India set to get UN non-permanent Security Council seat

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by RAM, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. RAM

    RAM The southern Man Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    210
    Location:
    Bharath
    UNITED NATIONS: India is all set to get a seat on the Security Council as a non-permanent member after a gap of 19 years through the elections to be held tomorrow in the United Nations General Assembly.

    India is expecting an easy win since Kazakhstan pulled out from the race earlier this year and there is no other challenger from the region. While the Asian, African and Latin American seats are going uncontested with only one candidate each, the two seats for Western Europe and others Group are being fought for by Canada, Germany and Portugal.

    South Africa is a shoo-in for the African seat, which leads to a configuration of three emerging economies -- India, Brazil and South Africa - being on the Council at the same time.

    In the run-up to the elections, Indian envoy to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri pointed out that BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations will occupy places in the Security Council in the coming year, and could present a united front on several contentious international issues.

    "BRIC coordination in the Security Council becomes a fact of life," Puri had said.

    Indian diplomats have been canvassing for the spot for the past three years. To win, India needs two-thirds of the General Assembly vote, which adds up to about 128 giving the green light to India.

    India's last stint on the Security Council was in 1992.

    The five new countries will be replacing Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda. Colombia is expected to come in place of Mexico.

    Meanwhile, India is pushing for Security Council reform and hoping that change comes in the next two years while it is already in the Council.

    If Germany wins the spot, then all four members of the G4 (India, Brazil, Japan and Germany), which want to become permanent members, will be on the Council.

    The terms of the elected countries start January 1. At their last meeting in New York in September, foreign ministers of the G4 members decided to push ahead with Security Council reform and seek results at the earliest.

    Speaking at the annual debate of the General Assembly, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna said that "an overwhelming majority" of nations wanted expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats.

    "It is imperative that we take these negotiations to an early and logical conclusion," he had said.

    Security Council reform will be on the agenda when US President Barack Obama visits India in November.

    Read more: India to get UN Security Council seat - The Times of India India to get UN Security Council seat - The Times of India
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2010
  2.  
  3. ganesh177

    ganesh177 Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Pune, Incredible India
    I jumped off the chair as i read the title, but inside it says about non-permanant seat.
    Anyways, wats the importance of non-permanant seat for india ?
     
  4. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    what nonsense....misleading title. :angry_6:
     
  5. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Wats a big deal?????And please change the title of the thread as ernesto said.
     
  6. plugwater

    plugwater Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,149
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    Membership of the Security Council
     
  7. RAM

    RAM The southern Man Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,242
    Likes Received:
    210
    Location:
    Bharath
    India 'to be given place at UN top table'

    India will be given a place on the UN Security Council in a move seen as a step towards a permanent seat and recognition as its status as a growing world power.


    According to Indian diplomatic sources, New Delhi will use its place at the high table of the world's leading powers to push for UN reform to reflect the rise of growing powers like itself, Brazil and South Africa.India will take up its place on the 15 member council as a regional representative of Asia following a vote at the United Nations General Assembly. It will join its ally South Africa, Colombia and two countries out of Germany, Canada and Portugal.



    Should Germany win the election, three members of the Group of Four alliance pushing for an expanded Security Council – Germany, Brazil, India and Japan – will form an influential pro-reform caucus. Brazil is currently serving the second of its two year term as a regional representative.
    In any case, all four of the 'BRIC' countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China, the world's fastest growing economies – will sit together on the Council for the first time, strengthening the hand of the world's growing powers.


    Pranab Mukherjee, India's finance minister and second most powerful figure in Indfia after the prime minister, last week intensified New Delhi's campaign for a permanent seat at the Security Council and a shake-up of the global power structure which emerged following the second world war.
    During a visit to Washington last week, he said:"I do hope that as and when the expanded Security Council along with the general reforms of the United Nations take place, India's claim for being a permanent member of the Security Council will be considered and accepted."
    India's former foreign secretary and High Commissioner to London Lalit Man Singh said his country will now use its influence, along with its allies, to intensify the pressure for reform.
    "The Security Council needs reform. Permanent membership went to the victors of the Second World War but so much has changed since then. It should reflect the reality of 2010 not the reality of 1945."India joining the Security Council takes us a step closer to permanent membership, things are looking hopeful," he said.




    India 'to be given place at UN top table' - Telegraph
     
  8. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,519
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    Dropping Hints for the Obama trip.
     
  9. ganesh177

    ganesh177 Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    295
    Location:
    Pune, Incredible India
    I think india shud reject this offering. Worlds largest democracy, holding 1/6th of population, nuclear power and swelling economy has no permanant seat. That does not sound good.
     
  10. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,625
    Likes Received:
    17,104
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Same old carrot dangling policy, I know not at whose behest. I think India should simply stop making noises about UNSC Permanent Seat to show that we don't care as much as 'they' think we do, just like Russia clearly stated that they were not dying to enter IMF.

    The first question is: Will India get a permanent seat in the UNSC?
    The second question is: In the event Indian gets a permanent seat in the UNSC, will it get the VETO power?
     
  11. thakur_ritesh

    thakur_ritesh Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,434
    Likes Received:
    1,719
    Location:
    Land of the GODS - "Dev Bhomi".
    india for a pretty long time did not take the offer and so did not contest. aim was to just go for the permanent seat and that non-permanent seat would take our focus away from the main aim to get the permanent seat and possibly weaken our candidature but japan and germany being non-permanent members during this time changed our point of view.

    off late india realized that being away from the non-permanent seat we have not been able to make our stand known to the world on various issues that confront the world as we wanted to, and what better place to do that than the UNSC and that is the exact reason why we contested it this time round which has the backing of the main opposition party the bjp and won the contest, this was not something that was offered to us on a platter though yes the candidature of india was so strong that the contest was a non-starter to begin with.

    the main aim is to ally fears of the US and the PRC that india is not going to be acting contrary to their interests, two countries whose backing is the most important for us to raise our status as a permanent member though without a veto power. let us see how india fairs, and post this 2 years tenure it is expected india would forcefully take up its candidature with the US and with the PRC.

    by the way india already has the backing of a huge 150 nations for it to become a permanent member.
     
  12. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Insecurity Council
    Is the U.N.'s seat of power a curse?


    For small states, election to one of the U.N. Security Council's 10 nonpermanent seats is a unique opportunity to have a major say in the world's largest political debates. It's the diplomatic equivalent of moving up from the minor leagues to the Yankees. And it's not just a political windfall: Studies have shown that temporary Security Council members receive 59 percent more U.S. aid than nonmembers and are 20 percent more likely to get help from the International Monetary Fund during their two-year term and for a couple of years afterward.

    But though a stint on the council is good for a country's international standing and bank account, new research by political scientists Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith of New York University suggests that it might actually make countries less prosperous and democratic.
    Relative to other countries, temporary members of the Security Council see economic growth drop 3.5 percent and score 2 percent lower on the widely used Polity ranking, which measures levels of democracy. They also see press restrictions increase 3.1 points on Freedom House's 100-point scale.

    Is the Security Council itself an enemy of democratic capitalism? No, says de Mesquita. "It's that a vote on the council is a very valuable commodity that can be bought." Temporary membership, like newfound oil riches, gives governments a revenue stream they didn't earn and encourages bad habits.

    The result is often corruption. When Zaire was a temporary council member in the 1980s, for instance, Mobutu Sese Seko pocketed generous aid packages from the United States, but his country's per capita GDP contracted nearly 5 percent. After Robert Mugabe's government served a council term in the early 1990s, Zimbabwe's per capita GDP fell nearly 4 percent -- and we all know what became of democracy and press freedom there.

    The findings add to the increasingly contentious debate over the effectiveness of foreign aid -- while providing grist for U.N. bashers. But as de Mesquita is quick to point out, it would be foolish to blame the council for a problem caused by the great powers that are its permanent members. "What we have to change are the incentives of our governments," he says.
     
  13. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Prevent India from getting Security Council seat: Pak daily


    Islamabad: Pakistan should make all efforts to prevent India from getting a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council so that it does not get the power to block the world body's resolutions on Kashmir, a Pakistani paper said Tuesday.
    "By ignoring the UN resolutions on Kashmir, India has lost the confidence of the global community. If it gets into the Security Council and acquires the veto power, it will be able to block any movement on the Kashmir issue as well as any other matter inimical to its interests," an editorial in the Nawa-i-Waqt said.
    It claimed that UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon has also ruled out any expansion of the Security Council and India getting a place in it during his term, which is due to end next year.
    "Even after Ban Ki-moon's term ends, India must not be allowed to become a member of the Security Council. Even if the UN wants to expand the Security Council, why must the claims of Pakistan be overlooked?"
    The editorial said even as India has making all efforts to get into the Security Council, it was "unfortunate" that the Pakistani envoys to the UN and the US were "unequal to the task and playing into the hands of the Indian lobby".
    "It was their responsibility to focus the world's attention on India's real and perfidious face and how it is trampling on human rights in Kashmir. Our envoy to the UN, Hussain Haroon is under the spell of his Indian counterpart," it alleged.
    The editorial said that now the UN chief had ruled out any expansion in the near future, Pakistan must make a concerted effort to block India's chances for once and all, as well as make the UN intervene in the Kashmir issue to solve it in tune with its resolutions and the Kashmiri peoples' aspirations.
     
  14. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    A bigger prize

    India will gain UNSC permanent membership only when it emerges an authentic great power, says N.V.Subramanian.

    4 October 2010: By linking India's UN Security Council (UNSC) ambitions with resolving Kashmir and bringing peace to South Asia (Commentary, "No trade-offs on J & K," 29 September 2010) the United States meant right but intended wrong. This needs to be explained because this magazine and this writer unambiguously opposed the US linkage, which was reported by an Indian daily, following which the Barack Obama administration unconvincingly denied the news story.
    India appears to have made gaining a UN Security Council permanent membership with veto powers an end in itself, which cannot be the case. To be sure, India has dropped the insistence on veto power, hoping to gain it after a period of fifteen years or so when it is hopefully solidly ensconced in the UNSC. And India is not doing this alone, having made an alliance with Japan, Germany and Brazil, all of who have similarly strong UNSC ambitions.
    The problem with India's UNSC ambition is that, quite frankly, it brings nothing to the table, beyond its rising economic clout, which again does not impressively show up in terms of contributions to the generic UN kitty. The list of top five or seven UN financial contributors has not changed in many years, and now China and Brazil have pushed into the group of ten biggest funders. India is missing there as it is absent in the roster of major donors to UN peacekeeping operations, where China figures high. Yes, India contributes three or more brigade-strength of troops to UN peacekeeping missions but Bangladesh and Pakistan send more.
    India says the "size of a country, its contribution to UN bodies and commitment to international causes and human rights" ought to determine UNSC permanent-member selection, which is not incorrect. But after doing all the sums, it is apparent that India does not bring in enough to warrant a permanent UNSC membership.
    At least to this writer, it appears obvious that to be part of a group of powerful states that lead or at least claim to lead the world, you ought to be unquestioned leader in your own region. No one disputes this of the US, Russia and perhaps China. Certainly, the UK and France are not in the same class of leadership but a different set of historical circumstances brought them into the UN Security Council at founding. And once you are in, you cannot easily be expelled. The veto power was primarily introduced to forestall such a possibility.
    But China gives some instructive lessons. As part of the victorious allies of World War II, it became a permanent veto power. Even after the Maoist victory in the civil war, Taiwan kept that UNSC seat till nineteen-seventy-one, when the US's need for the People's Republic of China and PRC's own hugely grown influence with the developing countries in the United Nations finally got it veto power. In other words, mainland China's balancer position in the Cold War accompanied by its steady but tenacious rise gained it the prize of veto power. The rest is of course history. China has used its veto power to protect its interests and those dark forces (Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, etc) critical to its Middle Kingdom longings.
    India's position contrasts this. Its economic rise on account of its entrepreneurial genius has been spectacular in the last decade. Unlike China, the Indian state/ government has had no role in this growth. So, in a sense, this growth, this economic rise, is in spite of Delhi. But if a country genuinely has to rise, it has to rise in more than one dimension, and this is not happening with India. It has, for example, very little understanding of and control over the internal security environment, and if Indians remains united despite this, it is because democracy is a powerful aphrodisiac that keeps them together. But with little such glue available in the external South Asian environment, India has minimum control over the neighbourhood, all of whose constituent states show degrees of opposition to Delhi. Not to speak of Jammu and Kashmir internally, which continues either to simmer or boil.
    Which is why, as said in the beginning of this piece, the US meant right by linking India's ability to bring peace in South Asia with its UNSC ambitions. Certainly, US intentions could be doubted if it made those linkages that it now denies, but the basic line cannot be faulted. And in a further show of being unable to determine its own destiny, India is depending on the US to gain it permanent UNSC membership, when Washington has shown little or no keenness to oblige Delhi. And over and above the US's declining power to bail out nervous "risers" like India, China will surely block India's ambitions. Till it has muscle, China will flex it against India and Japan's permanent UNSC membership aspirations.
    What's to be done? While India should continue to lobby and pester to get permanently into the UNSC, it must also return to its core strengths and project them to dominate South Asia. Not until India gains primacy over the region will it be taken at all seriously as a complete rising power. India's national security advisor, Shiv Shankar Menon, glibly says (what else could you expect from a diplomat?) that if China is in South Asia, India is in East Asia. But how? Where? And it's a shame to accept any Chinese role in South Asia, as Menon's statement makes implicit.
    This may sound terrible and disheartening. But India is nowhere close to getting permanent UN Security Council membership. And worse for it, it does not appear to have learnt it is going about all the wrong way to gain the prize. The process of getting that prize, of becoming an authentic great power, is probably bigger than the prize itself. Such wisdom has yet to dawn.
    N.V.Subramanian is Editor, The Public Affairs Magazine- Newsinsight.net, and writes internationally on strategic affairs. He has authored two novels, University of Love (Writers Workshop, Calcutta) and Courtesan of Storms (Har-Anand, Delhi). Email: [email protected].
     
  15. Sridhar

    Sridhar House keeper Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    India gets highest number of votes for UNSC seats in 5 years

    PTI, Oct 13, 2010, 08.47am IST


    [​IMG]
    India wins non-permanent seat at UN Security Council







    UNITED NATIONS: With 187 votes in its bag, India has received the highest number of votes for getting into the United Nations Security Council in the past five years, according to Indian diplomat.

    Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN, described this as a "ringing endorsement."

    "This is the highest vote that any country has got in the last five years," he told PTI. "Now that's saying a lot."

    Out of the 190 countries that voted, India received 187 votes.

    After the vote in the General Assembly last morning, the diplomats of the Indian mission to the UN celebrated by openning a couple of bottles of champagne and serving a lunch of spicy Chinese food.

    India, which is a founding member of the UN is returning to the Security Council after a gap of 19 years.

    It has been on the Council six times before--having last served in 1992.

    Other countries to be elected are South Africa, Colombia, Germany and Portugal.

    Canada, which was also contending, received the least number of votes and eventually withdrew after the second round of voting.

    The five new countries will be replacing Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda.

    Three of the new members are part of the G4 (India, Brazil, Japan and Germany), which want to become permanent members.

    After the vote, India made it clear that it would be pushing for change in the next two years as it serves out it term as a non-permanent member.

    "Not only are we entering the council but we're entering the council when inter-governmental text based negotiations are underway and those text based negotiations are expected to progress for a final outcome in the next twelve months," Puri said.

    The Indian envoy asserted that countries like Brazil and South Africa "are expected to utilise their tenure as non-permanent members in order to facilitate longer-term permanent membership for themselves while their serving this terms."

    While India, South Africa, and Colombia were not challenged by any other country from their region, the two seats of the Western European and Others Group were contested between Portugal, Germany and Canada.

    Germany made it in the first round of voting with 128 votes--just enough to scrape through, while Canada received the least number of votes and eventually withdrew after the second round of voting.

    Puri did not comment on Canada's performance except to draw a parallel between the 1996 vote when India failed to make the cut and was trailing behind the Japan in the election.

    "It took us more than a decade to overcome the trauma of our experience in 1996," he said.

    "In successive rounds of voting Canada realised that it was not mustering the votes...it did what was honourable... it withdrew... what the impact of that is going to be I really don't know... lets wait and see."

    Without answering which countries India voted for, Puri said that New Delhi was happy that Portugal and Germany had joined the Council.

    Also present in the General Assembly Hall during the vote was veteran Congressman, Vidya Charan Shukla, who also served as India's Foreign Minister.

    Shukla also asserted that the vote today indicated that India enjoyed support for a longer stint on the Council.

    "I felt very elated and happy because this will show how strong we are as a candidate for the permanent membership," he told PTI. "The way people voted for us, it strengthens our case for permanent membership."

    Responding to Germany's performance, which just made the cut, Shukla said,"Germany is also candidate for permanent membership but this kind of victory weakens their case for permanent membership."

    Pointing out that UN member-states know about India's aspiration for permanent membership, Puri noted that the high number of votes indicated widespread support for its presence on the international stage.

    "That is a clear and unmistakable signal that India and its role is not only acknowledged but respected by the international community," he said, adding "what is important is that you win the election not by a comfortable margin but by a massive margin."

    India will begin serving its two year term in January 2011.

    India gets highest number of votes for UNSC seats in 5 years - The Times of India
     
  16. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    U.S. hopes India will play constructive role as UNSC member

    The Hindu : News / International : U.S. hopes India will play constructive role as UNSC member

    The U.S. has applauded India’s election to the UN Security Council as a non—permanent member hoping that it would play a constructive role in resolving key global issues, but stopped short of endorsing its bid for a permanent seat on the powerful body.

    “We are well aware of India’s aspirations to play a more significant, you know, global role. We have welcomed that expanded role by India both on regional issues and global issues,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said at his daily news conference here last evening.

    He made the remarks when asked if the US would be endorsing India’s bid for a permanent UNSC seat during the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama to New Delhi in November.

    Mr. Crowley, however, said the Obama Administration is committed to the reform of the UN and its Security Council.

    “We will work within the UN and within the Security Council because, you know, we recognise that there are a number of countries in the world that have those same aspirations. We are committed to continue to work constructively on UN reform,” Mr. Crowley said.

    The State Department spokesman welcomed the election of India, South Africa, Colombia, Portugal and Germany to the UN Security Council as its non-permanent members for a two-year term beginning from January 1, 2011.

    “We look forward to working constructively with all members of the Security Council. We trust that all new members will work to support the principles of the Charter, contribute to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Council and uphold its role in maintaining international peace and security,” he said.

    Mr. Crowley said the US is committed to finding a way forward on the Security Council reform that preserves and strengthens its efficiency and effectiveness and enhance its ability to carry out its mandate and meet the challenges of the 21st century.

    He also said that the US does not expect BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries, which for the first time are together in the Security Council, to form a separate block within the UNSC.

    “These countries have been playing significant roles and in some cases increasing roles in their respective regions for some time, and we welcome their participation in the Security Council,” he said.

    “As we’ve said, the global challenges that we face cannot be solved by any one country. They’re going to need significant engagement, involvement, and support from these emerging powers. You’ve got a very strong list of emerging powers who can rightfully play a more leading role on global issues,” Mr. Crowley said.
     
  17. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    "Out of 190 countries 187 voted in favor of India."
    Which 3 countries voted against India?
     
  18. ejazr

    ejazr Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    1,378
    Location:
    Hyderabad and Sydney
    Out of the 190 countries that voted, India received 187 votes.

    Any ideas on who the other three countries were?
     
  19. amitkriit

    amitkriit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Location:
    La La Land
    OK I found the answer: Of the five votes that didn’t come to India, one country backed Pakistan while another rooted for Swaziland. Another member wasn’t present, one abstained and the fifth voted against India. Since it is a secret ballot, the identities of these countries are not known.
     
  20. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    I wonder if India will adopt a different approach in its bid to get into the UNSC as a permanent veto holding member.During the previous attempt by the Gang of four to get the UN assembly to adopt a resolution calling for expansion of the UNSC,developing countries esp the members of the African Union asked why we had ganged up with developed countries like Japan and Germany for the UNSC bid,after all we had been championing the fact that developed world was already well represented in the UNSC and now its the turn to give the developing world their due.This confusion was one of the significant reason why we couldn't get the African states to support the G4 in bid to present a united front on the floor of the assembly......While Germany and Japan certainly bring significant muscle power and influence,as far as India goes they also can be a major deal breakers for us as it has been proven in the past.
     
  21. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    it cant be pakistan but i wonder why pakistan will vote for india instead to itself as pakistan itself was contesting for the seat.but the may be it that india voted for pakistan and swaziland another candidate voted for itself and hence it makes two which is the other country?????

    Hindu report says pak voted for india.now if the ballot was secret then how come indian envoy knew that pak voted for india.is that the pakistani envoy who told him and indian envoy took it on face value????? and to return the favor india voted for pak now three countries which didnt vote for india can be...

    1. india
    2. pakistan.
    3. swaziland.

    Pak’s vote for India at UNSC is ‘significant’: Indian envoy
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2010

Share This Page