Reforming Security Council Should Be Top Priority

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
we deserve to be on the unsc due to our credentials and future potential as well as for world peace and development that would benefit from a india on the unsc. like you say "would only take more troubles of the world on our heads" perhaps thats a good thing. since we will care about the issues at hand and not be a silent unsc member. a indian mind and approach on the table will be a good thing. you can refer to our history and performance on dealing with multi and bilateral situations. sure no one is perfect but our credentials have a lot more positives.

people will say that we ought to focus on our internal "problems" and more on poverty removal for example. i reference the credentials of the current p5 unsc when they became members. we can take the last p5 member to enter in 1970s. that country needed 30+ years of economic-defense focused governance to reach the level they are now. in fact when that country entered is a proper analysis to be considered in comparison india (today) entering. and the answer is in indias favor. india on the unsc and setting the precedent(s) by doing it the right way would be not only good for world peace and development but good for human race. i believe a positive and proactive support of usa and russia is one of the last pieces of the jigsaw. the pieces that are being laid as we speak ...
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
A question people also ought to ask is what is the official republic of india position, objective and direction towards unsc:

External Affairs Minister's interview to the The Statesman

Could you list the three most important bilateral relationships?

The question is not fair. I will tell you the areas that, for us, invite special attention. The P5 (referring to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) inevitably, also because we want to be on the Security Council and they all seem to acknowledge that one day we will be on the Security Council.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,998
Likes
2,300
Country flag
we deserve to be on the unsc due to our credentials and future potential as well as for world peace and development that would benefit from a india on the unsc. like you say "would only take more troubles of the world on our heads" perhaps thats a good thing. since we will care about the issues at hand and not be a silent unsc member. a indian mind and approach on the table will be a good thing. you can refer to our history and performance on dealing with multi and bilateral situations. sure no one is perfect but our credentials have a lot more positives.
Whether or not you deserve to be on the UNSC is not depending on yourself but others opinion. Clearly, most of other countries don't think so!
Whether or not you deserve to be on the UNSC is not depending on your future but your current. Clearly, your today's capability doesn't support it!
USA, France, Russia, UK and ROC paid their seats with millions of lives in WW2!
PRC spent hundreds of billions of dollars on those countries before they vote her in!
India wants a seat, save all your sweat words, show me the money! By the way, cash please!

people will say that we ought to focus on our internal "problems" and more on poverty removal for example. i reference the credentials of the current p5 unsc when they became members. we can take the last p5 member to enter in 1970s. that country needed 30+ years of economic-defense focused governance to reach the level they are now. in fact when that country entered is a proper analysis to be considered in comparison india (today) entering. and the answer is in indias favor. india on the unsc and setting the precedent(s) by doing it the right way would be not only good for world peace and development but good for human race. i believe a positive and proactive support of usa and russia is one of the last pieces of the jigsaw. the pieces that are being laid as we speak ...
"Positive and proactive" support? What does that mean? Now all P5 already said "we will not stand in your way"! Is that not good enough for india? Can't india get its majority support among the rest of UN members by itself? If you can't, then go home, develop your country and come back when you can!
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
Whether or not you deserve to be on the UNSC is not depending on yourself but others opinion. Clearly, most of other countries don't think so!
Whether or not you deserve to be on the UNSC is not depending on your future but your current. Clearly, your today's capability doesn't support it!
USA, France, Russia, UK and ROC paid their seats with millions of lives in WW2!
PRC spent hundreds of billions of dollars on those countries before they vote her in!
India wants a seat, save all your sweat words, show me the money! By the way, cash please!



"Positive and proactive" support? What does that mean? Now all P5 already said "we will not stand in your way"! Is that not good enough for india? Can't india get its majority support among the rest of UN members by itself? If you can't, then go home, develop your country and come back when you can!
Thanks for responding also please make your response more backed up with reason. I don't hate you and dislike you buddy if you make a good point I will read it and accept. I like interacting to understand what others think. But i also know you will have reasons why you say what you say and I prefer what reasonable people in the middle think.

Returning to what you say: Are you saying most countries don't think india deserves to be on unsc. What's prc position on india getting on unsc. You say later its something along "we won't stand in your way". How can we gauge in a reasonable logical way to determine if most countries support india on unsc. I mean its impossible unless I ask each country. Unless I set a precedent of some value that I can use if others ask me:

India elected to U.N. Security Council - The Hindu

... In polling ... India received the highest number of votes — 187 out of 192 — among all countries in the fray.

"This resounding endorsement of India's candidature at the United Nations reaffirms the overwhelming support India enjoys in the international community," External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said at a late night press conference here soon after the results were known. "India will demonstrate to the world that India is good for the world," he added.

I know the above can be argued against as it was for non-permanent seat. But it discounts what you say. I reaffirm what I said earlier. And also i find it hard to belive your statement without justifcation and i say to you most countries would support india and the p5 all seem to acknowledge that one day india will be on unsc.

Next our capability compared to the last entrant in 1970s is in Indians favour, the candidatures side by side is in indias favour.

Also in ww2 like you say The roc is republic of china. The prc is people republic of china that is currently having unsc seat. India played a greater roll compared to both roc and prc. Especially prc. Again the reason why prc got its seat was not because of its role in ww2 and also not because it paid hundreds of billions of dollars to vote her in. Money that prc did not have in 1970s. The reason was different and I have highlighted it previously in my other posts that is worth you going and reading.

Like I said it is not about money. Don't let money get to your head buddy. Also india has money but its not our priority to use that to get the vote. And we are developing our country and we won't need to return to twice to get in. We will do it the first time when we are ready and have set the right precedents for future candidates and for the benefit of world. I do admit it can be done faster. But good things have a habit of taking time.

Finally I ask you who so you think deserves to be on unsc. Now and in the future. I imagine you won't have india on the list right ... Why's that. What's the official prc position.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,998
Likes
2,300
Country flag
Thanks for responding also please make your response more backed up with reason. I don't hate you and dislike you buddy if you make a good point I will read it and accept. I like interacting to understand what others think. But i also know you will have reasons why you say what you say and I prefer what reasonable people in the middle think.
We are talking about india's UNSC seat not your personal life, so let's put patriotism or nationalism aside for a moment, thinking objectively please.

Returning to what you say: Are you saying most countries don't think india deserves to be on unsc. What's prc position on india getting on unsc. You say later its something along "we won't stand in your way". How can we gauge in a reasonable logical way to determine if most countries support india on unsc. I mean its impossible unless I ask each country. Unless I set a precedent of some value that I can use if others ask me:

India elected to U.N. Security Council - The Hindu

... In polling ... India received the highest number of votes — 187 out of 192 — among all countries in the fray.
Very simple, if India can get majority, then first you don't need to join the so called "big 4" to help your bid; second, at least you should already have an special meeting for your qualification in UN; third, you or your supporters should have initiated at least once bill calling for your permanent seat!

"This resounding endorsement of India's candidature at the United Nations reaffirms the overwhelming support India enjoys in the international community," External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna said at a late night press conference here soon after the results were known. "India will demonstrate to the world that India is good for the world," he added.

I know the above can be argued against as it was for non-permanent seat. But it discounts what you say. I reaffirm what I said earlier. And also i find it hard to belive your statement without justifcation and i say to you most countries would support india and the p5 all seem to acknowledge that one day india will be on unsc.
How does it discount what I said? Owing a Samsung Galaxy 2 doesn't neccessarily mean you can afford a latest Iphone 5. Applying for the permanent seat with veto power is completely different level game.

Yes, no one of P5 opposite india's application, but each of them opposite one of your mates: for example, China vs Japan, America vs Brazil, Russia vs German. So, by grouping with these countries, India is being denied by P5.

Next our capability compared to the last entrant in 1970s is in Indians favour, the candidatures side by side is in indias favour.
Yes, but you miss a few points here:
1. PRC was replacing ROC at the time, so there was no seat to increase;
2. By replacing ROC, US's influence was weakened and lots of countries were pleased to see that;
3. ROC was nothing comparing to any of P5 today;
4. PRC of 1970s was weaker than today's india, but PRC spent lots more on financial and militarial aid than india today. It was said there were still more than 30000 Chinese made tanks equiped in African armies when Chinese stopped its revolution exportion in 1978. Most of them were given for free.

Also in ww2 like you say The roc is republic of china. The prc is people republic of china that is currently having unsc seat. India played a greater roll compared to both roc and prc. Especially prc. Again the reason why prc got its seat was not because of its role in ww2 and also not because it paid hundreds of billions of dollars to vote her in. Money that prc did not have in 1970s. The reason was different and I have highlighted it previously in my other posts that is worth you going and reading.
Whether or not Indian played a bigger role than ROC soldiers in WW2 is arguable. But there is one thing for sure: Indian soldiers fought under British flag while Chinese fought under ROC flag. So the contribution of these indian soldiers were part of British war effor, the world didn't owe anything to India. You can go to ask your reward from UK. And you know what: british did pay you----your independence!

Like I said it is not about money. Don't let money get to your head buddy. Also india has money but its not our priority to use that to get the vote. And we are developing our country and we won't need to return to twice to get in. We will do it the first time when we are ready and have set the right precedents for future candidates and for the benefit of world. I do admit it can be done faster. But good things have a habit of taking time.
It is all about money or money equivalent! If you think that UN is kind of salvation army, then you better stay out of it. The good things do take time, but they also cost a lot! You can save your money and come back later, but just remember: later you come, higher the price will be!

Finally I ask you who so you think deserves to be on unsc. Now and in the future. I imagine you won't have india on the list right ... Why's that. What's the official prc position.
My personal view: anyone as long as she can pay the price.
Official PRC position: we have no problem with India's bid even though we won't move a finger for you; We, however, will do everything within our power to stop Japanese. So you either go for it alone or go down with Japan.
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
My personal view: anyone as long as she can pay the price.
Official PRC position: we have no problem with India's bid even though we won't move a finger for you; We, however, will do everything within our power to stop Japanese. So you either go for it alone or go down with Japan.
We are talking about india's UNSC seat not your personal life, so let's put patriotism or nationalism aside for a moment, thinking objectively please.
I agree. Also would be good you make your analysis with reason and justification and not for sake of refutation.

Very simple, if India can get majority, then first you don't need to join the so called "big 4" to help your bid; second, at least you should already have an special meeting for your qualification in UN; third, you or your supporters should have initiated at least once bill calling for your permanent seat!
We are going down that road. Unlike 1970s we are doing it the right way. We are in a situation where the UNSC needs reform. We cannot simply put our hand down on the table and say okay done. India will not be a coward and will do it the proper way and in consultation with all stakeholders. As unlike the 1970s this time around a proper precedent will be developed. That's admirable and everlasting. A contribution India is making as we speak.

Also like you have said in 1970s where the considerations were different. This time around the 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. but its happening with proper precedents being established for future. That's also taking time but India wants to do it the right way.
Again what I really think what you are saying is that UNSC reform is difficult and India needs to man up. UNSC reform is a complicated process but in the calculations that play out the end result is customarily that India will one day be on the UNSC.

The Big 4 i assume you mean G4 (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil) is something that I agree needs to be explored further. I read Japan and Germany, the main defeated powers in WWII, are now the UN's second- and third-largest funders respectively, while Brazil and India are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions.

But I believe the G4 taken collectively as a group (jointly – all and nothing approach) will be biggest hindrance to Indias bid on UNSC. The G4 needs to be done as a group with pre-condition that each has its own merits. But India has no disagreement with the others bid and qualifications. In reality I don't see Japan, Germany on the new UNSC. Japan has the USA umbrella and is represented on important economic fora, and Germany needs to be clubbed in a bigger European Union bloc. Each plays a big role in UN already.

How does it discount what I said? Owing a Samsung Galaxy 2 doesn't neccessarily mean you can afford a latest Iphone 5. Applying for the permanent seat with veto power is completely different level game.
I think you have to replace mobile phone with a combination of mobile phone, cars, clothes, ice creams manufacturers, number of malls and etc. Make an aggregate of India capability and what it can afford and you will see in fact it has the latest Iphone5. The point where a country crosses the threshold to afford the latest iphone 5 is different for all states. For example PRC affords the latest iphone 5 differently compared to Russia. Obviously the criteria is not mobile phones, cars, etc. They are more pertinent and applicable explanations that have been highlighted briefly earlier that focus on the actual capability attributes.

If according to you no P5 is in opposition. There must be some capability requirement in making such non-opposition position.

Yes, no one of P5 opposite india's application, but each of them opposite one of your mates: for example, China vs Japan, America vs Brazil, Russia vs German. So, by grouping with these countries, India is being denied by P5.
You make a very good point. But the considerations you state - China vs Japan, America vs Brazil, Russia vs German - are not denial by P5 but delay of the reform process. These are two different things. Do you understand difference between delay and denial. Also they go against the G4 arrangement I said earlier.
But a closer look the linear position that leads from what you say is still India is not opposed by any of the P5. The China vs Japan, America vs Brazil, Russia vs German some argue works in our favor as we can say these calculations do not have India as a hindrance. As long as it is not America vs India and Russia vs India.

Yes, but you miss a few points here:
I can ask this question to a 1000 chinese they will not be able to give me the real reason why PRC replace ROC on UNSC. All I will say is 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. PRC got the seat because it was a tradecraft move that was not difficult to implement and it came with no comprehension and precedent for the future of the world and united nations. A proper way to have PRC get on board the UNSC would have been how India is doing that currently – the appropriate, proper and durable hard way that takes a little time.

But you make some points I would like to add to:

1. PRC was replacing ROC at the time, so there was no seat to increase;
There still was a change in UNSC. Also ROC position in UN was changed.

2. By replacing ROC, US's influence was weakened and lots of countries were pleased to see that;
Don't agree and also that was not a reason why PRC got on UNSC. The USA helped PRC get on UNSC.

3. ROC was nothing comparing to any of P5 today;
The calculation was that ROC would be controlling China today and it played a bigger role in world war 2. Also the leaders of ROC were able to internationalize their position better earlier on. But question is what about tomorrow. PRC [is greater compared to] -> ROC. Whats one china policy. Whats UN to one china policy. Will ROC be in the UN tomorrow. Hmm"¦

4. PRC of 1970s was weaker than today's india, but PRC spent lots more on financial and militarial aid than india today. It was said there were still more than 30000 Chinese made tanks equiped in African armies when Chinese stopped its revolution exportion in 1978. Most of them were given for free.
I cannot believe you use that as the justification why PRC got seat on UNSC in 1970s. Be real. Revolution exportation (!!). Like I said the reason why prc got its seat was not because of its role in ww2 and also not because it paid hundreds of billions of dollars to vote her in. Money that prc did not have in 1970s.

Whether or not Indian played a bigger role than ROC soldiers in WW2 is arguable. But there is one thing for sure: Indian soldiers fought under British flag while Chinese fought under ROC flag. So the contribution of these indian soldiers were part of British war effor, the world didn't owe anything to India. You can go to ask your reward from UK. And you know what: british did pay you----your independence!
Indian played a bigger role to ROC is not an argument. Also to be fair to ROC it's a not an argument India wants to make. The main argument is India played a bigger role compared to PRC in WW2. What was the role of PRC in WW2. I have read somewhere it was to save up and not use arms provided by the allies. These arms were used for the eventual civil war against the ROC for control of China. Basically I read ROC did all the fighting while PRC backstabbed them later.
But you agree India played a big role in WW2. You say it was part of the British War Effort. Thats not disputed. I believe the role of India will be highlighted more in the coming days as part of Indias precedent development for getting its seat on UNSC. Definitely Indias role was not to backstab but to stand shoulder to shoulder in the battlefield and fight bravely for a cause that was fair next to the allies. A contribution the allies admit but probably needs to be highlighted more.

I also don't agree that British paid us with independence. You really need to familarise yourself with the non-violent civil disobedience movement. It would be good if you read about Gandhi for your education and being a good person. Indians are not that bad buddy.

But returning to the topic, currently UK is on the UNSC. And if independent India gets on the UNSC the quality and characteristic of the table wont be changed. In fact it would be enhanced because you will have a table of countries that played a big role in WW2 (except PRC).

It is all about money or money equivalent! If you think that UN is kind of salvation army, then you better stay out of it. The good things do take time, but they also cost a lot! You can save your money and come back later, but just remember: later you come, higher the price will be!
Money is not the only consideration. I take what you said in combination of your post because to get on the UNSC it comes down to this: its about capability, support from other countries and the candidatures position for betterment, development, peace and future growth of the world.

The fundamentals and qualifications of India on UNSC are right. The implementation is what we need to focus on.

My personal view: anyone as long as she can pay the price.
Official PRC position: we have no problem with India's bid even though we won't move a finger for you; We, however, will do everything within our power to stop Japanese. So you either go for it alone or go down with Japan.
Why do you oppose Japan.

Also from pragmatic view I don't think that is PRC official position. The PRC official position at this moment is "¦ nothing. It might be informally to say that reform must be done properly. But in the end the PRC official position will be made at the last minute and done according to what USA and Russia says. Because PRC knows (which is smart) not to blow against the wind.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
@Compersion u know P5 will continue to do India lip service as much as u like but deep in heart u wont take their diplomatic parlance at face value for your UNSC bid will u?

By the way ROC sent Chinese Expeditonary Forces at British request to fight Japanese in Burma and Assam and Bihar (part of India later) during 1942-1944 in the CBI i.e. China-Burma-India theatre. Chinese saved Asia to a degree!

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
@Compersion u know P5 will continue to do India lip service as much as u like but deep in heart u wont take their diplomatic parlance at face value for your UNSC bid will u?

By the way ROC sent Chinese Expeditonary Forces at British request to fight Japanese in Burma and Assam and Bihar (part of India later) during 1942-1944 in the CBI i.e. China-Burma-India theatre. Chinese saved Asia to a degree!

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2
In this day of age lip service from p5 is hard to get by that is sweet to the ears. For all the P5 to say that India will one day be on UNSC is significant. It is a important foundation for a country's bid to be on UNSC especially what USA and Russia say. But the reform is not only about India. Otherwise India would have been affirmed already. Sometimes I look at PRC with envy since you have a lot of jewellery that's been given to you. A few times even by India.

You also mention the history of ROC that is something that not many know about. I think your terminology is debatable but I will avoid responding and see you are trying to say something that touches about India and Chinese relationship. The ROC and India had (and to some degree have) good relations. The warmth in the India ROC relationship was transferred to PRC (naturally) after the chinese civil war in good faith but it turned out to be much different. It is a fact that Indians and Chinese get along generally. But Some argue that it's the PRC leadership that has something against Indians a bit of a inferiority complex. It's like India gets in the PRC way to be dominant. I can only imagine the interlocutors that deal in Chinese foreign policy whenever they hear the words India. The Russians and Americans know it.

Om a separate note i was reading a bit about PRC over weekend. you mind we have a little discussion. feel free to ignore. i wanted to ask a question if KMT and CPC ever entered into electoral contest who would win. It's theoretical but in Hong Kong there are elections coming up. Is there a reason why KMT and CPC does not field candidates in Hong Kong. There is a one china policy is there a inhibition of ROC political parties to contest in Hong Kong. I mean is there a prohibition. Would it be provocative would it be allowed. also is there a fear in CPC to field candidates (the chief executive doesn't count). I was thinking it might be good for Chinese if this happened and also someone mentioned the eventual goal of PRC to be democratic. Why not test it in Hong Kong. Field some CPC candidates.

Also with Bo Xilai in the news wanted to ask one question. Who is he and will he get any punishment. Is it only because of westerner involvement he is being reprimanded. A bit like control your subordinates and family. A teaching to the inner circle. A seminar to the inner circle on dos and donts. I find it hard to believe that the top leaders of PRC are saints and such things haven't happened before (wife blackmailing others - power trips and even subordinates challenging their provincial chiefs with discriminatory evidence) . And that's why deep down the top leadership won't go hard on Bo Xilai because it wasn't his fault he brought loss of face to the leaders. It was the silly police chief that went to Americans. It's a seminar for future leaders. Once the outside world finds out its different ball game. Keep it in house enjoy the riches.

Lastly where do you see India and PRC relationship going. There's huge potential and your Prime Minister made good noises (notwithstanding the incursions that happened).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,998
Likes
2,300
Country flag
We are going down that road. Unlike 1970s we are doing it the right way. We are in a situation where the UNSC needs reform. We cannot simply put our hand down on the table and say okay done. India will not be a coward and will do it the proper way and in consultation with all stakeholders. As unlike the 1970s this time around a proper precedent will be developed. That's admirable and everlasting. A contribution India is making as we speak.
That is a contribution which can bring you some respects and thanks, but not enough to earn you a permanent seat!

Also like you have said in 1970s where the considerations were different. This time around the 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. but its happening with proper precedents being established for future. That's also taking time but India wants to do it the right way.
Still don't get it, including india is to accept an existing facts- India is already a nuclear power and no one can change it without a war. So, the world would be benefited from pulling india into the system. UNSC is completely different, India is not a power that UN can't afford losing it.

Again what I really think what you are saying is that UNSC reform is difficult and India needs to man up. UNSC reform is a complicated process but in the calculations that play out the end result is customarily that India will one day be on the UNSC.
No, UNSC reform is not difficult as long as P5 agree on it. India can get what it wants as long as it can satisify P5.

The Big 4 i assume you mean G4 (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil) is something that I agree needs to be explored further. I read Japan and Germany, the main defeated powers in WWII, are now the UN's second- and third-largest funders respectively, while Brazil and India are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions.
Once again, your contribution is great but not that great! You need to do more!

But I believe the G4 taken collectively as a group (jointly – all and nothing approach) will be biggest hindrance to Indias bid on UNSC. The G4 needs to be done as a group with pre-condition that each has its own merits. But India has no disagreement with the others bid and qualifications. In reality I don't see Japan, Germany on the new UNSC. Japan has the USA umbrella and is represented on important economic fora, and Germany needs to be clubbed in a bigger European Union bloc. Each plays a big role in UN already.
Unfortunately each of P5 have a lot against your partners and each of them plays a lot bigger role in UN than any of you.

I think you have to replace mobile phone with a combination of mobile phone, cars, clothes, ice creams manufacturers, number of malls and etc. Make an aggregate of India capability and what it can afford and you will see in fact it has the latest Iphone5. The point where a country crosses the threshold to afford the latest iphone 5 is different for all states. For example PRC affords the latest iphone 5 differently compared to Russia. Obviously the criteria is not mobile phones, cars, etc. They are more pertinent and applicable explanations that have been highlighted briefly earlier that focus on the actual capability attributes.

If according to you no P5 is in opposition. There must be some capability requirement in making such non-opposition position.
Very simple, you struggling for your bid is not strong enough that requires P5 to stand out.

You make a very good point. But the considerations you state - China vs Japan, America vs Brazil, Russia vs German - are not denial by P5 but delay of the reform process. These are two different things. Do you understand difference between delay and denial. Also they go against the G4 arrangement I said earlier.
Yes, P5 doesn't deny you, just ask you to wait maybe 100 years. Sounds better?

But a closer look the linear position that leads from what you say is still India is not opposed by any of the P5. The China vs Japan, America vs Brazil, Russia vs German some argue works in our favor as we can say these calculations do not have India as a hindrance. As long as it is not America vs India and Russia vs India.
yes, but G4 insists that UN must accept all 4 instead of any single one. So, by denying one, all of you will be rejected.



I can ask this question to a 1000 chinese they will not be able to give me the real reason why PRC replace ROC on UNSC. All I will say is 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. PRC got the seat because it was a tradecraft move that was not difficult to implement and it came with no comprehension and precedent for the future of the world and united nations. A proper way to have PRC get on board the UNSC would have been how India is doing that currently – the appropriate, proper and durable hard way that takes a little time.
That is BS. Every Chinese knows the real reason why PRC got in: we paid price. Think of this: we didn't stop financial aid to those developing countries even during Great leap forward. The only problem is you don't want to hear this. India doesn't want to pay. We all know how valuable seat is, so india has to pay a big price if you want it. If you want to get others' votes, you better pay what they ask instead of your own words.

But you make some points I would like to add to:

There still was a change in UNSC. Also ROC position in UN was changed.

Don't agree and also that was not a reason why PRC got on UNSC. The USA helped PRC get on UNSC.

The calculation was that ROC would be controlling China today and it played a bigger role in world war 2. Also the leaders of ROC were able to internationalize their position better earlier on. But question is what about tomorrow. PRC [is greater compared to] -> ROC. Whats one china policy. Whats UN to one china policy. Will ROC be in the UN tomorrow. Hmm"¦
UN can not change its one china policy because that is the policy insisted by both ROC and PRC. If UN choose ROC, PRC will automatically quite UN just as ROC did in 1971.

I cannot believe you use that as the justification why PRC got seat on UNSC in 1970s. Be real. Revolution exportation (!!). Like I said the reason why prc got its seat was not because of its role in ww2 and also not because it paid hundreds of billions of dollars to vote her in. Money that prc did not have in 1970s.
Ok, you win! China got its seat by simply talking nice.

Indian played a bigger role to ROC is not an argument. Also to be fair to ROC it's a not an argument India wants to make. The main argument is India played a bigger role compared to PRC in WW2. What was the role of PRC in WW2. I have read somewhere it was to save up and not use arms provided by the allies. These arms were used for the eventual civil war against the ROC for control of China. Basically I read ROC did all the fighting while PRC backstabbed them later.
But you agree India played a big role in WW2. You say it was part of the British War Effort. Thats not disputed. I believe the role of India will be highlighted more in the coming days as part of Indias precedent development for getting its seat on UNSC. Definitely Indias role was not to backstab but to stand shoulder to shoulder in the battlefield and fight bravely for a cause that was fair next to the allies. A contribution the allies admit but probably needs to be highlighted more.
With only around 3 millions soldiers participated in ww2, which only equal the total military death of China, I really don't think that India was saving the world in that war.
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I also don't agree that British paid us with independence. You really need to familarise yourself with the non-violent civil disobedience movement. It would be good if you read about Gandhi for your education and being a good person. Indians are not that bad buddy.
That is what Britians said.

BBC - History - British History in depth: Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire

But returning to the topic, currently UK is on the UNSC. And if independent India gets on the UNSC the quality and characteristic of the table wont be changed. In fact it would be enhanced because you will have a table of countries that played a big role in WW2 (except PRC).
You have German and Japan in your compaign, so you can't use your role in WW2 as your advantage.

Money is not the only consideration. I take what you said in combination of your post because to get on the UNSC it comes down to this: its about capability, support from other countries and the candidatures position for betterment, development, peace and future growth of the world. The fundamentals and qualifications of India on UNSC are right. The implementation is what we need to focus on.
You can't keep talking, but sweet words alone won't take you anywhere.

Why do you oppose Japan.
Why Pakistan opposes you?
Why South korea opposes Japan?
Why Agangtina opposes Brazil?

Also from pragmatic view I don't think that is PRC official position. The PRC official position at this moment is "¦ nothing. It might be informally to say that reform must be done properly. But in the end the PRC official position will be made at the last minute and done according to what USA and Russia says. Because PRC knows (which is smart) not to blow against the wind.
Yes, Chinese won't go against a bill supported by everyone else! But as a member of P5 and second largest economy in the world, we don't even need to say "NO", there will be plenty of mouths speak out for us. But of course, it is not our fault.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
A few points in response to @Compersion

On China's contribution to Asia peace as a founding member of UN -
Chinese Expeditionary Force (Burma) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chinese Army in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China Burma India Theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Hong Kong politics - Roughly there're 2 camps among HK political parties, Pro-establishment (or so-called Pro-Beijing) camp and Pro-democracy Camp. But after reading Politics of Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia u'll come to see their differences are more entrenched than "universal suffrage" or whether to toe Beijing line. None of parties wants to be seen as proxy of CCP or KMT, and understandably voters are more local-issue oriented. Especially it seems politically suicidal if one clings to KMT who has given up its "Grand China" ambition and is confined to local Taiwan politics only.

On Bo - his trial is being televised daily. IMO it's not only about "face saving" but more like a showcasing of the anti-corruption resolution. He can't simply shift all the blames to his wife or subordinates as his "bagmen" to do all the dirty jobs. "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" - Oscar Wilde

On so-called incursion - Yesterday I saw a video clip on border spats, btwn a group of Chinese and Indian soldiers, shouting, pushing and shoving. PLA soldiers told Indians to get out of Chinese soil, and not to remove Chinese flag while an Indian officer told Chinese to "take it easy".

On Sino-Indian relationship - Cold Peace is already achieved and what's needed is to preserve it - just my thought.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
Yes, Chinese won't go against a bill supported by everyone else! But as a member of P5 and second largest economy in the world, we don't even need to say "NO", there will be plenty of mouths speak out for us. But of course, it is not our fault.
That is a contribution which can bring you some respects and thanks, but not enough to earn you a permanent seat!
Like I said that India will do it the right way. The fundamentals of India is right and its whats guided us until now. Its not like the 1970s where India has a superpower to backstab and a vacuum to allow for implementation of undemanding tradecraft. The fact is that the reform of UNSC is a major, essential and significant phase for United Nations that needs to be done well and properly and by proper precedents and qualifications. This is not the 1970s.

Still don't get it, including india is to accept an existing facts- India is already a nuclear power and no one can change it without a war. So, the world would be benefited from pulling india into the system. UNSC is completely different, India is not a power that UN can't afford losing it.
The reintroduction and (re)inclusion of India to nuclear weapons state and nuclear club was a process that took time. It required endorsement, support and is happening while we talk. its happening with proper precedents that are being established for future. That's also taking time but India wants to do it the right way. Also the nuclear testing in May 1998 was part of the process.

India will have to calculate on its own and decide how to get on the UNSC. But it will be done with proper precedents and done right.

No, UNSC reform is not difficult as long as P5 agree on it. India can get what it wants as long as it can satisify P5.
To enhance the speed and support of the USA and Russia towards India are needed (states we have not back-stabbed). Not P5. Also the world wants to deal with India and sees India potential and wants India to get on UNSC earlier.

Once again, your contribution is great but not that great! You need to do more!
Compared to whom. And also what calculation are you using. Don't use PRC statistics please.

Unfortunately each of P5 have a lot against your partners and each of them plays a lot bigger role in UN than any of you.
I think you are alluding to the G4 (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil). I would like to think that is an evolving situation. India grouped with G4 to start the process but the eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards. G4 was started because of the importance of UNSC reform. It was not a India initiative but yes India joined.

Very simple, you struggling for your bid is not strong enough that requires P5 to stand out.
I agree it is about implementation and India can do better. But India is not going to fight with others to defeat that struggle. It will be done with proper precedents and done right. It's a process and P5 has said and acknowledged that one day we will be on the Security Council. Also the fundamentals of India are right and the comity of nations sees the potential of India and wants to deal with India. Its about doing it right and the time will come when it falls into place. When is the right time that's the important question. Perhaps more people ought to ask that question.

Yes, P5 doesn't deny you, just ask you to wait maybe 100 years. Sounds better?
The length of time and also when it will happen is an important question but it must be done with proper standards and done right. But I think it will be within next 5 to 10 years.

Whats the longest period for a communist state to survive continuously. 100 years is a very long time period you use. Perhaps be a little more realistic and rational. PRC did get on UNSC in 1970s. Who knew PRC would backstab Russia even in a 100 years.

yes, but G4 insists that UN must accept all 4 instead of any single one. So, by denying one, all of you will be rejected.
You make a valid point that is what appears from the outside. Its admirable that UNSC reform is being spoken about. But the collective all and nothing is unfeasible and no state will allow that to happen. If one of the members is told they can get on UNSC but its better to not group with G4 what do you think that country will do. It's an evolving situation and G4 is not set in stone. The eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards.

That is BS. Every Chinese knows the real reason why PRC got in: we paid price. Think of this: we didn't stop financial aid to those developing countries even during Great leap forward. The only problem is you don't want to hear this. India doesn't want to pay. We all know how valuable seat is, so india has to pay a big price if you want it. If you want to get others' votes, you better pay what they ask instead of your own words.
When it comes to voting in UN general assembly sure there will be a cost and payment consideration but it wont be the only consideration. PRC did not get into UNSC because they paid a price. Its disrespectful to USA that helped you. And its disrespectful to PRC that backstabbed Russia. Probably the price PRC paid was on its image for getting through the backdoor. Like I said PRC got the seat because it was a tradecraft move (by USA not PRC) that was not difficult to implement and it came with no comprehension and precedent for the future of the world and united nations. The reason why prc got its seat was not because of its role in ww2 and also not because it paid hundreds of billions of dollars to vote her in. Money that prc did not have in 1970s. Indias candidature to UNSC now compared to PRC in 1970s is in Indias favor. In flavor, approach and qualifications.

UN can not change its one china policy because that is the policy insisted by both ROC and PRC. If UN choose ROC, PRC will automatically quite UN just as ROC did in 1971.
What is the interpretation of ROC candidature to UN now. You allude on the possibility of ROC getting into UN. The USA has a grey policy perhaps for future. A bit like Tibet policy by many states. Many states have reason for their grey PRC policies.

Ok, you win! China got its seat by simply talking nice.
Its not about winning but by providing reason behind what you say and what people in the middle think. Don't feel pressured to please others (in the middle). Also dont fear on saying what you personally think.

With only around 3 millions soldiers participated in ww2, which only equal the total military death of China, I really don't think that India was saving the world in that war.
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know what your point is. Its sad you as a Chinese can using statistics like that to proclaim the contribution of ROC in WW2 was colossal. A bit like [x] number of people died during the cultural revolution but it was worth it.

The role of ROC in WW2 is a not an argument India wants to make. We respect ROC role in WW2. India supported ROC in WW2. The main argument is 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.

India played a big role in WW2 it will be spoken of more especially with reference to UNSC.

Exactly what did the British say perhaps you can explain in your own words.

You have German and Japan in your compaign, so you can't use your role in WW2 as your advantage.
Like I said the eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards.

You can't keep talking, but sweet words alone won't take you anywhere.
If the fundamentals are right the job is mostly done.

Why Pakistan opposes you?
You have mentioned a good point. You might not be confident to answer why PRC oppose Japan (perhaps it goes against PRC policy of being silent) but I don't have issue with your questions.

From my reading of the situation where does it say Pakistan oppose India. Is it official. I know Pakistan has a position (to delay not deny) that UNSC reform needs to be done on a proper representative basis that needs to be decided first before capable countries are determined (and they have been joined by Italy and others).

If they were stupid enough to say openly now that they oppose India on UNSC they will show that their position (on delaying) was bogus and it was actually for opposition of India. On a global stage the countries that joined Pakistan (a anti-G4 group people say) will need to be asked are you (a) reform delay; (b) anti-india. It will help India convert the reform delay countries to pro-india. And all countries that are anti-india will be pro-pakistan. Perhaps it would have been better if you list the anti-India countries.

The eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards.

More pertinent questions you need to ask is what about Kashmir (does it come in the way of UNSC). And also what about 1971 Bangladesh liberation war. These have a role in UNSC reform and Indias candidature.

Why South korea opposes Japan?
Where does it say the South Korea oppose Japan. South Korea might have a policy like Pakistan at this moment (to delay by agreeing on process first). South Korea is under the USA umbrella and they wont saying anything like that without USA endorsement. I think what you mean to say is South Koreans would not like Japanese to be on UNSC. Again this is like I said the eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards. The Japanese candidature is supported expressly by USA at this moment.

Why Agangtina opposes Brazil?
Sorry don't know too much about that. Perhaps you can share some details.

Yes, Chinese won't go against a bill supported by everyone else! But as a member of P5 and second largest economy in the world, we don't even need to say "NO", there will be plenty of mouths speak out for us. But of course, it is not our fault.
Yep that is not far from the truth.

But when the PRC "NO" becomes a PRC "YES" that's what you call blowing wind. And it will be done in milliseconds (what I mean to say is the PRC "NO" is not resilient) and not matched to the stature of a second largest economy in the world. Its a smart policy because to the world, PRC is shown to support the UNSC system. And the predominant PRC policy is to support UNSC legitimacy as it gains from being on the big table.
 
Last edited:

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
On Sino-Indian relationship - Cold Peace is already achieved and what's needed is to preserve it - just my thought.
On China's contribution to Asia peace as a founding member of UN -
Chinese Expeditionary Force (Burma) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chinese Army in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
China Burma India Theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thats Republic of China (Taiwan) contribution. Taiwan is a state in East Asia and the first constitutional republic in Asia. Originally based in mainland China, the Republic of China now governs the island of Taiwan (formerly known as "Formosa"), which makes up over 99% of its territory, as well as Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and other minor islands. Neighboring states include the People's Republic of China to the west, Japan to the east and northeast, and the Philippines to the south. Taipei is the political capital as well as economic and cultural centre in Taiwan. New Taipei is the most populous city.

Taiwan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please list out Peoples Republic of China contribution to Asia peace.

On Hong Kong politics - Roughly there're 2 camps among HK political parties, Pro-establishment (or so-called Pro-Beijing) camp and Pro-democracy Camp. But after reading Politics of Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia u'll come to see their differences are more entrenched than "universal suffrage" or whether to toe Beijing line. None of parties wants to be seen as proxy of CCP or KMT, and understandably voters are more local-issue oriented. Especially it seems politically suicidal if one clings to KMT who has given up its "Grand China" ambition and is confined to local Taiwan politics only.
Fascinating. What do you think will happen to the political establishment in Hong Kong. Do you think Taiwan will play an important role later under one china policy. Hong Kong is afterall the first areas within PRC that has a democratic movement established. It must be proud for you to see Hong Kong having democratic process. You must also be proud to see ROC having a democratic process. Have you ever thought to contribute.
On Bo - his trial is being televised daily. IMO it's not only about "face saving" but more like a showcasing of the anti-corruption resolution. He can't simply shift all the blames to his wife or subordinates as his "bagmen" to do all the dirty jobs. "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" - Oscar Wilde
It's a seminar and training for inner circle (25) CPCC. The public and average citizen in PRC wont be allowed to express profoundly the what, why and who of Bo Xilai. The plain acceptance of the public in PRC make me question the psyche of the populace. Even the acceptance of the (flawed) criminal procedure by the citizens is a joke. Like I said if it was not for westerner involvement this guy would still be a rock star to you in PRC. You can see it in his eyes the regret. Also he must be thinking that worse things have happened before but those leaders got away with it. You know wife blackmailing others - power trips and even subordinates challenging their provincial chiefs with discriminatory evidence and even murder. Important words are westerner involvement.

On so-called incursion - Yesterday I saw a video clip on border spats, btwn a group of Chinese and Indian soldiers, shouting, pushing and shoving. PLA soldiers told Indians to get out of Chinese soil, and not to remove Chinese flag while an Indian officer told Chinese to "take it easy".
I can only remember the picture where the PRC soldiers are running. Why are they running and dodging Indian soldiers. For example a few can be seen running really fast ahead and leaving their fellow soldier behind. Are they playing a game.

Also the PRC soldiers say a lot in the video. Like on the walkie talkies (communicators). Perhaps you can share the exact translations of what was said. Please include the instructions and all that was said.

Also please include the following under your analysis:

Sino-Soviet border conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hainan Island incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Sino-Indian relationship - Cold Peace is already achieved and what's needed is to preserve it - just my thought.
I like to hear that. Its important to be mature. You know "take it easy".
 
Last edited:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,998
Likes
2,300
Country flag
To enhance the speed and support of the USA and Russia towards India are needed (states we have not back-stabbed). Not P5. Also the world wants to deal with India and sees India potential and wants India to get on UNSC 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!



Compared to whom. And also what calculation are you using. Don't use PRC statistics please.
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.

I think you are alluding to the G4 (India, Japan, Germany, Brazil). I would like to think that is an evolving situation. India grouped with G4 to start the process but the eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards. G4 was started because of the importance of UNSC reform. It was not a India initiative but yes India joined.
Oh, really? Then tell me when India told the world that she prefer to be consider her seat individually?

I agree it is about implementation and India can do better. But India is not going to fight with others to defeat that struggle. It will be done with proper precedents and done right. It's a process and P5 has said and acknowledged that one day we will be on the Security Council. Also the fundamentals of India are right and the comity of nations sees the potential of India and wants to deal with India. Its about doing it right and the time will come when it falls into place. When is the right time that's the important question. Perhaps more people ought to ask that question.
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?



The length of time and also when it will happen is an important question but it must be done with proper standards and done right. But I think it will be within next 5 to 10 years.
Whats the longest period for a communist state to survive continuously. 100 years is a very long time period you use. Perhaps be a little more realistic and rational. PRC did get on UNSC in 1970s. Who knew PRC would backstab Russia even in a 100 years.
So, you are expecting PRC's collapse to vacuate its seat for India?


When it comes to voting in UN general assembly sure there will be a cost and payment consideration but it wont be the only consideration. PRC did not get into UNSC because they paid a price. Its disrespectful to USA that helped you. And its disrespectful to PRC that backstabbed Russia. Probably the price PRC paid was on its image for getting through the backdoor. Like I said PRC got the seat because it was a tradecraft move (by USA not PRC) that was not difficult to implement and it came with no comprehension and precedent for the future of the world and united nations. The reason why prc got its seat was not because of its role in ww2 and also not because it paid hundreds of billions of dollars to vote her in. Money that prc did not have in 1970s. Indias candidature to UNSC now compared to PRC in 1970s is in Indias favor. In flavor, approach and qualifications.
Ok, answer me:
why USA help PRC in 1971 after 2 wars with China directly and indirectly in just 20 years?
why Russia didn't oppose PRC's bid in 1971 when PRC backstab it?
why those 78 countries voted in favor of PRC if PRC didn't offer them anything?



What is the interpretation of ROC candidature to UN now. You allude on the possibility of ROC getting into UN. The USA has a grey policy perhaps for future. A bit like Tibet policy by many states. Many states have reason for their grey PRC policies.
If you have any confidential documents leak from US gov or any other gov, I would like to read. Otherwise, stop imagining!

I don't know what your point is. Its sad you as a Chinese can using statistics like that to proclaim the contribution of ROC in WW2 was colossal. A bit like [x] number of people died during the cultural revolution but it was worth it.

The role of ROC in WW2 is a not an argument India wants to make. We respect ROC role in WW2. India supported ROC in WW2. The main argument is 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.
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!

India played a big role in WW2 it will be spoken of more especially with reference to UNSC.
It is too late, people don't care!

Exactly what did the British say perhaps you can explain in your own words.
There are always 2 sides story for any event. You choose to believe your own while I believe the other side. Nothing wrong!

Like I said the eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards.
Like I said, we don't oppose you but we oppose Japan. So don't blambe us.

You have mentioned a good point. You might not be confident to answer why PRC oppose Japan (perhaps it goes against PRC policy of being silent) but I don't have issue with your questions.
I can't help you if you don't even know the basic international political ABC.

From my reading of the situation where does it say Pakistan oppose India. Is it official. I know Pakistan has a position (to delay not deny) that UNSC reform needs to be done on a proper representative basis that needs to be decided first before capable countries are determined (and they have been joined by Italy and others).

If they were stupid enough to say openly now that they oppose India on UNSC they will show that their position (on delaying) was bogus and it was actually for opposition of India. On a global stage the countries that joined Pakistan (a anti-G4 group people say) will need to be asked are you (a) reform delay; (b) anti-india. It will help India convert the reform delay countries to pro-india. And all countries that are anti-india will be pro-pakistan. Perhaps it would have been better if you list the anti-India countries.
Yes, you are right. Pakistan is just "supporting" india's bid.
AFP: Pakistan says US backing India UNSC seat 'incomprehensible'

Where does it say the South Korea oppose Japan. South Korea might have a policy like Pakistan at this moment (to delay by agreeing on process first). South Korea is under the USA umbrella and they wont saying anything like that without USA endorsement. I think what you mean to say is South Koreans would not like Japanese to be on UNSC. Again this is like I said the eventual states and blocs selected will be done and based on individual benchmarks and standards. The Japanese candidature is supported expressly by USA at this moment.
Yes, so Japanese can't blame koreans and Chineses for denying their bid. Please tell that to Japanese.


But when the PRC "NO" becomes a PRC "YES" that's what you call blowing wind. And it will be done in milliseconds (what I mean to say is the PRC "NO" is not resilient) and not matched to the stature of a second largest economy in the world. Its a smart policy because to the world, PRC is shown to support the UNSC system. And the predominant PRC policy is to support UNSC legitimacy as it gains from being on the big table.
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.
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
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.
 
Last edited:

Abhijeet Dey

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,695
Likes
2,363
Country flag
What happened to group of countries belonging to Coffee Club (Uniting for Consensus)?

LINK
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Consensus
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
What happened to group of countries belonging to Coffee Club (Uniting for Consensus)?

LINK
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Consensus

Outside possibly Pakistan all the other countries in the coffee club if asked to vote for India will do that in the affirmative. Italy, Spain, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, Argentina, Malta do not have anything against India. The question is not a vote for G4. This is a coffer club group that aims to (delay) counter the bids for permanent seats proposed by G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) and is calling for a consensus before any decision is reached on the form and size of the UNSC. They overriding USA and Russia impetus on UNSC reform will also overcome the coffee club.

If the question is vote for India and its candidature on UNSC you take out all except for possible one.

I have also read what are the criteria a country needs to meet to get on UNSC:

- large and powerful;
- committed to democracy and human rights;
- responsible in how it develops and uses military power;
- a positive force for arms control and nonproliferation; and
- willing to contribute militarily to deter or stop violent conflict and save lives.

Japan's Not Ready for Permanent UNSC Seat | Brookings Institution

Also Indias candidature candidature to UNSC now compared to PRC in 1970s (as a precedent on the last UNSC entrant) is in Indias favor. In flavor, approach and qualifications.

People also do not speak of Europe that is over-represented in the Security Council. Therefore having India on UNSC will not over-represent Asia.

The question is on USA and also Russia. If USA. really wanted UNSC reform, it could push it through. Does USA really want UNSC reform. If one looks rationally if USA took up leadership on UNSC reform it will boost the legitimacy of the UN. Bringing India on UNSC is a net plus for the USA.

This is where the action will start in the next 5 to 10 years. And India is getting ready.
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
A question people also ought to ask is what is the official republic of india position, objective and direction towards unsc:

External Affairs Minister's interview to the The Statesman

Could you list the three most important bilateral relationships?

The question is not fair. I will tell you the areas that, for us, invite special attention. The P5 (referring to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) inevitably, also because we want to be on the Security Council and they all seem to acknowledge that one day we will be on the Security Council.
Whether or not you deserve to be on the UNSC is not depending on yourself but others opinion. Clearly, most of other countries don't think so!
Whether or not you deserve to be on the UNSC is not depending on your future but your current. Clearly, your today's capability doesn't support it!
USA, France, Russia, UK and ROC paid their seats with millions of lives in WW2!
PRC spent hundreds of billions of dollars on those countries before they vote her in!
India wants a seat, save all your sweat words, show me the money! By the way, cash please!



"Positive and proactive" support? What does that mean? Now all P5 already said "we will not stand in your way"! Is that not good enough for india? Can't india get its majority support among the rest of UN members by itself? If you can't, then go home, develop your country and come back when you can!


sir, we all know that having more than 5 Veto's won't ever happen, otherwise there will never be any bill passed in UN.

second, Indians would always understand that more they are pushed form West, they have to have more support from East, including Middle East. and the best I find Indonesia in this regard, with Turkey and Egypt also. I mean, more and more West push India, more you gotto give strength to East, on all the aspects, including religious/racial/cultural/social etc. :thumb:

rest, do you find UN really working? check, 2 Veto's were used in support of current Syrian government, which has same type of Asad government as in CHina/Russia itself, while still the whole West with their Arab followers are 'directly' supporting violence in Syria, against the Syrian government in favor of whom 2 Veto's were used????? do you find Veto working in UN even right now? i can't see the same :ranger:

anyway, we do need UN as a platform to talk, as much as possible.......

China ready for consultation with India over UNSC reform

BEIJING: Sounding positive to US President Barack Obama's endorsement of India's bid for permanent seat in the UNSC, China today said it understands New Delhi's "aspirations" to play a bigger role in the UN and is ready for consultations with it over reform of the world body.

"China values India's status in the international affairs and understands India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations and is ready to keep contact and consultations with India and other member states on the issues of Security Council reform," Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Hong Lei said during a media briefing. :china: :india:

"China supports reasonable and necessary reform of the UN Security Council and will maintain priority to giving more representation to developing countries at UNSC so that they can play bigger role in Security Council," Hong said. :truestory:

He said China wants democratic and patient consultations over the issue.

"We hope all parties should continue to have democratic and patient consultations so as to reach a package of consensus on reform related issues so that negations will become a process to narrow differences, safeguard unity and realise a win-win scenario," he said.

Asked about Obama's assertion that US would also support India's membership for Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australian Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement, Hong said all countries should respect their international obligation of non-proliferation. :china:

"China believes that countries under the precondition of respecting the international obligation of non proliferation have the right to make peaceful use of nuclear energy and conduct international cooperation in this field. Meanwhile it should safeguard the integrity and effectiveness of the international non proliferation regime," he said.

"We hope that cooperation between relevant countries could contribute to regional peace stability and development." :truestory:

The issue of India's permanent membership to the UNSC has always figured high in the talks between Indian and Chinese leaders.

The issue was raised during President Pratibha Patil's visit to Beijing this year as well as Foreign minister S M Krishna's visit earlier.

"China understands India's aspirations at the UN" was the standard phrase it came up with during the talks sounding cautious and ambivalent on the complex UNSC reform process.

China has also voted for India's candidature to the non-permanent seat at the UNSC. :thumb:

Obama's endorsement of India's membership leaves only China to take a stand on the issue as the other four of the five permanent members — US, Russia, Britain and France — have already conveyed their support for New Delhi's elevation to the top organ of the world body.

China ready for consultation with India over UNSC reform - Times Of India
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
Turkey's complex case for UN Security Council reform

One of the interesting innovations in Brazil's foreign policy under Dilma Rousseff is the adoption of a more subtle approach to the question of UN Security Council reform. While President Lula and his outspoken foreign minister Celso Amorim used every conceivable opportunity to make the case for reform, such public declarations have become rare under Rousseff and her smooth foreign minister Antonio Patriota. Far from having abandoned the quest for reform, Brazil's rationale has evolved: Both Rousseff and Patriota know that Brazil on its own is unable to bring about UN Security reform - rather, it requires a complex constellation of factors, including a sort of 'global momentum' that only occurs every once in a while. At the same time, decision-makers in Brazil are convinced that, if reform is to take place, Brazil will almost certainly obtain a permanent seat. Brazil is globally recognized as a 'natural candidate', so policy makers can focus on reforming other, potentially less rigid institutions, such as the IMF.

In this context, Turkey has emerged as the leading mouthpiece for UNSC reform. Pointing out recently that "the West is no longer the only centre of the world", Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan called for the inclusion of emerging powers, such as Turkey, Brazil, India and Indonesia as permanent UNSC members. Turkey's criticism is thus in many ways similar to Brazil's argument that the UNSC symbolizes an unjust and unequal international system, which needs urgent reform. Claiming a leadership role in the region, Erdogan is in a way adopting Brazil's in-your-face strategy under President Lula, which may help Turkey join the list of 'natural candidates', currently led by Brazil and India. :thumb: :truestory:

Yet Erdogan's current approach differs from Brazil's because it is tied to the crisis in Syria. While Brazil makes a general argument about a fundamentally flawed international system which needs to regain its legitimacy, Turkey's main criticism is the UNSC's lack of effectiveness. He warns that "if we leave the issue to the vote of one or two members" (referring to Russia and China) "of the permanent five at the United Nations Security Council, then the aftermath of Syria will be very hazardous and humanity will write it down in history with unforgettable remarks". Erdogan thus essentially calls for eliminating permanent members' veto power and the requirement to reach unanimity in order to pass resolutions. The P5's individual veto power is one of the key pillars of today's international system, and many believe it is responsible for the institution's relative success over the past decades. Questioning this rule is a much more profound - and less realistic - call for reform than politely asking for permanent UNSC membership à la Brasília. :ranger:

But Turkey's approach is also different from Brazil's because it rejects Brazil's narrative of an underrepresented and rising Global South and an established yet declining Global North unwilling to share power with emerging powers. Turkey's criticism is focused on Russia and China, whose position in the 'Global South' vs. 'Global North' debate is not clearly defined - during BRICS Summits and IMF meetings, at least, both are keen to show their credentials as underrepresented powers that push for reform. Erdogan, on the other hand, portrays them as the two greatest obstacles against creating more effective international institutions.

By confronting Russia and China head-on, Turkey is unlikely to find support from Brazil, which - along with the other BRICS members - does not support a military intervention in Syria. It also diminishes the probability of Turkey entering the BRICS group any time soon, increasing the chances for Indonesia should the group ever decide to expand. By criticizing both Russia and China on the one hand, and 'the West' on the other, Turkey has adopted a rather risky strategy that may in the end complicate its own candidacy for permanent UN Security Council membership.

Turkey's complex case for UN Security Council reform

RI optimistic about UNSC permanent seat
December 28 2010

As the world's largest Muslim-majority nation and third-largest democracy, Indonesia should get a permanent seat at the reformed UN Security Council (UNSC), Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said.

With the US and China recently expressing support for India to get a seat, Marty said Monday that the Indonesian government would certainly not drop its efforts to get a seat in the UNSC, arguing that "there is still room" for both Asian countries, while reform at the UNSC was still underway.

While Indonesia does not have support from major powers, no countries have expressed objections to Southeast Asia's largest economy becoming a permanent member of the UNSC, he said.

"If you are keen to ensure the Security Council is more representative, I can't think of no better way than seeing Indonesia — a country that is comfortably promoting development and progress — become a permanent member," Marty told The Jakarta Post at his office.

He said should Indonesia be excluded from the UNSC, the world would be at a disadvantage.

Marty said Indonesia's capabilities had been tested through time after serving in the UNSC three times as a non-permanent member. Indonesia was a non-permanent member of the UNSC in 1973-1974, 1995-1996 and 2007-2008.

Indonesia takes up the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2011, with observers arguing that this would strengthen its standing in the international arena. President Susilo Bambang Yuhdoyono, for instance, said the 10-nation bloc would play a greater global role next year.

However, University of Indonesia security expert Andi Widjajanto said the main problem with the UN's reforms was that there were no discussions on amending the body's existing charter.

"Indonesia stop touting static factors — such as being the third-largest democracy and having the largest Muslim population — and start proving its ability to maintain peace and stability, at least in East Asia," he told the Post. Andi said Indonesia could represent East Asia at the UNSC, just as India, Nigeria and Brazil would represent South Asia, Africa and Latin America, respectively. :thumb:

He added that it remained unclear which country Indonesia should seek support from as UN reforms were not complete.

University of Indonesia international relations expert Hariyadi Wirawan said should Indonesia have to compete with India for a permanent seat, "at the end of the day the US would definitely choose to support India".

Marty said Security Council members were negotiating a number of options to reform the UNSC, including introducing new permanent members and interim members for countries to serve in the Council for more than two years.

The US, the UK, France, Russia and China have held permanent seats on the Security Council since 1971, when the People's Republic of China took over the seat held by Taiwan.

RI optimistic about UNSC permanent seat | The Jakarta Post
 
Last edited:

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
Only another something of level of war not necessary a war could bring change in security council rest a attempts are hog wash
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top