/december17.aspx) Here are the comparitive figures:-
1) INDIA, with a population of over one billion forty nine million, after half a century of independence and self-rule, had a GDP in 2001 of US$. 477 billion; annual exports of US$. 45 billion; annual budget of US$. 48 billion; GDP per capita of US$. 462; GDP per capita PPP US$. 2,840; had 38 mainline telephones per 1, 000 people; had electricity consumption per capita of 355 kilowatt-hours and UNDP 2003 ranking of 127th out of 175 countries surveyed.
2) ITALY with a population of 58 million had a 2001 GDP of US$. 1, 089 billion; annual exports of 259 billion; annual budget of US$. 504 billion; GDP per capita of US$. 18, 788; GDP per capita PPP US$. 24, 670; had 471 mainline telephones per 1, 000 people; had electricity consumption per capita of 4, 732 kilowatt hours and UNDP-2003 ranking of 21st out of 175 countries.
3) CANADA with a population of 32 million had a 2001 GDP of US$. 695 billion; annual exports of US$. 250 billion; annual budget of US$. 179 billion; GDP per capita of US$. 22, 343; GDP per capita PPP US$. 27, 130; had 676 mainline telephone lines per 1, 000 people; had electricty consumption per capita of 15, 620 kilowatt hours and UNDP-2003 ranking of 8th out of 175 countries.
4) MEXICO with a population 104 million had a 2001 GDP of US$. 618 billion; annual exports of 158 billuion; annual budget of US$. 136 billion; GDP per capita of US$. 6, 214; GDP per capita in PPP US$. 8, 430; had 137 mainline telephones per 1, 000 people; had electricity consumption of 1, 655 kilowatt hours per capita and UNDP ranking of 55th out of 175 countries.
It is obvious from the above comparative figures for the four countries that the only thing in which India excells is its billion plus population of which total 34.7% (nearly 350 million) live in misery and squalor on less than US$. 1 day and 79.9% (over 800 million) eke out a living on less than US$. 2 a day. (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/pdf/hdr04_HDI.pdf) Hardly a qualification favourable to India, which has been ruled for over half a century by an upper caste minority ruling elite which treats 170 million 'Untouchable' (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/index.html) Indians worse than slaves in the year 2004. A year which has been designated by the United Nations as the 'International Year to Comemorate the Struggle Against Slavery and its Abolition'. The treatment of five hundred million other Indians of the lower castes and women is no better and is a manifestations of intolerance and racism practiced today in everyday life in India. (http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2024/stories/20031205002510100.htm)
Violations of human rights of monotheistic minorities (Christians, Sikhs and Muslims) is the order of the day in India a la the 2002 Gujarat mass-murder of Muslims pogrom and the anti-Sikh massacres in Delhi in November 1984, (in which ten thousand innocent Sikhs were massacred) for both of which state-sponsored crimes of 'ethnic-cleansing' no one has been found guilty. The recent state-supervised rapes of women in Manipur state of Eastern India, which drew a unique and unprecedented naked protest by hundreds of lower caste Hindu women, is symptomatic of how the population is abused in the world's largest Oligarchy - INDIA. (For details of the unique naked protest read our column by clicking at: home/khalistancalling/2004/august25.aspx) The Indian rulers are currently engaged in 'Statistical genocide' against the Sikh minority when they doctored the Census-2001 numbers a la the Nazis in Germany. (For full story of the expose`on 'Statistical genocide' of the Sikh minority, and plans for anti-Muslim pogroms, please click at: home/khalistancalling/2004/september15.aspx)
India's nearly 176 million strong endangered, and persecuted, monotheistic minorities (22 million Sikhs, 24 million Christians and 120 million Muslims) are very apprehensive that if India succeeds in gate crashing the UN Security Council as a permanent member, the Hindu-fundamentalist rulers of India, some hard some soft but all fundamentalist, will use the clout so earned at the United Nations, in their ‘internal wars’ with the monotheistic minorities and in ‘external wars’ with India's neighbors. This must NOT happen.
By dangling juicy arms purchase contracts India has received unprincipled support from greedy arms-exporting - Merchants of Death - countries like Russia, France and the U. K. But luckily China, a permanent veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, has not changed its principled stance on the expansion of the Security Council. China had spelled out to the visiting Indian President KR Narayanan, (home/khalistancalling/2000/june07.aspx) in June 2000 that, "it agreed to work along with India for the much needed UN reforms but it was non-committal in supporting New Delhi’s candidature for a permanent seat in the restructured Security Council." Chinese position remains the same today.