India’s UNSC alliance with Japan biggest mistake: Chinese media

[roma]

From the article, what I see is that PRC might not oppose India's permanent membership in the UNSC, but PRC does not see Japan as worthy of being a permanent member of the UNSC.

One must keep in mind that despite the industrial prowess of Japan, it is reliant on imported raw materials, and if PRC wants, it can crush a significant portion of Japans raw materials import avenues.

India needs to be pragmatic as to who it tags along.

my consistent stand on this UNSC perm membership for india has always been on the following conditions ;-

(A) we go it on our own ( merits ) .....no one tags along with us and we dont join some sort of beggar grouping even if some of the nations are quite rich
( eg germany , Japan )

(B) the idea of 4 nations applying for membership was MM Singh's and sonia-ji's idea and it is a beggarly idea where they were even willing to accept a kind of second-class perm membership of UNSC, devoid of veto power , so there would be 2 types of permanent members , those with veto and those like india who would remain "HAVE-NOTS" . ......my consistent stand has always been that india should not accept some beggarly 2nd class membership and we stand alone and we do not apply for it , they come to us

(C) if we dont qualify on our own,standing alone, then we simply dont qualify, let it be ! !.... and we dont waste time and resources going the beggars' route of asking and asking again ..... we strengthen our economy, strengthen our military industrial complex including our ISRO to be more self sufficient ....and we will go independent of what unsc may decide in future ....in other words we will cooperate when it suits us and we will go our way when that suits us and we dont owe them a thing !

(D) then we sit back and enjoy bollywood movies which hopefully will be better than the slapstick stuff we see nowadays .

invitation to comment and if you feel what ive written is interesting, you may "clicke" :-
@angeldude13 @ @Ancient Indian @bose @brational @blueblood @anupamsurey @ersakthivel @Blackwater @bengalraider @cobra commando @DingDong @Hari Sud @Kunal Biswas @LETHALFORCE @mhk99 @Neil @OneGrimPilgrim @pmaitra @Rowdy @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Srinivas_K @sorcerer @TejasMK3 @Yusuf @jackprince @Bangalorean @indiandefencefan @aliyah @hit&run @VIP @Razor @Blood+ @Screambowl @Sylex21 @ @thethinker @tsunami @Zebra @sgarg @Rashna @sabari @laughingbuddha @rock127

addendum

If we part ways with Germany, Japan and Brazil now for the sake of a permanent seat with veto then it is a mistake and we might end up losing a good amount of goodwill and friendship earned with these nations. I say, UNSC membership is not bigger than their friendships. Lets play the waiting game. They themselves (P5) will agree to reform UNSC at one point of time and will include India. Why do we need to pick the fight and earn distrust from partners ?

If UNSC does not include more members it will lose reliability and relevance and the P5 very well knows this. Just wait and watch what they are going to do....

well Sir , you have your point of view but i consider it somewhat cap in hand or perhaps turban in hand ? perhaps you had written it before i had made some changes and additions to my original post as i was within the time frame allowed for that ......i think India will look like a bunch of dogs ( puppies ? ) if we join with others and why ?

you mean unlike prc, we cant qualify on our own , is that the mentality among your peers ? always asking for something instead of qualifying ?
goodwill with germany ??? - to me it's not worth a piss !

your way is whatever it is and i suppose i'll have to tolerate it , i only hope that the majority of indians would prefer some spine and stand alone

either they invite us in , or we stay somewhat dis-interested ....yes 1.5 billion ( our pop figure before too long ) will gradually distance ourselves from that organisation .

 

[I_PLAY_BAD]

my consistent stand on this UNSC perm membership for india has always been on the following conditions ;-

(A) we go it on our own ( merits ) .....no one tags along with us and we dont join some sort of beggar grouping even if some of the nations are quite rich
( eg germany , Japan )

(B) the idea of 4 nations applying for membership was MM Ssingh's and sonia-ji's idea and it is a beggarly idea where they were even willing to accept a kind of second-class perm membership of UNSC. ......my consistent stand has always been that india should not accept some beggarly 2nd class membership and we stand alone and we do not apply for it , they come to us

(C) if we dont qualify on our own,standing alone, then we simply dont qualify ! !.... and we dont waste time and resources going the beggars' route of asking and asking again ..... we strengthen our economy, strengthen our military industrial complex including our ISRO to be more self sufficient

(D) then we sit back and enjoy bollywood movies which hopefully will be better than the slapstick stuff we see nowadays .

invitation to comment and if you feel what ive written is interesting, you may "clicke" :-
@angeldude13 @ @Ancient Indian @bose @brational @blueblood @anupamsurey @ersakthivel @Blackwater @bengalraider @cobra commando @DingDong @Hari Sud @Kunal Biswas @LETHALFORCE @mhk99 @Neil @OneGrimPilgrim @pmaitra @Rowdy @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Srinivas_K @sorcerer @TejasMK3 @Yusuf @jackprince @Bangalorean @indiandefencefan @aliyah @hit&run @VIP @Razor @Blood+ @Screambowl @Sylex21 @ @thethinker @tsunami @Zebra @sgarg @Rashna @sabari @laughingbuddha @rock127

If we part ways with Germany, Japan and Brazil now for the sake of a permanent seat with veto then it is a mistake and we might end up losing a good amount of goodwill and friendship earned with these nations. I say, UNSC membership is not bigger than their friendships. Lets play the waiting game. They themselves (P5) will agree to reform UNSC at one point of time and will include India. Why do we need to pick the fight and earn distrust from partners ?

If UNSC does not include more members it will lose reliability and relevance and the P5 very well knows this. Just wait and watch what they are going to do....

 

[Compersion]

1. India needs speak with USA and Russia seperately how India (itself) can get on UNSC. Their views have added weightage and like Germany said moves need to be made intelligently and right relations developed.

2. PRC and its representation of Chinese people worldwide might come up. Also PRC wants India to request them. Ignore. What is happening will be with and without them.

3. India sat on head of the table for G4. Important symbolizing moment and also India left open door.

I feel whatever system in place india will have to be the first next one. Thereafter this new tier can come in. This next tier when and how they come can take its time and have conditions. But India will be like the current P5. We need to get UNGA vote for UNSC for India on record before next year. That has to be the plan. And if we help the next tier and keep our promises it will be everlasting.

 

[Mad Indian]

1. India needs speak with USA and Russia seperately how India (itself) can get on UNSC. Their views have added weightage and like Germany said moves need to be made intelligently and right relations developed.

2. PRC and its representation of Chinese people worldwide might come up. Also PRC wants India to request them. Ignore. What is happening will be with and without them.

3. India sat on head of the table for G4. Important symbolizing moment and also India left open door.

I feel whatever system in place india will have to be the first next one. Thereafter this new tier can come in. This next tier when and how they come can take its time and have conditions. But India will be like the current P5. We need to get UNGA vote for UNSC for India on record before next year. That has to be the plan.

Dude, India ditching G4 would be the stupidest thing that can happen now, we would lose face with everyone - not just G4, on how we cant be trusted. Even forming a rival to UN would be much less stupid than that

 

[Compersion]

Dude, India ditching G4 would be the stupidest thing that can happen now, we would lose face with everyone - not just G4, on how we cant be trusted. Even forming a rival to UN would be much less stupid than that

India getting on the UNSC table first does not signify that it has ditched the other three. India can still give them support.

The symbolism on India getting on the table on its own has its own face value that we have to learn to develop and will be a qualification and value on the UNSC table. leadership is not easy. Listen to our UN ambassador before Modi went to USA after text based resolution adopted. I feel this next year india will take care of it self. Sure we will make sure there is scope for further expansion but that has to be done in a different approach and it is good india is leading the way. We have to be the first next one and the plan has to be before next year and minimum and at least a UNGA vote on India for UNSC. We have the numbers and the vote will be significant for not only india, united nations but the world.

India is the only qualified candidate that measures and qualifies. The rest are in a second tier. I understand the other three sensitivites but we have to be real and USA and Russia will make it real. One year Is not a short time and if we can make it factual that the text based resolution clears us to make the UNGA vote first ... Watch how a resolution is made in UNGA for India to be the next member of UNSC. It will be a good day not only for India but the world.

 

[I_PLAY_BAD]

my consistent stand on this UNSC perm membership for india has always been on the following conditions ;-

(A) we go it on our own ( merits ) .....no one tags along with us and we dont join some sort of beggar grouping even if some of the nations are quite rich
( eg germany , Japan )

(B) the idea of 4 nations applying for membership was MM Singh's and sonia-ji's idea and it is a beggarly idea where they were even willing to accept a kind of second-class perm membership of UNSC, devoid of veto power , so there would be 2 types of permanent members , those with veto and those like india who would remain "HAVE-NOTS" . ......my consistent stand has always been that india should not accept some beggarly 2nd class membership and we stand alone and we do not apply for it , they come to us

(C) if we dont qualify on our own,standing alone, then we simply dont qualify, let it be ! !.... and we dont waste time and resources going the beggars' route of asking and asking again ..... we strengthen our economy, strengthen our military industrial complex including our ISRO to be more self sufficient ....and we will go independent of what unsc may decide in future ....in other words we will cooperate when it suits us and we will go our way when that suits us and we dont owe them a thing !

(D) then we sit back and enjoy bollywood movies which hopefully will be better than the slapstick stuff we see nowadays .

invitation to comment and if you feel what ive written is interesting, you may "clicke" :-
@angeldude13 @ @Ancient Indian @bose @brational @blueblood @anupamsurey @ersakthivel @Blackwater @bengalraider @cobra commando @DingDong @Hari Sud @Kunal Biswas @LETHALFORCE @mhk99 @Neil @OneGrimPilgrim @pmaitra @Rowdy @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Srinivas_K @sorcerer @TejasMK3 @Yusuf @jackprince @Bangalorean @indiandefencefan @aliyah @hit&run @VIP @Razor @Blood+ @Screambowl @Sylex21 @ @thethinker @tsunami @Zebra @sgarg @Rashna @sabari @laughingbuddha @rock127

addendum


well Sir , you have your point of view but i consider it somewhat cap in hand or perhaps turban in hand ? perhaps you had written it before i had made some changes and additions to my original post as i was within the time frame allowed for that ......i think India will look like a bunch of dogs ( puppies ? ) if we join with others and why ?

you mean unlike prc, we cant qualify on our own , is that the mentality among your peers ? always asking for something instead of qualifying ?
goodwill with germany ??? - to me it's not worth a piss !

your way is whatever it is and i suppose i'll have to tolerate it , i only hope that the majority of indians would prefer some spine and stand alone

either they invite us in , or we stay somewhat dis-interested ....yes 1.5 billion ( our pop figure before too long ) will gradually distance ourselves from that organisation .

1. We do not need China's support for permanent member status. I said it is the world politics' mandate to include at least India.

2. I repeat. Goo relations with our G4 peers is more important than a permanent seat with UNSC. It is our image which is much more important than our actual power.

3. UN has to somehow invite us for them to be more relevant for obvious reasons.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

I do not think the reforms are going to happen any time soon. Although potentially India is much better and stronger than G4, because they are at their peak power in some sense while India is just beginning, but I do not see India to be much different than these countries for the next 2 decades.

So, keeping this in mind even a diluted position due to excess entry into SC should be ok. In the long run, veto or no veto India will be the super power.

 

[rock127]

So now these Chinese are telling us who to befriend and not.China is the only major supporter left for Terrorist Pakistan.

China should just stfu and accept the reality.China SHOULD support India for permanent UNSC.

If Japan get into UNSC then it would be a hell for Chinese.

 

[no smoking]

If India and other powers are not recognized the UN will be deemed irrelevant and soon there will be a rival body started by them. Given the turmoil the world is facing today UN must make these reforms for it to survive.

So far, none of G4 threatens to quite UN and none of P5 is concerned of the possibility that G4 may quite UN to form their own organization. That tells you something: no one, including your own government, believes G4 is able to form their own organization.

So cheena cannot remain myopic forever to block India's bid and make itself a fool.

Well, we are not blocking India's bid. We will make ourselves a fool if we allow Japan to be a permanent member with veto. So, it is your call.

What will whining China do when India blocks imports from it ? India does not manufacture, export and depend upon consuming economies.

The only reason India is buying from China is you are getting more from Chinese goods than other source of supplies, otherwise you won't even buy one cent of Chinese products. So, blocks imports from China anytime you like.

 

[no smoking]

Actually, the UNSC has been proven to be as much a collection of useless power, as UN itself has been proven to be impotent in every aspect. The fact remains that in the Global order of power as long as UK remains in UNSC and countries like Germany, Japan, Brazil and India remain outside of it, UNSC us nothing useful.

No, the reason that UN is proven to be impotent is because there is rarely any issue can get consensus among P5. Adding 4 more members won't solve the problem but increasing more problems.

Also the BS veto power of UNSC members has been bane of UN, and the impotency of UN proven by unchecked high-handedness of USA when all the other so called super powers remained quite and sucked up to it, except Russia, has not only undermined and destroyed any future relevance of UN, the UNSC itself have become irrelevant.

So, you think India, Japan, German and Brazil can change the balance significantly? Let's have a check:

Japan--a country occupied by USA and relying upon USA for her security. Will she stand opposing any USA decision? Hell NO!
German--a country with USA army deployed and replying on UK/French for her own political power. Hardly She can stand alone against USA.
Brazil--A country can't even get support from her own neighbours.
India--I have no doubt you have the gut to say no to USA. But without support of money and material, your opinion doesn't really count.

Now, you would say why then India is pursuing the seat? Well, because in pursuing and getting rejected, India has been proving time and again, that UNSC and in extension UN, is bullshit organisation.

On the contrary, by being rejected time and time again, you proved UN can work without you. By ganging up with other 3 in pursuit of the seats, you proved yourselves not powerful enough to get a seat.

Neither UN or UNSC has updated itslef with time, and in very near future bith will have to pay the price for it by being ignored. Already in EU, Germany which is UNSC wannabe, holds more power and sway than UK and France, the UNSC super power. USA never gives a damn what UN says and goes on to do whatever it pleases, even when China or Russia condemns it. Russia doesn't give a damn to UN and nor does China.

So, name me one international issue that UN was helpless because of the objection from any member of G4

So, if UN is not already a obsolete organisation, it soon will be. Then what extra benefit will UNSC deliver? Btw, what can a country in UNSC seat gain in today's time against India or Germany or Japan, by the virtue of being in the UNSC?

Well, let me check:
Japan lost her oil interest in Iran to China because she can't provide protection in UN;
India's old friend, Pakistan, has been protected by 2 permanent members in UN;
Brazil was furious about P5's activities in South America;
Germany, god knows how many times she has to compromise on EU issues because of UK and French.

 

[jackprince]

No, the reason that UN is proven to be impotent is because there is rarely any issue can get consensus among P5. Adding 4 more members won't solve the problem but increasing more problems.



So, you think India, Japan, German and Brazil can change the balance significantly? Let's have a check:

Japan--a country occupied by USA and relying upon USA for her security. Will she stand opposing any USA decision? Hell NO!
German--a country with USA army deployed and replying on UK/French for her own political power. Hardly She can stand alone against USA.
Brazil--A country can't even get support from her own neighbours.
India--I have no doubt you have the gut to say no to USA. But without support of money and material, your opinion doesn't really count.



On the contrary, by being rejected time and time again, you proved UN can work without you. By ganging up with other 3 in pursuit of the seats, you proved yourselves not powerful enough to get a seat.



So, name me one international issue that UN was helpless because of the objection from any member of G4



Well, let me check:
Japan lost her oil interest in Iran to China because she can't provide protection in UN;
India's old friend, Pakistan, has been protected by 2 permanent members in UN;
Brazil was furious about P5's activities in South America;
Germany, god knows how many times she has to compromise on EU issues because of UK and French.

Only one thing to say - UN just doesn't work anymore, and UNSC is useless forum where any move by anybody is bound to get vetoed by one or the other P5 member. So, basically UN is a glittery show piece having no utility at all.

 

[I_PLAY_BAD]

So far, none of G4 threatens to quite UN and none of P5 is concerned of the possibility that G4 may quite UN to form their own organization. That tells you something: no one, including your own government, believes G4 is able to form their own organization.



Well, we are not blocking India's bid. We will make ourselves a fool if we allow Japan to be a permanent member with veto. So, it is your call.




The only reason India is buying from China is you are getting more from Chinese goods than other source of supplies, otherwise you won't even buy one cent of Chinese products. So, blocks imports from China anytime you like.

Currently G4 doesn't threaten to quit. But in future ? If they become more powerful ??

India teaming up with Japan is for its own interests. Just like u do with Pakistan. Is china even fit to comment on indo-japan ties ?

Agree with Chinese imports. But we are not dependent on Chinese goods. The only dependent nation is china. Tell me, if buyer stops buying will the seller still raise his collars ???

 

[amoy]

Alright let's look at technicalities of G4, rather than grumbling about Chinese blockade.

Will Africa Be the Key to United Nations Security Council Reform?

With 54 member states Africa has the most countries in any member state reform grouping and the potential for major influence on UNSC reform discussions. Support from all African group countries on a reform initiative would provide 54 votes, making up 42% of the 129 votes required to pass a UN General Assembly resolution expanding the UNSC.

Undoubtedly G4 must have approached AU (collectively) for coordinated and concerted efforts in order to advance their UNSC expansion aspirations through UNGA （still quite short of 2/3 majority).

Africa established a united position on UN reform in the Ezulwini Consensus. Ezulwini calls for the inclusion of two permanent and five non-permanent seats for African countries on the Council and extension of veto powers (should they remain) to new permanent members.

So G4+ AU2 = 6 if both demands of permanent seats are accomodated (with/without veto), in addition to existing P5 (if intact) :biggrin2: How does the total 11 sound like?

In that scenario Europe would be disproportionately represented by 3 i.e Germany plus Fr. and Br. So what do u think? Any feasibility, needless to mention other potential aspirants or objections, like from Carribeans, Arab League? I'm sure Argentina for one is not comfortable with Brazil becoming a tier up, nor 2 Koreas with Japan.

 

[Compersion]

Dont need say this but this is reality: P5 + India = P6

The overriding USA and Russia impetus on UNSC reform will overcome and make it real.

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

Also.

Out of this process the UNSC Permanent member criteria for any country to get on UNSC will be:

- 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

The UNGA vote of India will have in its text the India supports and wants other nations to join the UNSC and make it more representative. In other words India will like always not only think about itself but about the world. Having more non-permanent members is a good thing and is that process separate to be done at the same time is the question. This UNGA vote for India becoming a Permanent member has to be done not only for India but the world. It will be a watershed moment. And this text based approach will allow India to do this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Permanent_members

Along with the five permanent members, the Security Council has temporary members that hold their seats on a rotating basis by geographic region. In its first two decades, the Security Council had six non-permanent members. In 1965, the number of non-permanent members was expanded to ten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Non-permanent_members

The reform is not only about PERMANENT members but NON-PERMANENT members. It is not ONE reform but TWO.

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 and non-permanent members will the new USNC council have. Will there still be a veto on the new UNSC.

People can watch the interviews of our Ambassdor to UN and also the quotes that were made when the Pacific nations was in town for approach to our UNSC seat. And importantly India sat on the head of the G4 table.

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.

It is 1970s PRC UNSC vs 2015 India UNSC. I am not saying this because of the competition (whatever anyone wants to call it) with PRC but because the last entrant to UNSC was PRC in 1970s and India wants to get on UNSC the right and proper way. The last entrant did not make a process properly. Now was 1970s PRC more capable compared to 2013 India. The threshold is in Indias favor.

With this one needs to look at the solution in two - tiers. The permanent member tier only has India. The non-permanent tier needs expansion and can be area specific (for example Africa always get [x], South America always gets [x], and East Asia always gets [x]). This will resolve all the countries that want to get on. This is where Russia and USA come in. Having too many Permanent members is not the right way. Like Brasil also said the percentage of the representation of the Total body (PERMANENT members but NON-PERMANENT members) needs to increase.

If Germany sulks they have to take it up with UK and France which i dont think they will. France is representative of Europe will they share their seat with France. Will EU have the seat instead of France. This enters into more complex role of EU and its actual sovereign status. Because if Germany is pushing for a seat they are indirectly saying EU will remain a economic entity (perhaps even less might be extreme) and they are Sovereign.

Also a critical theme if Germany and Japan get on is that country that behave in wrong ways and later transform can be rewarded. That might need to be themed and made in a more different approach. But the rehabilitation of these country and the message it sends is also important therefore giving the support is not out of the question. But having them rewarded might need to be established and done in a more systematic approach that actually represents the geopolitical situations.

One will question why Russia and USA. This can be joined to the hip because previously USA and Russia have asked India to get on the UNSC previously and according to the news reports it was pre-1970s. Also USA and Russia have the role and have gotten other UNSC permanent members to get on board and be changed. One might say one has more exposure and reason over the other but that might be in percentage with the two making it 100%.

In the next year India has to and will make a UNGA vote for it being including on the UNSC permanent member seat and table. It has the numbers. Such a vote will be done in proper approach and will be result of specific measures. This includes having a clear lane derived from the text based communications and also USA and Russia giving the go ahead. The country that proposes the resolution for India will also be critical and for future precedent it would probably have to be a UNSC permanent member (Viva la France ??).

The reform of Non-Permanent member composition has to be expanded and also progressed and moved and pushed and focused and it is good India is also making and supporting this move.

 

[Compersion]

In the end the following lines can be dealt with when UNGA vote for India comes up. India will be the first next one. India can still support others after the vote and on the permanent member table and frankly we have to start thinking like we are on the big table and behaving like that by interpreting and expanding positions that are to be in our favor.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Full-text-of-G4-joint-statement/articleshow/49117843.cms

On 26 September 2015, H.E. Mr. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, invited H.E. Ms. Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, H.E. Ms. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany and H.E. Mr. Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, for a G-4 meeting in New York.

The G-4 leaders stressed that a more representative, legitimate and effective Security Council is needed more than ever to address the global conflicts and crises, which had spiraled in recent years. They shared the view that this can be achieved by reflecting the realities of the international community in the 21st century, where more Member States have the capacity and willingness to take on major responsibilities with regard to maintenance of international peace and security.

In this context, the leaders noted with concern that no substantial progress had been made since the 2005 World Summit where all the Heads of State and Government had unanimously supported the "early reform" of the Security Council as an essential element of the overall effort to reform the United Nations. They strongly emphasized that the process underway in the UN to bring about the reform of the Security Council should be conducted, given its urgency, in a fixed time frame.

The leaders paid tribute to the dynamic leadership of the President of the 69th General Assembly and the efforts of the Chair of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) in moving the IGN process towards text-based negotiations. They welcomed the adoption by consensus of the General Assembly Decision 69/560 to use the text presented by the President of the 69th General Assembly in his letter dated 31 July 2015 as the basis for negotiations within the IGN. They also pledged to support and cooperate with the President of the 70th General Assembly.

The leaders also noted with appreciation the efforts of Member States in moving towards text-based negotiations. They welcomed, in particular, the efforts undertaken by the Member States of the African Group, CARICOM and the L.69 Group. They supported Africa's representation in both the permanent and non-permanent membership in the Security Council. They also noted the importance of adequate and continuing representation of small and medium sized Member States, including the Small Island Developing States, in an expanded and reformed Council.

The leaders emphasized that the G-4 countries are legitimate candidates for permanent membership in an expanded and reformed Council and supported each other's candidature. They also reaffirmed their resolve to continue contributing to the fulfillment of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. They pledged to work together with all Member States and to accelerate outreach towards achieving an early and meaningful reform of the Security Council. They expressed determination to redouble their efforts towards securing concrete outcomes during the 70th session of the General Assembly.

New York September 26, 2015

 

[amoy]

Hey if I were Japanese I'd have dumped the other 3 useless dudes, and moved ahead with African Union alone . Does it sound a lot more realistic to push ahead JP1+ AU 3? To have AU aboard is very necessary not only to lock a votebank in, but also be politically correct for the cosmetic sake of "broader representation" and "the developing world".

One must admit Japan has built up a fairly good image through postwar years, generous and peaceloving. It has successfully wielded its money power and impressed many globally. Has anyone heard of any overt objection to Japanese candidature, except for Chinese Koreans and Russians? Bangladesh for one has endorsed Japan openly for UNSC. Japan can galvanize more support by more aids loans and investment.

~~Still waters run deep. ~~from my MiPad using tapatalk

 

[no smoking]

Only one thing to say - UN just doesn't work anymore, and
UNSC is useless forum where any move by anybody is bound to get vetoed by one or the other P5 member.

That is exactly how UN works---looking after the interest of big powers.

So, basically UN is a glittery show piece having no utility at all.

If India has been working hard to get herself into the core of this glittery show piece in the past 10 years, that means your own government doesn't agree with you.

 

[no smoking]

Currently G4 doesn't threaten to quit. But in future ? If they become more powerful ??

Nobody cares about what you can do in the future! There is lots of uncertainties about future. What if you become less powerful?

India teaming up with Japan is for its own interests. Just like u do with Pakistan. Is china even fit to comment on indo-japan ties ?

Well, we don't tie ourselves up with Pakistan to be candidate for any organization membership. And we are telling you, we will do whatever we can to kill any proposal giving Japan a permanent seat. If you think that will hurt your opportunity of getting a permanent seat, that is your problem. We are not commenting, we are simply doing.

Agree with Chinese imports. But we are not dependent on Chinese goods. The only dependent nation is china. Tell me, if buyer stops buying will the seller still raise his collars ???

Of course, you are not dependent on Chinese goods. Chinese products are just the best options for your empty wallet. Certainly, you can turn to other more expensive goods, but that doesn't make economic sense, especially when your country has been fighting with double deficit since 1947.
Your poor countrymen are spending big money on Chinese goods because that save them big money, that is why there is no buyer stops buying: They are buying for economic reason, so they will only stop buying for economic reason.

 

[I_PLAY_BAD]

Hey if I were Japanese I'd have dumped the other 3 useless dudes, and moved ahead with African Union alone . Does it sound a lot more realistic to push ahead JP1+ AU 3? To have AU aboard is very necessary not only to lock a votebank in, but also be politically correct for the cosmetic sake of "broader representation" and "the developing world".

One must admit Japan has built up a fairly good image through postwar years, generous and peaceloving. It has successfully wielded its money power and impressed many globally. Has anyone heard of any overt objection to Japanese candidature, except for Chinese Koreans and Russians? Bangladesh for one has endorsed Japan openly for UNSC. Japan can galvanize more support by more aids loans and investment.

~~Still waters run deep. ~~from my MiPad using tapatalk

You claim to be thinking like a Japanese but you are not.
Japan is seen as a strong ally of the US which doesn't go down well with the African Union.
Whereas India and Brazil has strong ties with many african nations.
So G4 is purely give and take kind of alliance based on self-interests.
Germany/Japan helps India/Brazil for global recognition while India/Brazil can help Japan/Germany to garner more support from members nations. That is how G4 works.
These folks don't just stick together without a strong reason.

 

[I_PLAY_BAD]

Nobody cares about what you can do in the future! There is lots of uncertainties about future. What if you become less powerful?



Well, we don't tie ourselves up with Pakistan to be candidate for any organization membership. And we are telling you, we will do whatever we can to kill any proposal giving Japan a permanent seat. If you think that will hurt your opportunity of getting a permanent seat, that is your problem. We are not commenting, we are simply doing.


Of course, you are not dependent on Chinese goods. Chinese products are just the best options for your empty wallet. Certainly, you can turn to other more expensive goods, but that doesn't make economic sense, especially when your country has been fighting with double deficit since 1947.
Your poor countrymen are spending big money on Chinese goods because that save them big money, that is why there is no buyer stops buying: They are buying for economic reason, so they will only stop buying for economic reason.

There are very meagre chances for India to become less powerful. Either it will stay in the present level or grow more powerful. So your wet dreams are off.

Empty wallets, poor people etc all those you said are a story of 1980s and 1990s.
With Indian market attracting shipments from almost all over the globe I would say chinese goods has lost the sheen.
Indians are buying a good quality product for 1000 rupees rather than buying a cheap quality Chinese product for 700 rupees. That is the actual situation for more than 10 years now and it is going to get worse for Chinese goods in India as GoI is tightening the noose on quality levels. The actual reason is to encourage local manufacturers. So as you said for economic reasons Indians will buy lesser Chinese goods as it is always the fact.

Whether you team up with Pakistan for any membership or not, we just do not care. India and Japan will together pitch for permanent seats. That is the current situation. I don't think India will part ways with Japan just because the Chinese cry. No, it won't work that way.