Ok, that's it. If you think that PRC will support your bid, then you are welcome. If you believe that any country would support your bid without anything in return, then you are welcome. Just remember, don't blame anyone except your own country if you can't get in since everyone loves you so much.
I won't reponse anymore.
Buddy please do not get hot headed. Please do not think Indians are arrogant. We are humble and will not force upon you anything. You are free to think the way you want. Also don't think we are making positions that are too ideal and idyllic for the sake of it. Also don't fear anything please say what you personally think.
The fact is it comes out that sometimes you say that India deserves to get on UNSC. Sometimes you say India does not have support. Sometimes you say India is hopeless. Sometimes you don't complete what you say. Sometimes you feel it is a contest between PRC and India. Have a clear mind. I think PRC has a clear mind with reference to United Nations. But on UNSC reform that is what we are discussing and from what you say I am not sure if it is clear (when it might be clear).
Now we take what you said earlier:
Tell me: how many countries wants India to get on UNSC earlier? Tell me what USA and Russia did to support india's bid? The fact is you don't have enough support to get in that is why you need to group with Japan, Germany and Brazil. You can't do it alone!
The fact is that India will one day get on the UNSC all the P5 acknowledge that. Majority of states in the comity of nations have a favorable view towards India. The UNSC candidature considerations are for the betterment, development, peace and future growth of the world. Qualifications that India meets. Its going to take some time (unfortunately). I can allude to you the nuclear (re)inclusion of india something that no one thought would happen.
There are a lot of candidates and options but the eventual calculations all include india to be included in the UNSC permanent list. But this is important – India will do it the right way and by setting proper precedents. This is not 1970s.
The question about India being on the UNSC earlier is not a request made by India. But if we were to make a request to enhance the speed of Indias candidature the further support of the USA and Russia towards India are needed (states we have not back-stabbed).
With reference to G4 it was started because of the importance of UNSC reform. It was not an India initiative but yes India joined. I have confidence in the way India deals in international fora. Some argure G4 was an erroneous decision. Some argue it is evolving situation. Some argue it was situational decision (done according to the time and circumstances). Some argue it was needed as a starting point. Since you and I are (seriously) talking about Indias UNSC candidature and I believe foreign interlocutors are doing the same. We can say G4 was not an erroneous decision . It is an evolving situation and done according to the circumstance and was needs as a starting point.
The G4 started a process that needs to answer questions like how many permanent members will the new permanent council have. Will there be a veto on the new UNSC.
Comparing to PRC! The fact is we got in while you are still outside the door! Fine, give you statistics! What did india do! Don't use your peacekeeping force, UN paid it.
Like I said earlier Indias candidature to UNSC now compared to PRC in 1970s is in Indias favor. Both in terms of qualification and also for setting precedent and betterment for world peace and development as well as geopolitical considerations.
The question is not 2013 PRC UNSC vs 2013 India UNSC. It is
1970s PRC UNSC vs 2013 India UNSC.
Do you understand why it is 1970s PRC and not 2013 PRC. Also it is PRC not because India wants that. It is because the last entrant to UNSC was PRC in 1970s and India wants to get on UNSC the right way. Now was 1970s PRC more capable compared to 2013 India. The threshold is in Indias favor.
Oh, really? Then tell me when India told the world that she prefer to be consider her seat individually?
Your question makes no sense. The eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards. If G4 gets on the UNSC it will be because of the qualifications of individual states. Not because G4 as a group is better compared to G[x].
India asked the world to consider her seat individually the moment the UNSC reform process started. The world started to consider India for her seat individually the moment the UNSC reform process started. Both these statements are not mutually exclusive (they go together).
Except these hollow words, just tell me how many countries supporting India's bid? Why there is no bill cailling for india's permanent seat yet?
Its going to take some time (unfortunately). If you were to ask me to set a benchmark to my government I would say in the next 5 if not 10 years. But do not worry India will not boast that it did it the right way. If you ask me a theoretical question on how many countries do you think will support and when there is a bill calling for indias UNSC seat. My answer is that Indias candidature to UNSC now compared to PRC in 1970s is in Indias favor (more on that later). Both in terms of qualification and also for setting precedent and betterment for world peace and development as well as geopolitical considerations.
So, you are expecting PRC's collapse to vacuate its seat for India?
What i was saying was please be a little more realistic and rational instead of using large 100 years figures. I said something more relevant to 100 years. The PRC's collapse came into your mind. Whys that - please answer if you have the willpower and without fear. We don't need PRC to vacate the seat. This is not 1970s like I said. India will do it the right (durable) way.
Ok, answer me:
why USA help PRC in 1971 after 2 wars with China directly and indirectly in just 20 years?
I don't know the value of making PRC look like a backstabber to the whole world. I also don't know the value of disturbing a sizable communist relationship. Are you saying USA did not gain from helping PRC in 1971. Perhaps you can tell me.
What did PRC did gain. They got into UNSC (you ought to thank USA) and kicked out ROC. And also it was the start of the economic golden period for PRC. PRC became known to be a backstabber but got a UNSC seat, ROC removal from UN, and economic benefits. The value of backstabbing is not something important to PRC it looks like. Is that why PRC does it habitually and is doing that to many of its neighbors. Its is a logical question (don't take it personally).
why Russia didn't oppose PRC's bid in 1971 when PRC backstab it?
Soviet Union non-opposition to PRC's bid in 1971 was done under the circumstances at the time. The backstabbing of Soviet Union by PRC was not fully cognizant to Soviet Union when PRC got UNSC seat. The truth came out eventually (1979). Also Soviet Union non-opposition to resolution 2758 needs to viewed not because it supported PRC UNSC bid but it supported ROC removal from UN.
why those 78 countries voted in favor of PRC if PRC didn't offer them anything?
Be more open and say the exact
UN Resolution 2758. It was not about PRC candidature to UNSC. Please be a little more realistic and rational. The Resolution of 2758 must be viewed rationally in that it was because there was a question on which government should represent china in united nations (not UNSC). With the withdrawal of the ROC to Taiwan starting from 1947 and the establishment of the PRC in 1949, two rival governments claimed their status as the rightful international representative of china. Both followed a one china policy, meaning that diplomatic relations with china by third parties could only be maintained with one government. The same was true for representation in international organizations like the UN. The vote in resolution 2758 was therefore which government should represent china in the United Nations.
It was a PRC vs ROC vote. The 2758 UN resolution was not about PRC UNSC candidature it was to determine the question about dual representation, either as a divided country or even a two-China or two-state (one China, one Taiwan) solution.
I add you to the list of 1000 chinese that answer me all differently why PRC got onto the UNSC.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also Resolution 2758 was adopted by 76 against 35 votes with 17 abstentions by the other UN members. 52 (41%) states did not vote yes and 35 UN Member states voted "No". 59% is good but not something to boast about and the width of the deviation away from two-thirds vote required.
But if were to take your precedent. India would need to get 59% UN member states to agree - two-thirds vote. But like I have said Indias candidature to UNSC now compared to PRC in 1970s is in Indias favor. In flavor, approach and qualifications.
Also UN Resolution 2758 never voted to determine if PRC deserved to be on UNSC and it was not for betterment of world peace.
Perhaps you can share more on how PRC blackmailed the 78 countries. But eitherway before you get more hot headed the fact is that PRC is on the UNSC.
It is the foundation and most important pillar of PRC foreign policy and legitimacy. The (better) history of PRC (not china) starts from 1970s. You know when PRC become less socialist (and communist) and supported by USA. You know USA the UN member state you backstabbed by stealing their IPR.
If you have any confidential documents leak from US gov or any other gov, I would like to read. Otherwise, stop imagining!
My imagination is not helped by such things:
China protests over U.S. support for Taiwan's U.N. aviation bid - World | The Star Online
And also the fateful UN Resolution 2758 (mentioned above) - do you know what USA voted. And also do you know on 25 October 1971 which country moved for the vote. How can USA vote No yet move for the UN vote in the first place. Also how many times has Taiwan tried to get on the United Nations after 1970. Why do they keep on trying. The status of Taiwan on United Nations will remain an open issue in the future. It's a grey area.
Also Tibet policy it will divert from the topic. But it is an international political ABC that it is grey.
What you are talking about? There was a civil war and PRC won! PRC claimed its representative of China, which is accepted by most of countries in this world. You have problem with that, go to talk to your own gov!
We are talking about India played a bigger role compared to PRC in WW2. What was the role of PRC in WW2 is the point here and with reference to UNSC. Yes ROC did all the fighting. But what was the role of PRC that backstabbed ROC later.
Please don't say ROC is PRC well please don't even try before 1949.
The main point my government needs to be asked is does India have the qualifications, capability and approach to get on the UNSC. You know what my government will say - "Yes Indias candidature to UNSC now compared to PRC in 1970s is in Indias favor. In flavor, approach and qualifications." I am okay with hearing that from my government.
It is too late, people don't care!
The point and discussion is for UNSC candidature qualifications. That India satisfies. If people care its good. India cares for others.
There are always 2 sides story for any event. You choose to believe your own while I believe the other side. Nothing wrong!
Why don't you say what your side of the story is and say that it is followed by UN member states.
Like I said, we don't oppose you but we oppose Japan. So don't blambe us.
Here you say that PRC does not oppose India but oppose Japan.
I still don't think it is the official position of PRC to oppose Japan. I think PRC position is mostly silent on UNSC reform.
Obviously USA, Russia, UK, France have the right to ask PRC. I wonder what PRC says behind closed doors. Here I think who PRC oppose and don't oppose will surprise you and I. Like I said the PRC "NO" becomes a PRC "YES" that's what you call blowing wind. And it will be done in milliseconds. Behind closed doors and officially the "YES" to Indias UNSC bid when it happens will be analysed. The quicker it happens the better it will be for India and PRC relationship. You can reciprocate the "YES" vote India did on resolution 2758. Did PRC blackmail India. Will India need to blackmail PRC. We have to be rational.
Yes, you are right. Pakistan is just "supporting" india's bid.
AFP: Pakistan says US backing India UNSC seat 'incomprehensible'
Your link does not work. Also you don't say why the analysis earlier is not valid. Also you have try to say something similar. There is a difference between not saying No and supporting.
Yes, so Japanese can't blame koreans and Chineses for denying their bid. Please tell that to Japanese.
The Japanese bid to UNSC will be based on individual benchmarks and standards. The United States expressly supports Japan. That is the backbone to Japanese bid. The Japanese bids failure (if it happens) will not be because of Koreans and Chinese denial. If the United States removes the support to the Japanese bid it will not progress.
To help you be more rational I ask you a question - how many permanent members will the new permanent council have. Also does it need to be decided now.
Perhaps a unsc with india, USA, Russia, prc, France (with EU), uk, brazil (perhaps) and lead members and even rotating members in blocs (European union, oic, ASEAN, african union, and others can be envisioned.)
I await the day when the unsc really develops a representative world body. The United Nations has a lot of potential and really wish it takes a few steps to evolve further and develop into what it was designed for.
Have a good day.