A big step forward for India: UN adopts negotiating text for security council reforms

Sylex21

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
439
Likes
333
What is this India's own block supposed to offer?
What happens if this organize is making a decision opposing to UN? Can this organization stand up to protect her weak members from the P5 militarily, economically and politically?
I guess not, then why those small countries join you if you can do nothing for them?
Are you trolling or just very clueless?

Well first an Indian block would be every nation that wants to reform the security council, so you can expect India, Japan, Germany, Brazil to join off the bat. Now that's already a pretty solid coalition. Add to that ever nation that the P5 have abused, mistreated, disrespected or ignored via the UN and you have the beginnings of a powerful populist international movement. Probably the MAJORITY of nations have a problem with the UN, so the potential support base is most of the nations on earth. The UN is also famous for being impotent, a new block could be organized and implemented far better.

The block wouldn't be designed to project the members FROM the P5, how many UNSC resolutions have been against the P5? But the new block could do one hell of a job maintaining world order, especially without the biases of the current P5, imagine a truly democratic new UN that is actually able to get things done.

I'm not saying it's the perfect solution or a good idea for now. But dismissing it with silly comments like "why those small countries join you if you can do nothing for them?" imply that you are either not very well versed in international politics, bigoted to the point of delusions, or simply attempting to insult and troll others.
 

Yumdoot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
You know why 1965 war was lost?

Because the dumbfuck Nehru dint get the Veto for India when it was offered which pushed India into a lot of pressure regarding UNSC resolutions during the`1965. Fuck, even during 1971, the Soviets urged Indira to not push Pakistan too deep into trouble as Soviets cant be vetoing every resolution forever.

And you think Veto is something we dont need.
We lost the 62 war not the 65 one.

Re. 71. And that is why Vetos save you from nothing. And that is why Indian capacity should be independent of Vetos.
 

Yumdoot

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
778
Likes
688
So, you should ask why India and Japan are so desperately pursuing this power. The answer is this power can make you a step closer to become a legal bully. Yes, with this power, you can dismiss any UN decision which is not in your favour or you ally's favour.
That is the point I don't want to be a legal bully, if there is such a thing. I want my piece of cake - legally, illegally I don't care.

And after the dismissal the final decision will be made outside the UN building. So what is the point pretending.

Beside you can always change allies. You chinese, of all people should know this better than anybody else. There is a reason why nobody in the world except the Pakis believes in you. First you slept with Soviets, then pretending some high Maoism, you betrayed them and slept with Americans, who allowed you 'steal' everything from nukes to aircraft tech and Most Favoured Nation Statuses. Then you went against the Americans too to the extent that Americans got frightened and began looking for new 'allies' to do the the job for them. Once you saw that is a real possibility, now you pretend to be against Americans, when in fact this is all about the G-2 thing that your brass thought off.

All I am saying is that India should not be like China. Super powers come and go, we Indians must aim for longevity with a dharam-patni, instead of one-night stands with Sunny Leone.

India, as a human resource, is bigger by itself than most continents. In significant parts it is our human resource that is powering this world. We should aim to make this absolute, overarching power. Who can be a bigger ally to us than we ourselves. And what can be a bigger Veto for us, than a system for this biggest conglomerate of human resource in history, to simply go get what it wants, regardless of the Veto.

A UNSC seat and a Veto for India are like attempts to tame a Lion. People just see a Lion in the circus and believe the Beast Master is the real power. What they forget is that a Lion even if tamed still it eats meat. Now it is the Lion's job not to stop eating meat, regardless of whether it allows itself to be tamed or not.
 

I_PLAY_BAD

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
943
Likes
498
This is actually a big myth - that UN peace keeping missions matter. It does not. Half Pakis/Bangladeshis have contributed more to UN peace keeping than India. So does that mean they should be granted Veto? Of course not. Its not about contribution to UN but rather the power a nation has in international arena

the Veto is a question of power and in the present world, India deserves it more than UK or France. In absolute terms of Power, India is only behind US, Russia and China in that order. And so if UK and france have it, so should India. That is why this veto is so important - it is an acknowledgement of strength.
Well I did not mean contributions to UN peace keeping alone will decide India's future in UN. I said along with that India has maintained a peaceful track record and NSG waiver and IAEA relaxations are examples of that. When the UN as a body thinks whether to give India the proper recognition it deserves all parameters will be taken into account. Tomorrow when they find a trivial reason like "India hasn't contributed much to UN peace keeping, why should it be given a veto" kind of argument must not pop up and we must not allow that to happen and highlight any advantage we have.

When you spoke about France and UK it doesn't mean they deserve it or not. Only thing matters is they are permanent members with veto and we need their help. No alternate way !

Pakistan / Bangladesh ? 40 years back we were in their position, only granting to peace keeping forces and nothing else. We were not a power and the West saw us as a third world country. But today our global posture is entirely different. We grew strength to strength. So, we do not know were Pakistan or Bangladesh will be in the future.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
This...

And this...


China will ultimately be the thorn in India's bid to UNSC seat with veto power. Can't understand Russian objection to this particular step though.
@pmaitra .....................................................
Russian's stance has changed due to recent shift in Indian policy. Isn't that obvious?

We are purchasing more and more weapons from Amreeka now a days and in upcoming years, Russian weapons industry will suffer due to lack of Indian orders.
Why is Russia protesting? ..............

__________________________________________________________________

2015-09-14: Here are the excerpts from the United Nations General Assembly's Minutes of the Meeting:
While noting that his Government was not against the negotiating text, the speaker from the Russian Federation outlined that it could only be drafted by Member States and not by the coordinator or Assembly President. Imposing a text that did not reflect the entire membership risked reversing the process. Negotiations should be conducted in an inclusive manner without artificial timelines.
The speaker from the Russian Federation stated that his country had supported the draft because it was convinced that Security Council reform must absolutely be based on consensus. However the negotiations had shown that “we are very far from developing a universal formula” for the expansion, he added. The situation had not changed during the sixty-ninth session. The root of the problem was not in the negotiations methodologies, but in principled disagreements on key issues of reform. Regarding the preparation of a short negotiating text, the Russian Federation was not against the text, but believed that it could only be drafted by Member States and not by the coordinator of the negotiations or the President of the Assembly. Imposing a text that did not reflect the entire membership risked moving the process backwards. The negotiations should be carried out in an inclusive manner without artificial timelines.
Source: http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/ga11679.doc.htm

Russia is not opposed to India's permanent membership in the UNSC. Russia is opposed to UNGA coordinator or president drafting it. Russia wants the draft to be made by the members, and not by one individual.

2015-08-18: Exerpt from an earlier news article from The Hindu:
After the United States, Russia too has clarified that it is open to supporting India’s bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). In an interview to the news agency TASS, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that while Moscow supports the candidature of India and Brazil for permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council, it also feels that the presence of an African country in this structure is also necessary.
Source: http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...-for-a-permanent-unsc-seat/article7551058.ece

Russia supports India and Brazil as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

So, why did Times of India word the article (in OP) that way? Misleading article.
 
Last edited:

I_PLAY_BAD

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
943
Likes
498
Russia, USA, UK and France never opposed India's permanent membership.
China might oppose as we have an active land dispute with them.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
Are you stupid? I was saying the same thing and that what you said is retarded beyond belief. To give more examples for you to understand, SO if Pakistan does not give us MFN, does that mean we should not give MFN to JApan, China, SoKo>? etc? So if West can threaten sanctions, does that mean we should give up on UN as a whole? Seriously? Are you that dumb to realise how stupid your argument is? How about this then, West can attack any country without UN approval any way and so we might as well disband army? How does that sound? Thats what you sound like
No, i am saying forming a block or alliance saves us from that sort of thing not UNSC seat, doesn't mean i am against UNSC seat for India, but those seats doesn't offer something substantial to the effort we are putting, which will ultimately be vetoed by one of the members.

We need to offer a better alternative to smaller nation and who better than Germany and Japan. India also enjoys a good relation with most countries and seen as future economic powerhouse. China is also actively forming its own block, with groundwork being laid with AIIB and SCO. As China;s influence increases, you'll see the shift from UN. This will be a major threat to Indian interests and Japanese and Asean interests as well.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Why do some Indian posters stubbornly assume China is the only roadblock for u to reach the pearl on the crown? What makes u believe other members of the exclusive elite club would confer the seat on India, except their lip service? :biggrin2: It's not yet the timing for them to show hands.

Aren't u bundled up with Germany, Japan and Brazil?? Each of them has a fair share of opposition. :shock:

U may have simplified the whole lot of UNSC reform merely as "India becoming a permanent veto power in UNSC". But meantime there're (more) qualified contenders not to be ignored in the overall reform package -

Common African Position on Security Council Reform
1. Africa's goal is to be fully represented in all the decision- making organs of the UN, particularly in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ of the UN in matters relating to international peace and security.

2. Full representation of Africa in the Security Council means: i. not less than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership including the right of veto;
ii. five non-permanent seats.


3. In that regard, even though Africa is opposed in principle to the veto, it is of the view that so long as it exists, and as a matter of common justice, it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council.

4. The African Union should be responsible for the selection of Africa's representatives in the Security Council.
 

I_PLAY_BAD

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
943
Likes
498
Why do some Indian posters stubbornly assume China is the only roadblock for u to reach the pearl on the crown? What makes u believe other members of the exclusive elite club would confer the seat on India, except their lip service? :biggrin2: It's not yet the timing for them to show hands.

Aren't u bundled up with Germany, Japan and Brazil?? Each of them has a fair share of opposition. :shock:

U may have simplified the whole lot of UNSC reform merely as "India becoming a permanent veto power in UNSC". But there're many contendants who're (more) qualified not to be ignored in the overall reform package -

Common African Position on Security Council Reform
Leave aside the G4.

Will China support India to become a permanent member in UNSC with veto ?
Will USA or RUSSIA or UK or FRANCE will vote against India ?

To answer above questions you have to be a diplomat. Can you give a proper answer ?

Whereas to substantiate the claim that 'China will oppose India's purpose' one have to just read newspapers. That's all.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
What is this India's own block supposed to offer?
What happens if this organize is making a decision opposing to UN? Can this organization stand up to protect her weak members from the P5 militarily, economically and politically?
I guess not, then why those small countries join you if you can do nothing for them?
There is already no consensus among P5 members. So decision making goes for a toss lot of times on important issues. UN is important in a way that it is a platform to bring all nations to the table, weather it gives results is a different question.But still China is forming its own block because what it can't get through UN, it want through sheer influence and it is a work in progress, which is a threat to US influence. Basically Cold war all over again.

Last time we were non aligned but weak, this time its not the case. Don't take this block as a India block but rather the ones who like coexistence and don't want to be part of any side, lead by Germany Japan India and maybe Brazil. Germany influences European support, Japan India influences ASEAN and Australia, Brazil has latin influence, together we don't have to suffer what US China/Russia cold war would bring, like it did in the past. We can circumvent sanctions or threats these nations pose and provide the benefits that US or China would provide without strings. Mutually beneficial business.
 

tsunami

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
3,250
Likes
15,275
Country flag
I believe the whole structure of UN needs to be changed by 100 years of It's establishment(2045). You simply can not keep on adding more countries in P5 members. For now if India and Brazil enters the club then it will be P7.

By 2045 (100 years after UN formation) Indonesia, Mexico will be in top 10 economies along with Japan and Germany already remaining there.

Would any body suggest having 11 veto powers in UN. It will not be able to pass even a single resolution.:facepalm:

France and UK will become more and more irreverent as Global Power.

UN need reforms not by adding members to UNSC but by changing structure of UNSC.
 

Compersion

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
2,258
Likes
923
Country flag
Wish this process for reform of UNSC leads to clear and simple formula for present and future composition of UNSC. It is good that India is not being selfish and egocentric and making sure that the process leads to a proper approach and reform. One wants a UNSC that is representative and also able to match and change the reality of the world.

Also

I am sure that the opposition to India (not many) can be identified and also made to come around. The numbers are in India favor. If the negotiation text for UNSC reforms make it clear that there is only India that is the suitable candidate for UNSC seat with Veto we must not be shy about it and take it. At least we would have done it the right way and properly. Eventually I feel that only India has the qualifications out of all the candidates to join the UNSC seat with Veto and we must not be shy to attain it after the process delivers this conclusion.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
We lost the 62 war not the 65 one.

Re. 71. And that is why Vetos save you from nothing. And that is why Indian capacity should be independent of Vetos.
Wow. The non sense in this post is damning. If "we" had the veto, Unsc could have done jack shit. It could not have even threatened us into signing peace during 1965. We lost because we didn't have the veto and had to rely on SU or USSR

1965 war was lost in my eyes because we didn't convert it to a win. We never achieved our objectives because of unsc pressure
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
No, i am saying forming a block or alliance saves us from that sort of thing not UNSC seat, doesn't mean i am against UNSC seat for India, but those seats doesn't offer something substantial to the effort we are putting, which will ultimately be vetoed by one of the members.

We need to offer a better alternative to smaller nation and who better than Germany and Japan. India also enjoys a good relation with most countries and seen as future economic powerhouse. China is also actively forming its own block, with groundwork being laid with AIIB and SCO. As China;s influence increases, you'll see the shift from UN. This will be a major threat to Indian interests and Japanese and Asean interests as well.
You are right, but India is not strong enough for what you are advocating right now. We still are 2 decades away from this sort of power , .ie to bully our way into UN by threatening an alternate conglomeration to it. But, it Does not mean we should give up now.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Leave aside the G4.

Will China support India to become a permanent member in UNSC with veto ?
Will USA or RUSSIA or UK or FRANCE will vote against India ?

To answer above questions you have to be a diplomat. Can you give a proper answer ?

Whereas to substantiate the claim that 'China will oppose India's purpose' one have to just read newspapers. That's all.
Therefore I pinpointed the absurdity in Indians singling out China as the (only) bogeyman to your UNSC ambition.

It doesn't require a diplomat to fathom all others in P5 would hate any dilution of their dominance. France and Britain in particular may risk slipping into oblivion if...

And u see, African Union for one as I raised, demands 2 permanent seats + 5 non permanent. Is their requirement for representation included in any reform package? Otherwise why shall they support India or G4?




~Tapa talks: Orange is the new black.~
 

I_PLAY_BAD

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
943
Likes
498
Therefore I pinpointed the absurdity in Indians singling out China as the (only) bogeyman to your UNSC ambition.

It doesn't require a diplomat to fathom all others in P5 would hate any dilution of their dominance. France and Britain in particular may risk slipping into oblivion if...

And u see, African Union for one as I raised, demands 2 permanent seats + 5 non permanent. Is their requirement for representation included in any reform package? Otherwise why shall they support India or G4?




~Tapa talks: Orange is the new black.~
There is no absurdity. India and china have an active border dispute. Will China support its enemy ?
That is all we ask. Give a straight forward answer.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Guys, unsc reforms will go through despite veto from any of the P5 if it had 2/3 support in GA. The question is, do the GA have 2/3 support for it? If the P5 does not veto, a simple majority is sufficient for reforms.
 

I_PLAY_BAD

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
943
Likes
498
Guys, unsc reforms will go through despite veto from any of the P5 if it had 2/3 support in GA. The question is, do the GA have 2/3 support for it? If the P5 does not veto, a simple majority is sufficient for reforms.
To know that we have to wait till the next session. They have just started to circulate the negotiating text to get members' opinions.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Are you trolling or just very clueless?

I will apologize if you feel offended. I simply try to discuss the potential of this new organization suggested.

And I have good reason to question it: remember last time, India did formed a similar one---Non align movement. What did this one archive? Nothing!


Well first an Indian block would be every nation that wants to reform the security council, so you can expect India, Japan, Germany, Brazil to join off the bat. Now that's already a pretty solid coalition.

Well, the first, this so called "Indian block" is only the idea of the members in this forum, not even Indian government's idea; Second, ironically, the reason these 4 countries creating this coalition is to promote their status within UN instead of quite UN; third, none of Big 4 is giving up their effort after so many years, that tell you how much they think of their own capability and influence.


Add to that ever nation that the P5 have abused, mistreated, disrespected or ignored via the UN and you have the beginnings of a powerful populist international movement. Probably the MAJORITY of nations have a problem with the UN, so the potential support base is most of the nations on earth. The UN is also famous for being impotent, a new block could be organized and implemented far better.

One of major reason that P5 can abuse, mistreat or even disrespect others is they have the veto power. So far, the Big 4 has been focusing on sharing this power instead of removing this power from any member of UN. So, basically, India and others intention is to make themselves a new member of P5, not making everyone equal.


The block wouldn't be designed to project the members FROM the P5, how many UNSC resolutions have been against the P5? But the new block could do one hell of a job maintaining world order, especially without the biases of the current P5, imagine a truly democratic new UN that is actually able to get things done.

Your plan sounds good. But have you ever think about how to get things done? Who is making the contribution? At what portion? Since you suggest a truly democratic new UN, then I assume everyone gets the same value of vote so it is safe to say everyone is bearing same share of contribution. Now, hypothetically, a disaster happens in a Southern American country--a member of this new UN, who seeks help from the new UN. But, naturally, some African countries would turn it down because they really don't have spare resource to support. Obviously, either some big countries in the organization, such as India, promises to pay the bill, or this south American country has to find help somewhere else. Ok, this time India agrees to make up the gap. What about next time, and after? If every time, it is always the big countries like India carrying the major responsibility, certainly, your public will ask the question:" if we are doing far more than average, shouldn't we get more vote than others?"


Now, you may say:" we are still a truly democratic UN since no one can veto any proposal." So, now, let's check the second stage--what can this organization offer you. Since you are already the top powers in this UN, there is fewer chance you need the aid from this organization. But you still want to benefit from this organization. So the only way is you use your vote to help your allies and your allies provide economical or political benefit as reward. There are 2 ways to do that--passing the bills favour your allies or rejecting the bills against your allies. Since you don't have majority vote, you have to spend your own resource to get supports which may not make sense economically. You realise that after spending billions dollars each year, you still need to pay for each individual bills.


I'm not saying it's the perfect solution or a good idea for now. But dismissing it with silly comments like "why those small countries join you if you can do nothing for them?" imply that you are either not very well versed in international politics, bigoted to the point of delusions, or simply attempting to insult and troll others.

Or maybe you can name one example of any country joining an international political organization for purely moral cause.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
There is already no consensus among P5 members. So decision making goes for a toss lot of times on important issues. UN is important in a way that it is a platform to bring all nations to the table, weather it gives results is a different question.But still China is forming its own block because what it can't get through UN, it want through sheer influence and it is a work in progress, which is a threat to US influence. Basically Cold war all over again.
No, China is not forming its own block, AIIB is competing with ADB not UN. Instead, China has never put up any suggestion to weaken UN

Last time we were non aligned but weak, this time its not the case. Don't take this block as a India block but rather the ones who like coexistence and don't want to be part of any side, lead by Germany Japan India and maybe Brazil. Germany influences European support, Japan India influences ASEAN and Australia, Brazil has latin influence,
The problem is: this time, you are in the contest against P5. Yes, I know everyone said they support one or another candidate (India is "supported" by all of them). But have you eve seen P5 offering their bless to big 4 together? Russia opposes German, US against Brazil while China refuses Japan, only India get everyone's approve. But India alone can't push the reform.

together we don't have to suffer what US China/Russia cold war would bring, like it did in the past. We can circumvent sanctions or threats these nations pose and provide the benefits that US or China would provide without strings. Mutually beneficial business.
If you 4 together has that level of influence and power, you don't need to come begging for UNSEC seat. UN will come to beg you.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top