Which of the following countries is not a permanent member of UN Security Council? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Which of the following countries is not a permanent member of UN Security Council?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->On October 12 2010, the United Nations General Assembly elected five countries to two-year seats on the Security Council. Name those countries?....

QA->G-4 Nations, which are trying to get permanent berth in UN Security Council, include India,Brazil,Germay and ____....

QA->Name of the alliance among Brazil, Germany, India and Japan for the purpose of supporting each other’s bids for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council?....

QA->Which isthe following element is not added after public review and formal approval bythe IUPAC council in the Periodic table?....

QA->Name thetwo nations who were included into the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO)as permanent member.....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in ‘’bold’’ to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.As increasing dependence on information systems develops, the need for such system to be reliable and secure also becomes more essential. As growing numbers of ordinary citizens use computer networks for banking, shopping, etc., network security in potentially a ‘’massive’’ problem. Over the last few years, the need for computer and information security system has become increasingly evident, as web sites are being defaced with greater frequency, more and more denial-of-service attacks are being reported, credit card information is being stolen, there is increased sophistication of hacking tools that are openly available to the public on the Internet, and there is increasing damage being caused by viruses and worms to critical information system resources.At the organizational level, institutional mechanism have to be designed in order to review policies, practices, measures and procedures to review e-security regularly and assess whether these are appropriate to their environment. It would be helpful if organizations share information about threats and vulnerabilities, and implement procedures of rapid and effective cooperation to prevent, detect and respond to security incidents. As new threats and vulnerabilities are continuously discovered there is a strong need for co-operation among organizations and, if necessary, we could also consider cross-border information sharing. We need to understand threats and dangers that could be ‘’vulnerable’’ to and the steps that need to be taken to ‘’mitigate’’ these vulnerabilities. We need to understand access control systems and methodology, telecommunications and network security, and security management practise. We should be well versed in the area of application and systems development security, cryptography, operations security and physical security.The banking sector is ‘’poised’’ for more challenges in the near future. Customers of banks can now look forward to a large array of new offerings by banks, from an ‘’era’’ of mere competition, banks are now cooperating among themselves so that the synergistic benefits are shared among all the players. This would result in the information of shared payment networks (a few shared ATM networks have already been commissioned by banks), offering payment services beyond the existing time zones. The Reserve Bank is also facilitating new projects such as the Multi Application Smart Card Project which, when implemented, would facilitate transfer of funds using electronic means and in a safe and secure manner across the length and breadth of the country, with reduced dependence on paper currency. The opportunities of e-banking or e-power is general need to be harnessed so that banking is available to all customers in such a manner that they would feel most convenient, and if required, without having to visit a branch of a bank. All these will have to be accompanied with a high level of comfort, which again boils down to the issue of e-security.One of the biggest advantages accruing to banks in the future would be the benefits that arise from the introduction of Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS). Funds management by treasuries of banks would be helped greatly by RTGS. With almost 70 banks having joined the RTGS system, more large value funds transfer are taking place through this system. The implementation of Core Banking solutions by the banks is closely related to RTGS too. Core Banking will make anywhere banking a reality for customers of each bank. while RTGS bridges the need for inter-bank funds movement. Thus, the days of depositing a cheque for collection and a long wait for its realization would soon be a thing of the past for those customers who would opt for electronic movement of funds, using the RTGS system, where the settlement would be on an almost ‘’instantaneous’’ basis. Core Banking is already in vogue in many private sector and foreign banks; while its implementation is at different stages amongst the public sector banks.IT would also facilitate better and more scientific decision-making within banks. Information system now provide decision-makers in banks with a great deal of information which, along with historical data and trend analysis, help in the building up of efficient Management Information Systems. This, in turn, would help in better Asset Liability Management (ALM) which, today’s world of hairline margins is a key requirement for the success of banks in their operational activities. Another benefit which e-banking could provide for relates to Customer Relationship Management (CRM). CRM helps in stratification of customers and evaluating customer needs on a holistic basis which could be paving the way for competitive edge for banks and complete customer care for customer of banks.The content of the passage ‘’mainly’’ emphasizes----
....

MCQ->Which of the following are correct about the constitution of National Security Council of India ? National Security Council has been constituted which includes cabinet Cabinet committee on Security. Indian Defence Minister is the chairman of the cabinet committee on National Security Council Union Home Minister is the Member secretary of the Security Council....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are given in bold to help you answer some of the questions.At the heart of what makes India a better regime than China is a healthy respect for the civil rights and liberties of its citizens. There are checks and balances in our government. But India’s new surveillance programme, the Central Monitoring system (CMS), resembles a dystopian society akin to George Orwell’s 1984.According to several news reports, the CMS gives the government, Indian security agencies and income tax (IT) officials the authority to listen to, and tape phone conversions, read emails and text messages, monitor Posts on Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin and track searches on Google of selected targets, without oversight by the courts or parliament. To call it sweeping is an understatement.Typically, Indian Security agencies need a court order for surveillance, or depend on Internet/telephone service providers for data, provided they supply a warrant. CMS allows the government to bypass the court. Milind Deora, India’s Minister of State for Information Technology says the new system will actually improve citizens’ privacy because telecommunication agencies would no longer be directly involved in the surveillance; only government officials would have these details – missing the point that in a democracy, there has to be freedom from government surveillance. This is hardly comforting in a nation riddled with governmental corruption.India does not have a privacy law. CMS will operate under the Indian Telegraph Act (ITA). The ITA is a relic of the British Raj from 1885, and gives the government the freedom to monitor private conversations. News reports quote anonymous telecommunications ministry officials as saying that CMS has been introduced for security purposes, and “this is to protect you and your country”.That is irrational. For one, there are no ‘security purposes’ that prevent the government from having a rational debate on this programme and getting approval from our elected representatives before authorizing such wide-reaching surveillance. If the government is worried that a public debate in a paralysed parliament would half the programme’s progress, then it can convene a committee of individuals or an individual body such as CAG to oversee the programme. It can seek judicial approval from the Supreme Court, and have a judge sign off on surveillance requests without making these requests public.As of now, the top bureaucrat in the interior ministry and his/her state level deputies will have the power to approve surveillance requests. Even the recently revealed US surveillance Programme, had ‘behind the doors’ bipartisan surveillance approval. Furthermore, US investigation agencies such as the CIA and NSA are not the ruling party’s marionettes; in India, that the CBI is an arm of the government is a fait accompli. Even the Supreme Court recently lambasted the CBI and asked it to guarantee its independence from government influences after it was proved that it shared unreleased investigation reports with the government.There is no guarantee that this top bureaucrat will be judicious or not use this as a tool to pursue political and personal vendettas against opposition parties or open critics of the government. Security purposes hardly justify monitoring an individual’s social media usage. No terrorist announces plans to bomb a building on Facebook. Neither do Maoists espouse Twitter as their preferred form of communication.Presumably, security purposes could be defined as the government’s need to intercept terrorist plans. How does giving the IT department the same sweeping surveillance powers justify security purposes? The IT office already has expansive powers to conduct investigations, summon individuals or company executives, and raid premises to catch tax evaders. In a world where most financial details are discussed and transferred online, allowing the IT departments to snoop on these without any reasonable cause is akin to airport authorities strip searching everyone who boards a flight.What happened on 26/11 or what happens regularly in Naxal – affected areas is extremely sad and should ideally, never take place again. But targeting terrorists means targeting people who show such inclinations, or those who arouse suspicions, either by their travels or heir associations with militant or extremist groups. And in a country where a teenager has been arrested for posting an innocent comment questioning the need for a bandh on the death of a political leader, gives us reason to believe that this law is most likely to be misused, if not abused. Select the word which is MOST OPPOSITE in meaning to the word printed in bold, as used in the passage. AKIN....

MCQ->There are 240 second year students in a B - School. The Finance area offers 3 electives in the second year. These are Financial Derivatives, Behavioural Finance, and Security Analysis. Four students have taken all the three electives, and 48 students have taken Financial Derivatives. There are twice as many students who study Financial Derivatives and Security Analysis but not Behavioural Finance, as those who study both Financial Derivatives and Behavioural Finance but not Security Analysis, and 4 times as many who study all the three. 124 students study Security Analysis. There are 59 students who could not muster courage to take up any of these subjects. The group of students who study both Financial Derivatives and Security Analysis but not Behavioural Finance, is exactly the same as the group made up of students who study both Behavioural Finance and Security Analysis. How many students study Behavioural Finance only?....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. The past quarter of a century has seen several bursts of selling by the world’s governments, mostly but not always in benign market conditions. Those in the OECD, a rich-country club, divested plenty of stuff in the 20 years before the global financial crisis. The first privatisation wave, which built up from the mid-1980s and peaked in 2000, was largely European. The drive to cut state intervention under Margaret Thatcher in Britain soon spread to the continent. The movement gathered pace after 1991, when eastern Europe put thousands of rusting state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on the block. A second wave came in the mid-2000s, as European economies sought to cash in on buoyant markets. But activity in OECD countries slowed sharply as the financial crisis began. In fact, it reversed. Bailouts of failing banks and companies have contributed to a dramatic increase in government purchases of corporate equity during the past five years. A more lasting fea ture is the expansion of the state capitalism practised by China and other emerging economic powers. Governments have actually bought more equity than they have sold in most years since 2007, though sales far exceeded purchases in 2013. Today privatisation is once again “alive and well”, says William Megginson of the Michael Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. According to a global tally he recently completed, 2012 was the third-best year ever, and preliminary evidence suggests that 2013 may have been better. However, the geography of sell-offs has changed, with emerging markets now to the fore. China, for instance, has been selling minority stakes in banking, energy, engineering and broadcasting; Brazil is selling airports to help finance a $20 billion investment programme. Eleven of the 20 largest IPOs between 2005 and 2013 were sales of minority stakes by SOEs, mostly in developing countries. By contrast, state-owned assets are now “the forgotten side of the balance-sheet” in many advanced economies, says Dag Detter, managing partner of Whetstone Solutions, an adviser to governments on asset restructuring. They shouldn’t be. Governments of OECD countries still oversee vast piles of assets, from banks and utilities to buildings, land and the riches beneath (see table). Selling some of these holdings could work wonders: reduce debt, finance infrastructure, boost economic efficiency. But governments often barely grasp the value locked up in them. The picture is clearest for companies or company-like entities held by central governments. According to data compiled by the OECD and published on its website, its 34 member countries had 2,111 fully or majority-owned SOEs, with 5.9m employees, at the end of 2012. Their combined value (allowing for some but not all pension-fund liabilities) is estimated at $2.2 trillion, roughly the same size as the global hedge-fund industry. Most are in network industries such as telecoms, electricity and transport. In addition, many countries have large minority stakes in listed firms. Those in which they hold a stake of between 10% and 50% have a combined market value of $890 billion and employ 2.9m people. The data are far from perfect. The quality of reporting varies widely, as do definitions of what counts as a state-owned company: most include only centralgovernment holdings. If all assets held at sub-national level, such as local water companies, were included, the total value could be more than $4 trillion. Reckons Hans Christiansen, an OECD economist. Moreover, his team has had to extrapolate because some QECD members, including America and Japan, provide patchy data. America is apparently so queasy about discussions of public ownership of -commercial assets that the Treasury takes no part in the OECD’s working group on the issue, even though it has vast holdings, from Amtrak and the 520,000-employee Postal Service to power generators and airports. The club’s efforts to calculate the value that SOEs add to, or subtract from, economies were abandoned after several countries, including America, refused to co-operate. Privatisation has begun picking up again recently in the OECD for a variety of reasons. Britain’s Conservative-led coalition is fbcused on (some would say obsessed with) reducing the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Having recently sold the Royal Mail through a public offering, it is hoping to offload other assets, including its stake in URENCO, a uranium enricher, and its student-loan portfolio. From January 8th, under a new Treasury scheme, members of the public and businesses will be allowed to buy government land and buildings on the open market. A website will shortly be set up to help potential buyers see which bits of the government’s /..337 billion-worth of holdings ($527 billion at today’s rate, accounting for 40% of developable sites round Britain) might be surplus. The government, said the chief treasury secretary, Danny Alexander, “should not act as some kind of compulsive hoarder”. Japan has different reasons to revive sell-offs, such as to finance reconstruction after its devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011. Eyes are once again turning to Japan Post, a giant postal-to-financial-services conglomerate whose oftpostponed partial sale could at last happen in 2015 and raise (Yen) 4 trillion ($40 billion) or more. Australia wants to sell financial, postal and aviation assets to offset the fall in revenues caused by the commodities slowdown. In almost all the countries of Europe, privatisation is likely “to surprise on the upside” as long as markets continue to mend, reckons Mr Megginson. Mr Christiansen expects to see three main areas of activity in coming years. First will be the resumption of partial sell-offs in industries such as telecoms, transport and utilities. Many residual stakes in partly privatised firms could be sold down further. France, for instance, still has hefty stakes in GDF SUEZ, Renault, Thales and Orange. The government of Francois Hollande may be ideologically opposed to privatisation, but it is hoping to reduce industrial stakes to raise funds for livelier sectors, such as broadband and health. The second area of growth should be in eastern Europe, where hundreds of large firms, including manufacturers, remain in state hands. Poland will sell down its stakes in listed firms to make up for an expected reduction in EU structural funds. And the third area is the reprivatisation of financial institutions rescued during the crisis. This process is under way: the largest privatisation in 2012 was the $18 billion offering of America’s residual stake in AIG, an insurance company.Which of the following statements is not true in the context of the given passage ?
....