What's new

" It's India's right to have Permanent seat at UN Security Council " -PM Modi

coffee_cup

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 20, 2013
5,377
4
8,903
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If india stops state sponsored cross-border terrorism in neighboring countries and starts acting like a mature state instead of jumping up and down on every small progress happening in the neighborhood, it might have a very very distinct chance of getting into security council as a permanent member.

But given the fact that she is being ruled by extremist hindus who are spreading terrorism in the neighboring countries, want to sterlize minorities, take away their voting rights and want to convert them forcefully, i dont see the security council thing happening in the next 200 years.
 

mike2000 is back

SENIOR MEMBER
Apr 12, 2015
7,938
17
8,692
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
You are wrong British rules sought consent and help of Indian political parties and local govts which willingly contributed to forces to fight in WW I and WW II .

We had say and we could have refused to fight battle.
You are naive enough to generalize the argument for all the British colonies ...

did i say that we should be UNSC just because we fought alongside allies ?

all the while we have been saying that current UNSC structure reflects 1945 era ...which must change and it must take into account the prevailing world order ..and so India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, South Africa must be accommodated in UNSC to make it truly representative of the world today ...
do you understand what i am trying to say ?

I am not acting emotionally Bro,

I am acting rather rrationally.

Can you see my reasoning and line of argument ?

Well, you reay believe your so caled local officials had a choice to refuse contributing soldiers/manpower for our war?? They had no choice, since many of them were put into office/nominated by us in the first place. They were like our local officials/representatives, much like imperial Japans own officials representatives in korea, they were mere puppets, and so were obliged to contribute to Japans war efforts just like you were obliged to contribute to our war efforts.:agree:

As for your last point, yes bro i understand what you mean, reason i said you havent said anything new that others havent been saying for decades now. As i said, the world isn't a fair place , it has never been and never will it be as long as human inhabit planet earth.lol Thats the simple truth. So all this whinning about India deserving a seat is just wasting once time, it wont change anything,NONE of the P5 members wil ever agree tolet others in realistically, forget about the verbal support they give you now, when it comes to putting words into practice, they will all go mute.lool So you al have to learn to accept this fact, even though i know its hard to, since other rising/aspiring powers like India, Brazil, Japan, Germany etc al want a seat at the high table. But we cant always have all we want can we?:)
 

Indo-guy

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 14, 2013
4,820
2
5,375
Country
India
Location
Singapore
Well, you reay believe your so caled local officials had a choice to refuse contributing soldiers/manpower for our war?? They had no choice, since many of them were put into office/nominated by us in the first place. They were like our local officials/representatives, much like imperial Japans own officials representatives in korea, they were mere puppets, and so were obliged to contribute to Japans war efforts just like you were obliged to contribute to our war efforts.:agree:

As for your last point, yes bro i understand what you mean, reason i said you havent said anything new that others havent been saying for decades now. As i said, the world isn't a fair place , it has never been and never will it be as long as human inhabit planet earth.lol Thats the simple truth. So all this whinning about India deserving a seat is just wasting once time, it wont change anything,NONE of the P5 members wil ever agree tolet others in realistically, forget about the verbal support they give you now, when it comes to putting words into practice, they will all go mute.lool So you al have to learn to accept this fact, even though i know its hard to, since other rising/aspiring powers like India, Brazil, Japan, Germany etc al want a seat at the high table. But we cant always have all we want can we?:)

It's not question of belief ...we know it !

It's history of our country ...we know that we willingly co-operated and participated in two world wars ...

We were not obliged to contribute to your war efforts ...it was only after when political leadership of India agreed to support Britain in this war that our participation became possible .

Regarding last point ....yes nobody gives up their privileges so easily ...

But a time will come sooner or later when they will have to accommodate India ....

It is not matter of if ...but just matter of time ....
 

Luca1

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 26, 2014
2,237
-3
2,830
Country
United States
Location
United States
Why should india care to give a damn about security council. Security council is good only for bullying weaker countries.
Security council represents the power structure of 1960's, now its drastically changed. Sanctions have no effect on india. UN security council can pass dumb useless resolutions that even sri-lanka is not afraid.

We should simply ignore them like USA does, that is a sign of true power. Remember even NSG was created by US to keep out india, now they are falling over to get us a exclusion. Any resolution passed simply should be :close_tema:.

When you can't reach the grape. It's always sour.

Well, you reay believe your so caled local officials had a choice to refuse contributing soldiers/manpower for our war?? They had no choice, since many of them were put into office/nominated by us in the first place. They were like our local officials/representatives, much like imperial Japans own officials representatives in korea, they were mere puppets, and so were obliged to contribute to Japans war efforts just like you were obliged to contribute to our war efforts.:agree:

As for your last point, yes bro i understand what you mean, reason i said you havent said anything new that others havent been saying for decades now. As i said, the world isn't a fair place , it has never been and never will it be as long as human inhabit planet earth.lol Thats the simple truth. So all this whinning about India deserving a seat is just wasting once time, it wont change anything,NONE of the P5 members wil ever agree tolet others in realistically, forget about the verbal support they give you now, when it comes to putting words into practice, they will all go mute.lool So you al have to learn to accept this fact, even though i know its hard to, since other rising/aspiring powers like India, Brazil, Japan, Germany etc al want a seat at the high table. But we cant always have all we want can we?:)

India need to stop this pathetic begging. I Feel embarassedfor India when Modi begs. And I am not even Indian.
 

Tshering22

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 19, 2010
18,433
4
21,603
Country
India
Location
Canada
When you can't reach the grape. It's always sour.
India need to stop this pathetic begging. I Feel embarassedfor India when Modi begs. And I am not even Indian.

I don't think you heard what he said; he said we have a right to the UNSC with some very valid statistics behind it.

Please don't put your own assumptions if you don't understand.
 

Shotgunner51

RETIRED INTL MOD
Jan 6, 2015
7,203
46
23,294
Country
China
Location
China
The UN is a product of post WWII world order, which has been 70 years old, and that the UNSC is a reflection of sphere of influence at that time.

"The Four Policemen" was a term coined by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to refer to four major Allies of World War II and founders of the United Nations (UN): the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and Republic of China. Roosevelt's phrase symbolized his conception of the post-World War II world, though the idea would not come to fruition until the establishment of the UN, which emerged following the Declaration by United Nations of January 1, 1942. In the words of a former Undersecretary General of the UN, Sir Brian Urquhart:

It was a pragmatic system based on the primacy of the strong — a "trusteeship of the powerful," as he then called it, or, as he put it later, "the Four Policemen." The concept was, as Senator Arthur H Vandenberg noted in his diary in April 1944, "anything but a wild-eyed internationalist dream of a world state.... It is based virtually on a four-power alliance." Eventually this proved to be both the potential strength and the actual weakness of the future UN, an organization theoretically based on a concert of great powers whose own mutual hostility, as it turned out, was itself the greatest potential threat to world peace.

cairo_conference-jpg.203512


Each of the Four Policemen was to maintain order in its respective sphere: Britain in its empire and in Western Europe; the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the central Eurasian landmass; China in East Asia and the Western Pacific; and the United States in the Western Hemisphere.

fourpolicemenzones-png.203508


Since 70 years ago, a lot has changed on the world. Just take the UNSC currently P5 and the proposed G4 as an example:
  • USA. Saved Asia and Europe from complete annihilation by Imperial Japan & Nazi and ended WWII. After 70 years while continue to be the world's biggest economy and biggest military machine, its relative weight has dropped a lot since then.
  • USSR/Russia. USSR was once the only opposing superpower to the USA, and ceased to exist after 1991. Its P5 membership succeeded by Russia which though reduced much in economic might but still is world's 2nd military power after US.
  • ROC/PRC. The ROC has diminished to only controlling Taiwan Island after 1950, its mainland and P5 membership succeeded by PRC, which has risen to become 2nd largest economy.
  • UK. One of the "Four Policemen", however both its economy and political/military might have dropped a lot since then, now acting as junior partner of a special US-UK alliance.
  • France. It was completely over-run by Nazis within a few weeks immediately after the outbreak of WWII. Though not one of the "Four Policemen" it was awarded the P5 membership after WWII. Current economic and military level similar to UK but hold a more independent foreign policy.
  • Japan. Risen from ashes now one of the world's most advanced country, 3rd largest economy (2nd in Asia), security and foreign policy dependent on US. However suspicion from China/SK is an obstacle.
  • Germany. Similar to Japan, risen from ashes now one of the world's most advanced country, 4th largest economy (1st in EU), security and foreign policy dependent on US. However since UK/FR are already in the UNSC, over-representation from Europe is an obstacle.
  • Brazil. Large population, low-medium income, 6th largest economy (2nd in Americas). Favorable however its economic influence is too weak.
  • India. Large population, low income, 10th largest economy (3rd in Asia). Favorable like Brazil with a even bigger population but even weaker economic status is again the problem.
Talking about the reform of UNSC, there are several options and their respective difficulties are as below:
  • Politically speaking, the existing P5 are divided into two camps i.e. US-led West vs CN+RU, and the G4 are either part of US-led West, or heavily reliant on the West (BR in US' backyard, IN being a UK-led commonwealth nation and can easily swing into US orbit). A US-led UK+FR+JP+GR+BR+IN vs CN+RU will only further paralyze the UNSC.
  • Economically speaking the proposed G4 are divided into two very different leagues i.e. highly advanced JP/DE vs underdeveloped BR/IN. Domestic difficulties, lack of financial resources and aid dependence may hinder the ability for the latter two to fulfill duties required as members of UNSC.
  • Geographically Africa (1.1 billion population, over $2.4 trillion economy) is left out of the P5+G4
  • Culturally the Arab World (380 million population, over $2.9 trillion economy) is also missing its representation.
There is no easy solution in reforming the UNSC.

@mike2000 is back @Yizhi @Nihonjin1051 @AndrewJin @Chinese-Dragon
 
Last edited:

xuxu1457

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 29, 2009
4,599
3
7,124
Country
China
Location
China
In fact, the VIP 5 in UN are 5 main Victors in WW II, at that time only US has nuke weapons, so nuke weapons not the only one standard of Permanent seat at UNSC.
Now the V5:
On Political factor, VIP5 in UN can say that, if the V5 agree one thing on the world, that will be that in 99% degree

On economic factor, the V5 all have full complete industrial system, nerely can build every industrial goods, they are top on GDP, sports, tech, culture, influence.

On military factor, they all had nuke weapon befor 1970, and have intercontinental ballistic missile range>10000km and SLBM>8000km, all have several generation nuke attack and SLBM subs, they have all the nuke subs of the world until now, and can make nerely all type weapons by themselves, has complete military industrial system.


QQ截图20150413000830.png
QQ截图20150413000924.png


QQ截图20150413004512.png

For India, big population, but GDP is only 10th, and without full complete industrial system and complete weapon system, still behind the V5 on political ,economic and military factor, and also without one super point in the 3 points(such as Russia's nuke weapon number), and its Influence is limited on South Asia not as the V5's influence level, such as Even France still has big influence on Africa and other area.

And in China, some people call the V5 as "five big rogues", just funny,and I think UNSC is less important now
 
Last edited:

LittleFish

FULL MEMBER
Dec 24, 2014
417
0
632
Country
China
Location
China
Since when being a middle income country ..and being self sufficient in armaments became criteria for UNSC ...?

The question is not about the socio-economic status of country but its representative value in body as crucial as UNSC ...which can authorise act of war against other countries ...

It is different thing that US and its allies through NATO has made all efforts to weaken UNSC ...

strong and just UNSC is at heart of concept of UN ....

My argument is that addition of countries like India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa will make UNSC more democratic and representative of current world order ....

Has India not been a responsible member on an international community ?

has India not strived for success of UN and its subsidairy bodies ?

how can we exclude of 1/5'th of humanity without giving it representation in its most crucial body ?

This is not about fairness to India ...this is about fairness to World at large ....
If the world is going on by democracy rather than power then why did WWI/II break out? Democracy is not as useful as you thought.

Then why does this topic popped up again......You may see JP/GR/BR are quite quiet on this.
 

My-Analogous

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 9, 2009
7,015
2
5,508
Country
Pakistan
Location
Saudi Arabia
It's India's right to have permanent seat in UN Security Council: Modi - Rediff.com India News

Addressing Indian citizens at community reception in France, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday said that India has the right to demand permanent seat in UN Security Council.

12modi-louvre2.jpg



Speaking at Carrousel du Louvre, Modi said, “Gone are the days when India had to beg; now we command our rights. I urge the international community to honour those who are envoys of peace. This is the opportunity to give the land of Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Buddha its due.”

Modi is on a two-day trip to Paris.

“I had gone to pay homage to the martyrs. I would have regretted it if I hadn’t gone there. I had goose bumps when I went there, I was overwhelmed. The war had went on for four years; Indians were fighting, but not for themselves,” he said.

Speaking of India’s sacrifice, he said, “India is a country which sacrifices not only for itself but for others as well. Today, if there is one army that contributes the most in peacekeeping initiatives it is the Indian army. Indians are praised for their contribution towards peacekeeping. I doubt if there is any other country in the world that can spread the message of peace, the way we can,” he added.

12modi-louvre3.jpg



The PM spoke in Hindi to an estimated audience of over 2,000 people, mostly of Indian-origin.

His speech was interspersed with chants of ‘Modi, Modi chants from the crowds.

Recalling that he had earlier visited France as a tourist, he said, “Now I have come to take tourists from here to India.”

Yes India should have permanent seat for not to following UN resolutions.
 

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


Top Bottom