Tibet leader backs India's bid for security council seat

[amoy]

I understand what you are saying, but the fact remains that without the consent of all permanent members of the UNSC (including China), there can be no reform of the UNSC.
Now what India can do is maybe team up with the other G4 nations (Germany, Japan and Brazil) and threaten to withdraw funding (Germany and Japan are the 3rd and 2nd largest UN funders) and manpower (India contributes the largest or among the largest number of troops to the UN peace keeping missions).
Or maybe there are some better ideas.

Ya india shall withdraw its troops for UN peacepeeing missions. Then other needy countries (Nepal, Bangladesh and so on, also rich in manpowder ) are more than willing to fill the void .

Around 120 members of UFC would have done the job before China moves a finger.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10371.doc.htm

 

[Razor]

Ya india shall withdraw its troops for UN peacepeeing missions. Then other needy countries (Nepal, Bangladesh and so on, also rich in manpowder ) are more than willing to fill the void .

Around 120 members of UFC would have done the job before China moves a finger.

‘UNITING FOR CONSENSUS’ GROUP OF STATES INTRODUCES TEXT ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Kid, read what i wrote again.
"Team up", with Germany and Japan, the 3rd and 2nd largest contributors to UN funding. And the largest contributor of course is the USA. Besides an organisation cannot call itself the United Nations if it ignores 23% of the worlds population (India, Germany, Japan, Brazil )
Now only a few countries would be against the G4 entering the UNSC (Pak, chin, Argentina and a few others), so it will be interesting to see how things play out.

 

[Razor]

Do you think China will dare to veto the resolution of the UNSC expansion ??

Probably not, I guess.

 

[amoy]

"Team up", with Germany and Japan, the 3rd and 2nd largest contributors to UN funding. And the largest contributor of course is the USA. Besides an organisation cannot call itself the United Nations if it ignores 23% of the worlds population (India, Germany, Japan, Brazil )
Now only a few countries would be against the G4 entering the UNSC (Pak, chin, Argentina and a few others), so it will be interesting to see how things play out.

The UN itself was founded on "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" of P5 the victors of WW2 to safeguard the world peace as well as the present-day world order . Many prestigious members in UfC voice against G4. How comes only "a few" ?


Italy

In his introduction, MARCELLO SPATAFORA (Italy) said that the G-4 model was structured in such a way as to benefit just six "happy few", at the detriment of all the other 180 Member States, and with a tremendous divisive impact on the membership. He was sure that Member States would not accept "to be taken for a ride". Arrogance never paid. No reform would be able to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the Organization if it was not rooted in the principle of fair and equal opportunities to be granted to all its Members. Only then would they be able to strengthen and enhance their sense of ownership of the United Nations, their sense of belonging to an organization of which they could be proud. It was along those lines that the Uniting for Consensus draft resolution intended to offer a constructive non-divisive platform for discussion and decision, a platform extremely flexible and centred on a strong regional empowerment..

S. Korea

"It is better to increase the non-permanent membership of the UNSC when reforming the Security Council," Park said in an interview with India's Doordarshan TV on Jan. 9, a day before she left for India.

"The Korean government thinks this way of reform to be more desirable because it can better help the UNSC actively cope with changing international circumstances."

 

[Razor]

The UN itself was founded on "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" of P5 the victors of WW2 to safeguard the world peace as well as the present-day world order . There're many prestigious members in UfC who voice their opinions to the G4. How comes only "a few" ?

Well, times change.

 

[roma]

Seeking UNSC perm seat right now is like Putting the cart before the horse .

We have serious corruption problems, a chaotic political situation ... Really, are we qualified ?

I say NO, get our house in order, they will invite us into the perm membership circle .

But Applying the same standards to others, if England loses Scotland this September,
then they should also lose their perm seat .

 

[feathers]

Seeking UNSC perm seat right now is like Putting the cart before the horse .

We have serious corruption problems, a chaotic political situation ... Really, are we qualified ?

India do deserve permanent seat at UNSC and is having the backing of majority of countries from Africa, Latin America, Asia, Middle east and even EU and regarding corruption problems then its global and even countries which are permanent members of UNSC are trying to cope up from corruption and if you are saying about the internal politics then its because of the upcoming general elections.

 

[roma]

India do deserve permanent seat at UNSC and is having the backing of majority of countries from Africa, Latin America, Asia, Middle east and even EU and regarding corruption problems then its global and even countries which are permanent members of UNSC are trying to cope up from corruption and if you are saying about the internal politics then its because of the upcoming general elections.

These are good points you have made and im not fighting on those issues

What i am saying is that we try force our way in now, or we can wait a bit till we fine-tune our management and be strongly effective.
For example how impressive we will be when just as we write these words we are stunned by the wonderful management
of an MMRCA defence deal that took a decade to materialise and now here this most impressive latest news:-

'There is no money left': Govt delays Rafale fighter jet deal - The Times of India

Isnt that just lovely ? We could on the other hand mature our systems a bit more otherwise we might be the center of attention, for all the wrong reasons . For all i know tomorrow the goi might allocate money from elsewhere and push the MMRCA deal through
But it is these ups and downs and seemingly chaotic management that put off a lot of people and the resulting image just isnt positive enough.

Subjective to a large extent, so ive said my piece and leave it at that - thanks .

 

[feathers]

These are good points you have made and im not fighting on those issues

What i am saying is that we try force our way in now, or we can wait a bit till we fine-tune our management and be strongly effective.
For example how impressive we will be when just as we write these words we are stunned by the wonderful management
of an MMRCA defence deal that took a decade to materialise and now here this most impressive latest news:-

'There is no money left': Govt delays Rafale fighter jet deal - The Times of India

Isnt that just lovely ? We could on the other hand mature our systems a bit more otherwise we might be the center of attention, for all the wrong reasons . For all i know tomorrow the goi might allocate money from elsewhere and push the MMRCA deal through
But it is these ups and downs and seemingly chaotic management that put off a lot of people and the resulting image just isnt positive enough.

Subjective to a large extent, so ive said my piece and leave it at that - thanks .

MMRCA deal is a big deal and delays are not in interest of Indian Air Force or the nation. Elections are held as scheduled and in this nothing much can be done because in democracies elections are very important. The deal was finalized around September 2012 but still price is an issue and there are still some technical issues as technology transfers etc.

 

[no smoking]

Uhh, I think China said it will support India, if India does not support Japan's candidature.

No, that is not true. What China said is that China will always agree with India's bid whether India support Japan or not! However, China will reject any reform bill which may bring Japan the permanent seat!

 

[no smoking]

No need to bring China into picture here , Chinese opinion do not matter.

Well, as a country with veto, China does matter to any reform bill. Remember it was USA and China blocked the last reform proposal last time.

India has arrived at the world stage and is willing to take responsibility reason why India is demanding UNSC permanent seat.

Let's be clear here. Permanent seat doesn't only bring responsibility, but also great privilege. India wants it? Pay for it!

We are a strong nation of 1.2 Billion people, who are progressing in every field. India is also willing to help the world in various fields like Green Peace, UN Peace keeping force , maintaining peace in IOR region, Stabilizing Afghanistan, Helping other nations to strengthen their democracies, IMF Aid etc...etc....

Yes, you are strong country but not strong enough to knock the UNSEC door ALONE!

 

[Razor]

No, that is not true. What China said is that China will always agree with India's bid whether India support Japan or not! However, China will reject any reform bill which may bring Japan the permanent seat!

I got that from this wiki article: Reform of the United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can see the sources in the article.
Could you post a source, maybe ?

 

[feathers]

China not opposed to India's UN permanent seat bid
A senior apparatchik of the Chinese Communist Party on Wednesday said that Beijing did not have a policy to oppose India's candidature for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, even as he stopped short of supporting New Delhi's bid for the same.

China Supports India's Bid for UNSC Seat

 

[feathers]

China not opposed to India's UN permanent seat bid
A senior apparatchik of the Chinese Communist Party on Wednesday said that Beijing did not have a policy to oppose India's candidature for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, even as he stopped short of supporting New Delhi's bid for the same.

China Supports India's Bid for UNSC Seat

 

[aerokan]

No, that is not true. What China said is that China will always agree with India's bid whether India support Japan or not! However, China will reject any reform bill which may bring Japan the permanent seat!

How are we supposed to do that? By including clauses like you need to have atleast 100 crore population to qualify for expansion or atleast a huge area of land to qualify? If there are no absurd provisions like those, anybody with a proper support for the world will qualify and that includes Japan. If you can come up with any reasonable idea how to exclude Japan while including India, i would be glad to hear it.

And coming to the first point, China tried to scuttle India's plans in the last minute in one of the previous meetings. A specially served hot call from George W. Bush made China to eat it's words and let it go for the time being. Now tell me how China can kill an opportunity to both Japan's and India's aspirations for a permanent seat without getting a call from big daddy? By saying we have no objections for India but won't let Japan get it. That's the way Chinese does things (sneaking and stabbing from the back).

 

[Srinivas_K]

Well, as a country with veto, China does matter to any reform bill. Remember it was USA and China blocked the last reform proposal last time.

This time it is going to be consensus rather than Veto.

Let's be clear here. Permanent seat doesn't only bring responsibility, but also great privilege. India wants it? Pay for it!

It is china that paid with Nanking Massacre in world war 2, India has no plans for such humiliation. Chinese do think UNSC permanent seat is a privilege and forget about responsibilities since they got lucky some 50 years ago.

Yes, you are strong country but not strong enough to knock the UNSEC door ALONE!

Again this depends on Geo politics and strategic interests.

 

[CCP]

This time it is going to be consensus rather than Veto.



It is china that paid with Nanking Massacre in world war 2, India has no plans for such humiliation. Chinese do think UNSC permanent seat is a privilege and forget about responsibilities since they got lucky some 50 years ago.




Again this depends on Geo politics and strategic interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations
People's Republic of China in the UN (1971-present)[edit]
PRC become P5 at 1971.
The price is we defeated UN force and Protected our ally.

Republic of China in the UN (1945-1971)
ROC /TaiWan is the lucky guy you were talking about. ( I don't think India can be that lucky, since India is not 100% controlled by western as ROC did.)




An image of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (25 October 1971), which transferred the seat of China from the ROC to the PRC. It refers to "restor[ing] all its rights to the People's Republic of China" and recognizing it as the "only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations", while expelling "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" (i.e. the ROC government).


Voting situation in the UN general assembly respect to resolution 2758 (1971).
The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly referred as China, was admitted into the UN in 1971. This was the 21st time there was a vote on the PRC's admittance. The PRC was admitted into the UN on a vote of 76 in favor, 35 opposed, and 17 abstentions.[50]
There was wide speculation throughout the 1960s and early 1970s that the United States' close ally, Pakistan, especially under the presidency of Ayub Khan, was carrying out undercover diplomacy to instigate Western support to the PRC's entry into the UN[citation needed]. This involved secret visits by American officials to the PRC. In 1971, Henry Kissinger made a secret visit to the PRC through Pakistan.
Since the early 1980s, and particularly since 1989, by means of vigorous monitoring and the strict maintenance of standards, United Nations human rights organizations have encouraged China to move away from its insistence on the principle of noninterference, to take part in resolutions critical of human rights conditions in other nations, and to accept the applicability to itself of human rights norms and UN procedures. Even though China has continued to suppress political dissidents at home, and appears at times resolutely defiant of outside pressure to reform, Ann Kent argues that it has gradually begun to implement some international human rights standards.[51] On human rights issues, the PRC has been increasingly influential. In 1995, they won 43 percent of the votes in the General Assembly; by 2006 they won 82 percent.[52]
Since the end of the Cold War, China has notably not attempted to use the UN as a counterbalance against the United States as Russia and France have done[citation needed]. In the 1991 Gulf War resolution, the PRC abstained, and it voted for the ultimatum to Iraq in the period leading up to the 2003 War in Iraq. Most observers believe that the PRC would have abstained had a resolution authorising force against Iraq in 2003 reached the Security Council.[53][54]
When an enlargement of the Security Council was discussed in 1995, China encouraged African states to demand their seats as a countermove to Japan's ambitions, thereby killing the initiative.[52]

 

[Srinivas_K]

Yes it should be Taiwan but PRC as usual grabbed this privilege. India do not need to be lucky rather no one can ignore India these days and its legitimacy to be come UNSC permanent member.

China and the United Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
People's Republic of China in the UN (1971-present)[edit]
PRC become P5 at 1971.
The price is we defeated UN force and Protected our ally.

Republic of China in the UN (1945-1971)
ROC /TaiWan is the lucky guy you were talking about. ( I don't think India can be that lucky, since India is not 100% controlled by western as ROC did.)




An image of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (25 October 1971), which transferred the seat of China from the ROC to the PRC. It refers to "restor[ing] all its rights to the People's Republic of China" and recognizing it as the "only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations", while expelling "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" (i.e. the ROC government).


Voting situation in the UN general assembly respect to resolution 2758 (1971).
The People's Republic of China (PRC), commonly referred as China, was admitted into the UN in 1971. This was the 21st time there was a vote on the PRC's admittance. The PRC was admitted into the UN on a vote of 76 in favor, 35 opposed, and 17 abstentions.[50]
There was wide speculation throughout the 1960s and early 1970s that the United States' close ally, Pakistan, especially under the presidency of Ayub Khan, was carrying out undercover diplomacy to instigate Western support to the PRC's entry into the UN[citation needed]. This involved secret visits by American officials to the PRC. In 1971, Henry Kissinger made a secret visit to the PRC through Pakistan.
Since the early 1980s, and particularly since 1989, by means of vigorous monitoring and the strict maintenance of standards, United Nations human rights organizations have encouraged China to move away from its insistence on the principle of noninterference, to take part in resolutions critical of human rights conditions in other nations, and to accept the applicability to itself of human rights norms and UN procedures. Even though China has continued to suppress political dissidents at home, and appears at times resolutely defiant of outside pressure to reform, Ann Kent argues that it has gradually begun to implement some international human rights standards.[51] On human rights issues, the PRC has been increasingly influential. In 1995, they won 43 percent of the votes in the General Assembly; by 2006 they won 82 percent.[52]
Since the end of the Cold War, China has notably not attempted to use the UN as a counterbalance against the United States as Russia and France have done[citation needed]. In the 1991 Gulf War resolution, the PRC abstained, and it voted for the ultimatum to Iraq in the period leading up to the 2003 War in Iraq. Most observers believe that the PRC would have abstained had a resolution authorising force against Iraq in 2003 reached the Security Council.[53][54]
When an enlargement of the Security Council was discussed in 1995, China encouraged African states to demand their seats as a countermove to Japan's ambitions, thereby killing the initiative.[52]

 

[CCP]

Yes it should be Taiwan but PRC as usual grabbed this privilege. India do not need to be lucky rather no one can ignore India these days and its legitimacy to be come UNSC permanent member.

If RRC is as weak as India now, I don't think we can be "lucky" forever.

 

[Srinivas_K]

If RRC is as weak as India now, I don't think we can be "lucky" forever.

Who said India is weak??

Look at your username, oppressor of more than 1.3 Billion people on earth :shocked: