Expansion essential to make UN security council credible: India

Jade said:

India can do without UNSC, but can UNSC do without India?

Click to expand...

Sure it can.

Heck, I'd rather vote for Germany for UNSC.

deckingraj said:

Absolute nonsense!!..When China got the permanent security seat it had none of the features you are talking about, no??....

Click to expand...

Are you referring to 1945 where ROC became a member of permanent security council or 1971 where PRC become a member of permanent security council? Because by 1971, PRC is a nuclear state with ability to produce its own tanks, fighters and submarines. More importantly, PRC also managed to defeat a UN force at Korean Peninsula, Indians (which is, at the time, believed to be the leader of third world countries) during the skirmish at 1962 and managed a stalemate with USSR in 1969. Basically, PRC managed to stood its ground against all other members of UN permanent security council in open conflict and earned recognition for its military strength.

Now, RoC's track record isn't as great as PRC. It was able to wear out Japan in a war of attrition. Its expeditionary force's performance in Southeast Asia was also recognized by Allies. I will admit that the strength between China and India is rather close back in 1945. In fact, if history is different, there is a very real possibility for India to get on the permanent council. However, the reality is that when UN permanent security council is founded, India is still a British colony while China is an independent nation and by the time India managed enough influence, 1962 occurred and effectively confined India influence into the south Asia subcontinent.

througheye said:

Funny. At 1945 when UN found, India was not existing as an independent country yet. There was only the empire of British.

Click to expand...

througheye said:

No country will be offered a seat in P5. You must own it yourself.

Click to expand...

Washington Post reported that "India was offered a permanent seat on the council 55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was declined by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead." [5] The council seat then was held by Taiwan (ROC). This decision by Nehru is seen as a blunder and the loss of an opportunity to attain a stronger diplomatic stature by India.

If India were to accept this offer it would have required the United Nations charter to be amended to include India in place of Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Security Council or to expand the Council. It is not known whether the Taiwanese government representing China's seat at the time in the Security Council would have vetoed the amendment or accepted the amendment under US pressure as Taiwan was solely dependent on the US for its protection from mainland China.

Although the U.S. and other permanent Council members were not very supportive of expanding the Security Council, in his visit to India President Obama has offered his support for India to become a permanent member of the Council. However the reaction from other Council members are not very clear, particularly from China. Thus it is uncertain whether the demands by G4 nations will be implemented anytime soon.

Screambowl said:

Washington Post reported that "India was offered a permanent seat on the council 55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was declined by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead." [5] The council seat then was held by Taiwan (ROC). This decision by Nehru is seen as a blunder and the loss of an opportunity to attain a stronger diplomatic stature by India.

If India were to accept this offer it would have required the United Nations charter to be amended to include India in place of Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Security Council or to expand the Council. It is not known whether the Taiwanese government representing China's seat at the time in the Security Council would have vetoed the amendment or accepted the amendment under US pressure as Taiwan was solely dependent on the US for its protection from mainland China.

Although the U.S. and other permanent Council members were not very supportive of expanding the Security Council, in his visit to India President Obama has offered his support for India to become a permanent member of the Council. However the reaction from other Council members are not very clear, particularly from China. Thus it is uncertain whether the demands by G4 nations will be implemented anytime soon.

Click to expand...

I think the first paragraph needs some re-wording, because by 1955, RoC has been on the permanent security council for close to a decade.

To be honest, 1955 is probably the best time for India to obtain a seat on permanent security council, because PRC's industrialization process has just begun and India was believed to be the strongest third world country.

However, even back then, India would have faced some pretty stiff resistance:
RoC would be against the decision for obvious reasons.
US would have been resistant to the idea due to the fact that India is supplied by USSR.
UK would have been against the decision in order to preserve its colonial empire.
There is also the fact that back in 1955, USSR and China was in the golden age of their relationships.
All these are on top of the fact India would asking the members of UNPSC to share their power.

Lil Mathew said:

India, the world’s second most populous country and is one of the world’s largest contributors of U.N. peacekeeping personnel not a member of security council..... Why?????

Click to expand...

The question should be directed to the British, not now but 70 years ago.

Screambowl said:

Washington Post reported that "India was offered a permanent seat on the council 55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was declined by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead." [5] The council seat then was held by Taiwan (ROC). This decision by Nehru is seen as a blunder and the loss of an opportunity to attain a stronger diplomatic stature by India.

If India were to accept this offer it would have required the United Nations charter to be amended to include India in place of Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Security Council or to expand the Council. It is not known whether the Taiwanese government representing China's seat at the time in the Security Council would have vetoed the amendment or accepted the amendment under US pressure as Taiwan was solely dependent on the US for its protection from mainland China.

Although the U.S. and other permanent Council members were not very supportive of expanding the Security Council, in his visit to India President Obama has offered his support for India to become a permanent member of the Council. However the reaction from other Council members are not very clear, particularly from China. Thus it is uncertain whether the demands by G4 nations will be implemented anytime soon.

Click to expand...

A complete LIE that keep reappearing time and time again. It is not even Washington Post. It was in a book written by Nehru after the war with China. Nehru was lying and even dare drag an American President into this plot. Amazing.

througheye said:

I found so many Indians rely on Modi.
It seems when Modi become PM, he will solve every problem and India will automatically become super power.
Let's wait and see.

Click to expand...

You can't blame them for that, for Modi is their only hope.

As messy as India is, and with a social fabric rotten to the core，Indians still think a single person is enough to lift India out of the mire. Shows how cute and naive Indians can get。

Srinivas said:

We deserve and we will get it soon ...... , UN security council do not have any meaning if India is not represented there.

Click to expand...

A bloated Indian at his best：bleating。

Nan Yang said:

A complete LIE that keep reappearing time and time again. It is not even Washington Post. It was in a book written by Nehru after the war with China. Nehru was lying and even dare drag an American President into this plot. Amazing.

Click to expand...

that I am not aware of, what I know is I quoted a reliable source.

tranquilium said:

I think the first paragraph needs some re-wording, because by 1955, RoC has been on the permanent security council for close to a decade.

To be honest, 1955 is probably the best time for India to obtain a seat on permanent security council, because PRC's industrialization process has just begun and India was believed to be the strongest third world country.

However, even back then, India would have faced some pretty stiff resistance:
RoC would be against the decision for obvious reasons.
US would have been resistant to the idea due to the fact that India is supplied by USSR.
UK would have been against the decision in order to preserve its colonial empire.
There is also the fact that back in 1955, USSR and China was in the golden age of their relationships.
All these are on top of the fact India would asking the members of UNPSC to share their power.

Click to expand...

Some blunders done by Nehru in 50's and even in 40's. UK would have supported us, because by 1955 India was independent, france has always supported, China and India were not rivals, US and USSR rivalry had only began, it was in late 60 when the cold war had actually came into light.

In 1955 India was in a very good shape. Indeed could have joined UNSC.

Loki said:

Sure it can.

Heck, I'd rather vote for Germany for UNSC.

Click to expand...

It is not the question of your liking or hating.

Germany is the past, India is the future. We have the size, population, military, influence, and economy that can match any of the aspirants of UNSC or the members of UNSC. Moreover, unlike Germany, these above parameters are going to grow enormously for India in future. Imagine a world 20 years hence, and then imagine Germany and India's place in such a world. You will get the answer.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether India gets into UNSC or not. At least I don't care. Apart from China and US, I don't see anyone competing directly with India 20 years hence . India will have its own sphere of influence that will rivals any of the great power in future and that sphere of influence also includes Bangladesh.

Jade said:

It is not the question of your liking or hating.

Click to expand...

Who said it was about hating India? It isn't.

Germany is the past, India is the future. We have the size, population, military, influence, and economy that can match any of the aspirants of UNSC or the members of UNSC. Moreover, unlike Germany, these above parameters are going to grow enormously for India in future. Imagine a world 20 years hence, and then imagine Germany and India's place in such a world. You will get the answer.

Click to expand...

Actually, Germany is very much a part of the future. Especially in regards to global security.

And no, those factors you stated aren't the only things that count. Nonetheless, India will be developing for many years.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether India gets into UNSC or not. At least I don't care. Apart from China and US, I don't see anyone competing directly with India 20 years hence . India will have its own sphere of influence that will rivals any of the great power in future and that sphere of influence also includes Bangladesh.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Loki said:

Who said it was about hating India? It isn't.



Actually, Germany is very much a part of the future. Especially in regards to global security.

And no, those factors you stated aren't the only things that count. Nonetheless, India will be developing for many years.



Fair enough.

Click to expand...

Every country has a future, but the question is how much its future is going to affect the world around them that matters. As you correctly mentioned India will be developing for many years, that is where all the difference lies. A developing economy and that too a size of India will bring with it wealth of opportunities and growth at much faster rate than say any advanced economy.

By all means India is going to over take China in population with in next 15 years and would reach 1.7 billion by 2040. Imagine the size of India's economy by by 2040 even if it grows by a modest 5 to 6%, and imagine the relatively well off consumer market of 1.7 billion by 2040. With this kind of market power, India is sure to wield a huge influence across the world.

Jade said:

Every country has a future, but the question is how much its future is going to affect the world around them that matters. As you correctly mentioned India will be developing for many years, that is where all the difference lies. A developing economy and that too a size of India will bring with it wealth of opportunities and growth at much faster rate than say any advanced economy.

By all means India is going to over take China in population with in next 15 years and would reach 1.7 billion by 2040. Imagine the size of India's economy by by 2040 even if it grows by a modest 5 to 6%, and imagine the relatively well off consumer market of 1.7 billion by 2040. With this kind of market power, India is sure to wield a huge influence across the world.

Click to expand...

Be very careful what you wish for. Too many people create problems.

Even in the year 2040, it is the US that'd be the largest consumer market. Through and through. A large population wouldn't mean much. Even an educated one.

Loki said:

Be very careful what you wish for. Too many people create problems.

Even in the year 2040, it is the US that'd be the largest consumer market. Through and through. A large population wouldn't mean much. Even an educated one.

Click to expand...

I believe the reason for the slow progress of India even today and I am afraid the reason why India can't realize the full potential.