Ban Ki-moon to visit India; UNSC seat may top talks

[Jade]

You are ABSOLUTELY right !!! Why would China support India for Per. U.N. Seat when India is so ANTI-CHINA. India OPENLY named China enemy #1 and called her Agni 5 missile "China-Killer" !!!

No way, Jose !!!

The only country that matters is US. China can be arm twisted, as was done when India was admitted into NSG

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You are ABSOLUTELY right !!! Why would China support India for Per. U.N. Seat when India is so ANTI-CHINA. India OPENLY named China enemy #1 and called her Agni 5 missile "China-Killer" !!!

No way, Jose !!!

It would be illogical for us to support India to get a UNSC seat while there is still an active territorial dispute.

We vetoed the Syria resolution for far less, despite the rest of the world (USA+NATO+GCC, etc.) warning us not to.

Though we won't need to veto in order to keep someone from getting a permanent seat, in this situation, abstaining is all that is required to shut down a reform resolution.

Since according to the UN Charter, any such resolution must be unanimously supported by ALL of the P5 members. If one country abstains, the resolution cannot pass.

 

[Ajaxpaul]

That is only in your dream.

First, UNSC won't increase more seats at least in the next five years. I really see there is little possibility in the next decade as well.

Second, UNSC's veto right won't be stripped away at all. There won't be any country that has the power to initiate such a movement to stripe the UNSC's veto right.

Third, I have to say that Brazil and South Africa may have better chance since they are in those large continents that have no seats in SC yet. Germany does have the power and China definitely would support its bid if it can win support in Europe.

Well, for India, there is no way China will support India's bid as long as the border issue between the two countries is not resolved. There is zero possibility that China will support India into UNSC while China's south tibet is not returned yet.





I have to say you are just another dreamer.

I really do not see such possibility for the near future.

We will keep our Arunachal with us and you can keep your Veto power with you...Anyways your veto will not stop earth from revolving.

Why not Pakistan does it all the time, maybe we should do.

So shall we nuke china...India is much smaller than china with a weak military

 

[Hafizzz]

The only country that matters is US. China can be arm twisted, as was done when India was admitted into NSG

But this case is different.

First, even USA does not want to enlarge the U.N per. club.
Second, there is no way China will be forced to support India.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

because we are 4th most powerful nation .

Still wondering about this argument.

China has the 2nd largest economy, and the 2nd largest military budget (by a large margin).

Yet we are NOT the 2nd most powerful country in the world. According to the official Chinese power ranking (CNP), we are the 6th most powerful country in the world.

--------------------

India on the other hand has the 11th largest economy, and the 8th largest military budget.

Yet you claim to be the 4th most powerful country in the world?

Can any of the Indians here answer this?

 

[Android]

You are ABSOLUTELY right !!! Why would China support India for Per. U.N. Seat when India is so ANTI-CHINA. India OPENLY named China enemy #1 and called her Agni 5 missile "China-Killer" !!!

No way, Jose !!!

pak is also anti india yet we supported you in your quest as non permanent nation in unsc
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...-india-played-big-role-its-bid-unsc-seat.html

 

[Mo12]

But this case is different.

First, even USA does not want to enlarge the U.N per. club.
Second, there is no way China will be forced to support India.

Maybe Pakistan and India should both be permanent members?

 

[hawx]

we will see,I bet India will be permanent UNSC member with "VETO" power within 5 years.

 

[newdelhinsa]

Chinese still feel insecure even after so many decades of being permanent member.

 

[Jade]

It would be illogical for us to support India to get a UNSC seat while there is still an active territorial dispute.

We vetoed the Syria resolution for far less, despite the rest of the world (USA+NATO+GCC, etc.) warning us not to.

Though we won't need to veto in order to keep someone from getting a permanent seat, in this situation, abstaining is all that is required to shut down a reform resolution.

Since according to the UN Charter, any such resolution must be unanimously supported by ALL of the P5 members. If one country abstains, the resolution cannot pass.

International order don't run on logic. They run on power. Comparing India and Syria is not appropriate. It is like comparing the international reaction to Agni 5 with NK failed missile

If UNSC expands, the first country to enter would be India.

 

[Ajaxpaul]

But this case is different.

First, even USA does not want to enlarge the U.N per. club.
Second, there is no way China will be forced to support India.

Thats what Pakistan wished happened with NSG group. Instead you guys ran to Uncle Sam and asked for a similar deal.

Now we can make nukes which could hurt China, still China supported India, not out of love, but had to..Think over it.

 

[Jade]

But this case is different.

First, even USA does not want to enlarge the U.N per. club.
Second, there is no way China will be forced to support India.

Yes, I agree with you. US does not want an enlarged UNSC. If US agrees for a enlarged UNSC, China has no option but to remain silent and go with the majority.

 

[Hafizzz]

International order don't run on logic. They run on power. Comparing India and Syria is not appropriate. It is like comparing the international reaction to Agni 5 with NK failed missile

If UNSC expands, the first country to enter would be India.

Nope. Japan, Germany and Brazil are more likely than India to become per. member

Yes, I agree with you. US does not want an enlarged UNSC. If US agrees for a enlarged UNSC, China has no option but to remain silent and go with the majority.

If that was the case then China and Russia would also want Iran, Libya, Cuba, Zimbabwe etc to be per. members as well. You get the idea ????

 

[Amolthebest]

The original criteria for being a part of the P5, was to be a major independent power on the winning side of WW2 (the Allies), in 1945.

In 1945 there was no such thing as India, only the British Empire.

If you want to go by the original criteria then you have no chance unless you can go back and change history. As for today, why should India get priority, when ALL of the other G4 nations have stronger economies than India?

Pardon me but you were not major power on the second world war winners. You just got lucky. US, UK and Russia are the real war heroes. So this main criteria has major flaws. And what is France doing in top 5 when they were routed by Germany?

 

[Jade]

Thats what Pakistan wished happened with NSG group. Instead you guys ran to Uncle Sam and asked for a similar deal.

Now we can make nukes which could hurt China, still China supported India, not out of love, but had to..Think over it.

China and Indian relations are complex. We both cannot be friends, but also cannot afford to be enemies. The Chinese government reaction to Agni 5, a China specific missile, is an example