What's new

China is biggest stumbling block in India’s UNSC permanent membership

FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 26, 2018
5,637
21
13,765
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
China has been blocking efforts to begin formal negotiations on UNSC expansion, saying that there is no need to rush through the reforms. The intergovernmental negotiations process has been on for more than 10 years.

PM Modi expressed India’s strong support for multilateralism, described the UNSC as a necessity but asserted that it was under stress. “The credibility and effectiveness of global institutions is being questioned. The reason for this is that there has been no change in these institutions despite the passage of time. These institutions reflect the mindset and realities of the world 75 years ago,” he said.


The remarks come ahead of India assuming one of the 10 rotating non-permanent seats at the UN Security Council in January. India has declared that “reformed multilateralism” would be a key focus of its two-year term.

PM Modi described terrorism as the biggest threat to the world, a pointer to Pakistan and also as an indirect swipe at China that has shielded Pakistan and Pakistan-based terrorists from sanctions by the UN. China did block sanctions against Pakistan-based terror group founder Jaish-e-Mohammed Masood Azhar for a decade before it had to step aside in 2019 under intense international pressure. China has been standing in the way of India’s entry to Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) by tagging it along with entry of Pakistan despite New Delhi’s impeccable non-proliferation record in contrast to Islamabad that has been a direct beneficiary of nuclear proliferation by North Korea and China.


PM Modi isn’t the only one to press for reform of the UN Security Council. UN General Assembly President Volkan Bozkir recently spoke out against the existing structure, saying it was failing to respond to the world’s biggest challenges due to “competing interests”. French President Emmanuel Macron already has called for an overhaul of international cooperation mechanisms, going to the extent of underscoring that the UNSC “no longer produces useful solutions today”.

The UN Security Council reform has been on the agenda for more than a decade. But member nations haven’t been able to agree on how big the council should become and whether other nations should have veto powers. As a result, the Security Council continues to reflect the global power structure of 1945, when the Second World War victors – the P-5 – the USA, UK, France, Russia and China – acquired their privileged status. Critics have long argued that the council in its present form, is both undemocratic and anachronistic and would stand to lose its effectiveness and legitimacy unless it is transformed to reflect today’s world.


India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador TS Tirumurti, speaking in the UN General Assembly this week, said ‘’Today’s Security Council is an impaired organ. It has been unable to act with credibility essentially due to its unrepresentative nature. But then, what is happening inside the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) process, which we seem to be wedded to?’’

Intergovernmental Negotiations framework is a group within the United Nations that is looking into UNSC reforms. But it has made no progress since 2009 when it was formed.

There have been no serious attempts to come up with a consolidated text to begin formal negotiations due to resistance by certain countries such as China that are opposed to the expansion of UNSC membership.


For years, India, Germany, Japan, and Brazil have been trying to get a permanent seat to the UN Security Council but the UN charter is such that it gives permanent members the veto power to any resolution, including the expansion of membership.

While the first four have backed India’s permanent membership, China has time and again stalled it by laying down conditions impossible to meet. China says there are major differences among UN members over UNSC reforms and insists that a “package solution” should be found to accommodate the interests and concerns of all parties.


The Chinese mission to the UN has questioned the need for reforms in “haste”. It doesn’t matter that the informal negotiations for reforms have been on for the last 10 years. “To start text-based negotiation in a haste or to impose a single document is not conducive to building a consensus and promoting unity,” the Chinese mission said in a statement.


India along with Japan, Germany and Brazil, however, called out China’s delaying tactics in September this year. New Delhi told the UNGA president that the inter-government negotiation process had become a convenient smokescreen to hide behind for those who didn’t want to see any reforms in the security council, a reference to countries such as China, Turkey and Pakistan.

 

Dual Wielder

FULL MEMBER
Aug 7, 2019
744
3
2,145
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
I don't think any permanent UNSC member wants the group to get any larger then it already is, they all will lose their leverage.. especially Russia [on india]; so if worst comes to worst they will be secretely hoping that China Vetoes, and the latter will graciously oblige.
 

Stealth

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 30, 2009
9,555
50
20,479
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
India in UNSC LOL.... a country has disputes and problems with all of its neighbors. A country is widely known for its terrorism from Mukti Bahini to Tamil tigers to TTP, a country top in hunger index, a country having massive internal fault lines esp since Modi came into power the internal religious harmony fuckedup badly, a country having major conflict issue with a Global power, a country who is HIGHLY DEPENDENT on foreign weapons for ITS OWN SECURITY, a country who is merely a tool for U.S. against China expecting that a nation will get Permanent membership or powers like US, UK, Russi and China vote for its permanent seat lol
 
Last edited:

lonelyman

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 19, 2015
2,046
-11
4,396
Country
China
Location
China
China has been blocking efforts to begin formal negotiations on UNSC expansion, saying that there is no need to rush through the reforms. The intergovernmental negotiations process has been on for more than 10 years.

PM Modi expressed India’s strong support for multilateralism, described the UNSC as a necessity but asserted that it was under stress. “The credibility and effectiveness of global institutions is being questioned. The reason for this is that there has been no change in these institutions despite the passage of time. These institutions reflect the mindset and realities of the world 75 years ago,” he said.


The remarks come ahead of India assuming one of the 10 rotating non-permanent seats at the UN Security Council in January. India has declared that “reformed multilateralism” would be a key focus of its two-year term.

PM Modi described terrorism as the biggest threat to the world, a pointer to Pakistan and also as an indirect swipe at China that has shielded Pakistan and Pakistan-based terrorists from sanctions by the UN. China did block sanctions against Pakistan-based terror group founder Jaish-e-Mohammed Masood Azhar for a decade before it had to step aside in 2019 under intense international pressure. China has been standing in the way of India’s entry to Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) by tagging it along with entry of Pakistan despite New Delhi’s impeccable non-proliferation record in contrast to Islamabad that has been a direct beneficiary of nuclear proliferation by North Korea and China.


PM Modi isn’t the only one to press for reform of the UN Security Council. UN General Assembly President Volkan Bozkir recently spoke out against the existing structure, saying it was failing to respond to the world’s biggest challenges due to “competing interests”. French President Emmanuel Macron already has called for an overhaul of international cooperation mechanisms, going to the extent of underscoring that the UNSC “no longer produces useful solutions today”.

The UN Security Council reform has been on the agenda for more than a decade. But member nations haven’t been able to agree on how big the council should become and whether other nations should have veto powers. As a result, the Security Council continues to reflect the global power structure of 1945, when the Second World War victors – the P-5 – the USA, UK, France, Russia and China – acquired their privileged status. Critics have long argued that the council in its present form, is both undemocratic and anachronistic and would stand to lose its effectiveness and legitimacy unless it is transformed to reflect today’s world.


India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador TS Tirumurti, speaking in the UN General Assembly this week, said ‘’Today’s Security Council is an impaired organ. It has been unable to act with credibility essentially due to its unrepresentative nature. But then, what is happening inside the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) process, which we seem to be wedded to?’’

Intergovernmental Negotiations framework is a group within the United Nations that is looking into UNSC reforms. But it has made no progress since 2009 when it was formed.

There have been no serious attempts to come up with a consolidated text to begin formal negotiations due to resistance by certain countries such as China that are opposed to the expansion of UNSC membership.


For years, India, Germany, Japan, and Brazil have been trying to get a permanent seat to the UN Security Council but the UN charter is such that it gives permanent members the veto power to any resolution, including the expansion of membership.

While the first four have backed India’s permanent membership, China has time and again stalled it by laying down conditions impossible to meet. China says there are major differences among UN members over UNSC reforms and insists that a “package solution” should be found to accommodate the interests and concerns of all parties.


The Chinese mission to the UN has questioned the need for reforms in “haste”. It doesn’t matter that the informal negotiations for reforms have been on for the last 10 years. “To start text-based negotiation in a haste or to impose a single document is not conducive to building a consensus and promoting unity,” the Chinese mission said in a statement.


India along with Japan, Germany and Brazil, however, called out China’s delaying tactics in September this year. New Delhi told the UNGA president that the inter-government negotiation process had become a convenient smokescreen to hide behind for those who didn’t want to see any reforms in the security council, a reference to countries such as China, Turkey and Pakistan.

only stupid RSS goons believe sweet talk of other P4, no power likes to share the power

the other 4 are just sneaky on this, they know China would object and veto
 
Last edited:

bilibili

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Aug 5, 2020
36
0
43
Country
China
Location
China
only stupid RSS goons believe sweet talk of other P4, no power likes to share the power

the other 4 are just sneaky on this, they know China would object and veto
France don't want German get in, China would veto Japan

Russia, US essentially don't want India get in, but China would veto India.

S Korea don't want Japan get in, China would veto Japan

All S and SE Asian country don't want India get in, China would veto India.

Sometimes it's damn boring when everyone knows what you have to and would do.
 

pakpride00090

BANNED
Feb 28, 2019
1,891
-1
3,809
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I don't know any sane person in the world who think India deserve to be a UNSC member. A shit tier country trying to be equal to P5.

These claims become incredibly ridiculous when they compare themselves to China...LOL
 

Raj-Hindustani

FULL MEMBER
May 4, 2019
1,726
-19
933
Country
India
Location
India
I don't know any sane person in the world who think India deserve to be a UNSC member. A shit tier country trying to be equal to P5.

These claims become incredibly ridiculous when they compare themselves to China...LOL
When China joined to Elite group than what was special?

Ans is nothing, still all 5 members don't want or let to join any other country. It' not about deserving but other things.
 

Gibbs

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 16, 2013
7,303
7
11,556
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
Utter cock !! Not a single veto wielding member of the UNSC would agree to dilute the UNSC, Not just India they wouldn't let any one else in either.. Once every few months this crap crops up in Indian media simply because one of the permanent five will say something to pacify a begging Indian diplomat or a politician visiting their country whinging about the membership, But that is where it will end

Targeting China is a easy scapegoat

Sooner the Indian establishment and it's media realize this the better, Without holding on to false hope
 

redtom

FULL MEMBER
Aug 2, 2020
281
0
388
Country
China
Location
China
The current Security Council is already in chaos. If it were to expand its membership, it would be better to dissolve the UN and use force to solve the problem.

The question for the world now is how China and the United States will strike a new balance.When the Sino-American problem is solved, other problems will be solved.
 

sinait

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 22, 2016
3,282
-9
7,156
Country
Singapore
Location
Singapore
When China joined to Elite group than what was special?

Ans is nothing, still all 5 members don't want or let to join any other country. It' not about deserving but other things.
Never thought of that.. Good point.
Actually STUPID AND IGNORANT POINT.
The present 5 UNSC members consist of the 4 victorious nations of WW2 with the special addition of defeated France.
Colonized India was not yet successful BEGGING FOR THEIR INDEPENDENCE.
So India was not even a nation at the time the UN was formed.
.
 

jaybird

FULL MEMBER
Mar 4, 2018
201
0
764
Country
China
Location
United States
When China joined to Elite group than what was special?

Ans is nothing, still all 5 members don't want or let to join any other country. It' not about deserving but other things.


It's been mentioned many times in the past by other members in the forum. The 5 countries are special and in the Permanent membership in the Security Council is based on their importance in the aftermath of World War II. They are the victors and allies in World War II. Victors made the rules!

You will not see changes unless another World War happen and power shifted. Until then everyone else can continue to dream and whine to no result. All 5 countries contributed the most in WW II with blood and money. Not one single country in the 5P will really want to share that power with the new powers of the world. It's all lip service only from the current 5P. Again, the most important thing here is Victors made the rules!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom