Badguy,1. Today, France and UK are still stronger than India in almost every fields including economy ,military and tech.
PLS don't tell how many India's PPP is .
PPP is buill$hit when measuring countries' economy influence.
2. if France and UK are not qualitifed for veto, then India should be less qualitfied.
3. when India can suprass France and UK is still a big problem.
4. UN's present structure is not perfect, but still better than a UN with G4 holding vetos.
well, PLS study how CHina screw IMF and world bank in Africa when China has not veto of IMF and world bank.Meh, topic pretty much ended in first few posts. China/Pakistan screwing up India's chance and then chinese members telling us how mighty their friendly neighbourhood country is and why India doesn't deserver the seat.
Exactly, what I have been trying to say. But you, of course have articulated it much better than me.:113:Opposition to the expansion plans are giving way,infact recently the UN accepted India's proposal to start intergovernmental talks for the proposed expansion,this despite opposition from the so called coffee club group.Eventually all opposition to expansion to the UNSC veto membership will come to an end too,this is the post recession world we are dealing with and old obduracy will not stand.
the UNSC is a conclave of powers who are willing to abide by the stipulates of a council resolution,which effectively means that none of the members will violate the purpose of the resolution.The UNSC resolution and its effectiveness depends on complete adherence to it(thus recognizing that if one violates the resolutions is with out purpose)
The old system worked on the principle that there exists no country/countries outside the council whose defacto adherence will be required for the mandate of the UNSC resolution to take effect.Today countries like India,Japan,Brazil or South Africa can effectively play such spoil sport.
Eventually the Old order is going to face defiance,defiance is the first steps to great power,India could easily threaten to quit the UNO and refuse in the future to recognize any UNSC resolutions.Could a UNSC resolution calling for economic boycott of country 'A' be effective if a country like India ,Germany or Japan refuse to respect the contents of such a resolution.
If the NSG is any indicator,there will be initial grunting and whining,but eventually they'll step aside and make way.
I am saying that UN's Veto Members should represent the power equations regionally as well as globally.
# US's Veto is justified because it is the single and only overwhelming Super Power.
# China's Veto is justified because it is the Next most Powerful Nation today and is expected to be the next big thing. Though there its powers have limitations unlike US.
# UK and France are neither overwhelming Powers in their region nor is their future looking particularly bright. Especially with this economic recession, their might, muscle and money are expected to go down. Giving Veto to two European nations that means Europe has two vetoes, So, the question is does Europe(or its veto members) have that kind of Global Power anymore?
IMHO, no. So, instead of giving Europe two vetoes, they must be given one veto, which in IMO, would be accurate representation. And instead of giving it to any one nation, it should be given to EU. So, the European Country that can influence EU most has the loudest voice in UN. That would be accurate power equation representation.
# Russia still has enough clout to merit a Veto.
# India deserves to be a Veto Member because it is the next most growing nation after China and is also the regional power of Sub-continent. Its might, muscle and money are steadily increasing even in the times of economic recession. It is expected to be one of the power centres in about 30 yrs time. Now, tell me any other nation which has all these qualities(remember that India is a second largest country and second most populated country), which doesnt have a veto.
My point is: By not having India as a veto member reduces the validity and clout of UN. Besides, UN's present structure doesnt represent the power equations of the different regions accurately.
in the coming decades, the world would be co-ruled by G3, USA ,CHina and EU.
Japan and Russia would be the challengers . India and Brazil are not even in the position of chanllengers------both are short of solid industry base while powerful industry base the the backbone and base of world power.
I have no idea why you guys are even bothering. Reminds me of that other chinese guy who started a 100 post thread and no matter what anyone said, kept on repeating same crap over and over until the thread was locked.somebody throw this buffoon out from this forum................This is supposed to be serious place of discussion.
What is this Pakistani envoy blabbering about? He says enlarging the security council is less democratic and less representative(as if it is democratic and representative in the first place), then he says that Permanent membership is contrary to principle of sovereign equality of states. Funny that this is coming from Pakistan who has surrendered its so-virginity to Taliban. Anyway, Why doesnt he tell this to his tallel than mountains friend China? Ask China to give up Permanent Seat because it is against the equality of states.(Pakistan's ambassador said in the UN, "Enlarging the oligarchy will increase these problems. It will make the Security Council less democratic, less representative, less transparent, less effective and less accountable."
"An increase in national permanent membership is unrealizable," the Pakistan envoy said. "Some of the aspirants are prepared to become permanent members without veto (like India) thus contradicting their claims of counter-balancing the P-5 (the five permanent members)."
"Caution must be exercised in referring to a broad and generic category of permanent membership," he added.
"Permanent membership is contrary to the principle of sovereign equality of states," the Pakistan ambassador said. "There is no criteria for election of permanent members. They are just there. The aspirants, as we know, also just want to be there. But that may be their idea of reform."
What compound national power? Don't fool yourself too much. China is an economic power but it has some ways to go before it can truly project military power. Would you like to try and get your energy supplies through the Indian Ocean without the concurrence of the USN and the Indian Navy?frankly speaking.
the perfect UN structure is G4: USA, CHINA, EU and Russia(purely for its nuke).
other countries are still not in the same league of big 4,if measured by "compound national power".
What compound national power? Don't fool yourself too much. China is an economic power but it has some ways to go before it can truly project military power. Would you like to try and get your energy supplies through the Indian Ocean without the concurrence of the USN and the Indian Navy?
At best you are a Japan with nukes and they actually have much better armed forces.
Alright, China is the Super Duper power and can defeat any country or group of countries. It has a military budget of 1000000000 billions and it is light years ahead of everyother nation. So? Why is that 'fact' a road block to India(or someother country) acquiring Veto?Today, china is in fact a mercantile isolationist ,who has powerful economy power but no interest to oversea miliatary adventure.
To some extent, China today is somewhat like USA before WW I.
But CHina low profile in miliatry oversea adventure doesn't mean that CHina has no such resource to support oversea adventure.
In fact, USA took only one years to send two million troops to europe during WW I,althought in 1917 USA didn't has army in fact.
ok, let's get back to "india's bid to UNSC seat".Alright, China is the Super Duper power and can defeat any country or group of countries. It has a military budget of 1000000000 billions and it is light years ahead of everyother nation. So? Why is that 'fact' a road block to India(or someother country) acquiring Veto?
Chinese seem to be stuck on their nation's new found clout and thereby expect everyone else to bend over. That doesnt happend my dear.
China being the powerful country is neither a disadvantage or advantage in India's quest to seek its rightful place on Global Politics(Including UN's Security Council).
Russia also used to give 'easy money' to Asian and African and then they required money from others to shore them up and their whole system collapsed.so ,IMF and WB has to negoticate with CHina and ask for cooperation from China, otherwise IMF and WB would be drove out africa market by CHinese easy money.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|A big step forward for India: UN adopts negotiating text for security council reforms||International Politics||88|
|US backs india as a permanent member of reformed UN Security Council||Foreign Relations||18|
|Reforming Security Council Should Be Top Priority||International Politics||97|
|India, Norway, Mexico, Ireland, Kenya join United Nations Security Council||International Politics||1|