Discussion in 'International Politics' started by A.V., Mar 8, 2009.
Thanks for your insights... I'm sure you frame foreign policy for the above mentioned powers...
you are so naive ... neither of P5 would dilute their privileges.
Unless any of G4 had the influence as important as USA during WW II and were able to marginalize UN as USA put “League of Nations" aside, P5 would not agree to reform UNSC really...
That is your opinion. You and I can only speculate- rationally and syllogistically.
Nevertheless, diplomatic statements carry consequences. And while they may not serve their immediate aim, they certainly serve supplementary ones.
You catchin' my drift, g?
now, India's struggle into UNSC is as meaningless as Russia's struggled into G8.
well, when Russia eventually got the tickets of G8 at heavy cost ,Russia was dissappointed to find that USA put G8 aside and set up "G2(USA and CHina)" and "G4(USA,EU ,Japan and CHina)".
if India really were to get a seat of UNSC at heavy cost, the real global powers (USA ,CHina, Russia and EU) still could put UN aside and set up a brand-new global organizations and keep puting India aside.....
Do you understand what I wrote? Or do you need to go back to grade school to learn some English?
You just paraphrased what I wrote, albeit I phrased mine more eloquently and elucidatedly. I just gave you the reasons: for why the United States would not acquiesce to a UNSC expansion.
You are even more naïve to think that "the influence as important as USA during WW II" and the ability "to marginalize UN as USA put “League of Nations" aside" is a prerequisite to UNSC expansion. Strategic prerogatives are much more complex. Taiwan and the United Kingdom, or France for that matter were not in a position to "influence as important as USA" post World War II. There were other strategic prerogatives that evinced their inclusion.
....which will only suffice until India becomes a 'real global power'. :twizt:
Do you deny that India is on it's way to becoming 'a real global power' ? :twizt:
Pakistan Supports India for United Nations Security Council Seat only for 2 year term temporary seat
Pakistan Supports India for United Nations Security Council Seat only for 2 year term temporary seat
Even that would be astonishing if it is true.
India and pakistan has many times Supported each other for non permanent United Nations Security Council Seat.there is nothing to be surprised about coz non permanent seat is like indian president's post nothing else.
India and Geopolitics
Simple, a 'temporary seat' will pacify India's permanent seat aspirations.
Security Council seat top priority for India: Hardeep Puri
Securing a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council is India's top priority for the year and it seems ‘eminently doable’ with India putting a concerted effort, Indian envoy to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri has said.
India had decided to run for a Security Council seat for the year 2010-2011 in 2006 and has been canvassing for the spot for the past three years. Early in 2010, Kazakhstan withdrew from the electoral race leaving with India with a clean slate.
"The priorities for India have really suggested themselves. Our efforts have been to ensure that we get elected. On that front, we're almost there," said Puri India's candidacy for a non-permanent seat in the Security Council have been endorsed by the Asian Group in the UN General Assembly.
Nineteen countries including Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Bangladesh spoke in favour of giving India a spot on the Security Council table starting Jan 2011 at a meeting in New York.
Sarkozy favours a permanent UNSC seat for India
French President Nicholas Sarkozy on Tuesday made a strong pitch for India's inclusion as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which he said needs to be expanded to make it more inclusive.
Speaking at the prestigious Columbia University, Sarkozy said emerging voices like India, Africa and the Arab world need to find a place in the UNSC, as he slammed the present structure of the world body.
"Did you know that India... in 30 years time... the world's most populous nation, doesn't have a permanent seat on the Security Council?" said the French president, hosted by Columbia University as part of the World Leaders Forum.
Setting aside his prepared speech to "speak from the heart," Sarkozy said this Security Council and its membership was decided at the end of the World War II way back in 1945 questioning why no African or Arab country had a permanent seat on the UNSC, despite representing over a billion people together.
India pushes for expansion of permanent seats in UNSC
India, which is seeking a permanent berth in the U.N. Security Council, has said that expansion of only non-permanent seats does not constitute reform of the world body and demanded that membership be increased in both categories.
In a closed-door meeting at the U.N. headquarters convened to discuss the negotiating text for the Security Council reform, India also pointed out that a vast majority of countries were in favour of expanding the current size of the world bodyâ€™s top organ from 15 to the mid-20s.
â€œThere cannot be any reform without expansion in both the categories of membership,â€ Hardeep Singh Puri, Indiaâ€™s envoy to the U.N., said last night.
â€œEqually, expansion only in the non-permanent category or any of its other variants does not constitute reform and is merely the perpetuation of the current inefficiency by the same ineffective means in vogue since 1963,â€ he said.
India along with Japan, Germany, South Africa and Brazil is seeking permanent membership of the Security Council.
Mr. Puriâ€™s remarks came a day after a top US official said India would play a â€œcentral partâ€ in the Security Council reform process but stopped short of publicly endorsing the countryâ€™s bid for a permanent seat.
â€œWeâ€™re open to expansion of permanent membership of the Council and we believe that Indiaâ€™s going to have a central part to play in the consideration thatâ€™s going to come of that reform of the U.N. Security Council,â€ Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns said.
During the inaugural discussions on the U.N. reform, Zahir Tanin, Afghanistanâ€™s permanent representative to the U.N., in his capacity as the Chairperson of the process asked member states to submit proposals that can be worked into a negotiating text, which will be the basis for future discussions.
In 2009, member states of the UN had finally abandoned the â€˜Open Ended Working Groupâ€™ (OEWG) on the issue that had dragged on for 15 years without yielding any substantive results. In March last year, the old talks were replaced by the new â€œinter-governmental negotiations.â€
At the meeting in the U.N. headquarters, India also underlined the need for equitable geographical distribution.
â€œIndia supports a Charter-based distribution of seats that addresses the lack of representation of African, Latin American and Caribbean countries and the lack of adequate representation of Asian countries in the permanent membership,â€ Mr. Puri said.
This year, India is also running for a non-permanent seat of the Council for which elections will be held in October.
Mr. Puri and his team have been canvassing for the spot for the past three years.
Earlier this year, Kazakhstanâ€™s withdrew from the electoral race leaving India with a clean slate for 2010-11.
To win, India needs two-thirds of the General Assembly vote, which adds up to about 128 counties saying â€˜yesâ€™ to New Delhiâ€™s presence in the Security Council.
US holding out a carrot before india. God knows what it will ask from india in return.
sale of weapons and strategic alliance to counter china.
That is already on the table and known for a long time.
1. Resolution of kashmir in a favour of pakistan to keep proxy happy, curbing anti US regimes and controlling Afghanistan as an extremely flexible friend.
2. Will Scan/check nuclear assets, CTBT signatory.
3. Keep dollar safe
4. India as a new financier of debt like China.
1) Not happening
2) Not Happening
3) Ok with us
4) India is not fool. It will finance prudently for good returns.
I can not see any other US interests at this stage; making him help India for the Seat.
Tomorrow even if both India and Pakistan are going to resolve Kashmir issue both sides will try to create a balance for sure. Therefore i do not see any harm for USA to have some credit and bargain Afghanistan and WOT with Pakistan and UN seat with us. What today i can see both congress and BJP (if in power) will try to resolve this issue (BJP in more urgency). So why we shouldn't take USA in confidence openly to help us getting the desired seat. If you are suggesting India do not work under US pressure these days then you are not fully correct.
What i can read from UN's reaction naming India to sign CTBT/NTP where we all know Pakistan's signatures will follow indian suite and how US has been determining the whole CTBT tempo. There are chances that we may bend to CTBT without bargain in near future. Furthermore india's stand has become more contradictory after declaring unilateral halt to further testing, no first use, no desire to increase stock pile etc. What you think what else is stopping India to sign CTBT; UN seat nothing else.
I agree to the fact that india has clearly shown its confidence in USD even when we do not stock overwhelming amount as compare to China. But at the same time we are sharing the same platforms with others (russia china) where they are ranting to discard USD as global currency. I have all the intuitions that GFC cursed USA will feel the nerve if India pressed it when hinting to join the Nexus. Big blackmail time for sake of UN P seat.
Please don't tell me that our businesses have no affinity to trade with USA. As i said long term, if china can open its doors for USA in 1971 and today USA has become liability for China who was earning prosperity instead. Then China challenging USD will certainly prompt USA to use its Plan B ''India''. India has same kind of lust and envy to earn USD like china. Furthermore we have nothing else to offer USA but cheap labour and Chinese model of bussiness.
What i am trying to say that, India may be able to get good returns and hope may deal more wiser but USA's dependence on countries like India can be utilized to claim what we want.
Separate names with a comma.