By any calculus, India qualifies for UNSC permanent seat: Syed Akbaruddin

[Lincoln]

India has outgrown the need to coerce pakistan. Now it just ignores pakistan.

By blaming, threatening, and peddling the name of Pakistan?

UNSC should be abolished. It is stupid that 5 nations can decide the fate of the whole world.

 

[xyxmt]

India is not even a regional power, a non-regional power does not qualify for permanent membership.

 

[xuxu1457]

History, history, history
UN，The main victors of World War II were the five permanent members.Japan and Germany were defeated in the war.

Five countries all paid millions of lives in World War II.China, the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain and France paid tens of millions of people.What did India pay in World War II?
At that time, India did not exist, India is still a British colony, how can it become a permanent member at that time?

When the United Nations was founded, there were no nuclear weapons except for the United States. At that time, China was the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China，Was not an ally of the Soviet Union.

The five permanent members are the platform for the domination of the international order by the major victors.To avoid the defeat of the League of Nations, the veto was given.Without the veto, the United Nations would not exist.

 

[Rusty]

Those dynamics at play back then are not relevant today. People will not accept these 5 countries deciding without the permanent voices from many developing countries and region. I think there will be reforms, or else they risk of making the UN completely defunct.

And who is going to make them?

 

[Andhadhun]

Well the onus is on India to force UK out. It will make for a good irony story.

India has too many territorial dispute and too many separatist movement to be stable enough to enjoy such privilege.

There is just not enough weight in the Indian argument.

Africa when united can be entertained.

Australia is too distant to play a role in World politics.

I don't think India's stability is the issue here. India is stable enough for a boisterous democracy.

But yes, the onus is on India to do the needful and for that we need to build tremendous hard power and exercise it. Enough for the world to wake up and take notice.

So far India is foolish enough to play by the rules not realizing that the high table is for those who make their own rules, not follow rules made by others.

 

[El Sidd]

I don't think India's stability is the issue here. India is stable enough for a boisterous democracy.

But yes, the onus is on India to do the needful and for that we need to build tremendous hard power and exercise it. Enough for the world to wake up and take notice.

So far India is foolish enough to play by the rules not realizing that the high table is for those who make their own rules, not follow rules made by others.

it won't end well what you have in mind

 

[Andhadhun]

it won't end well what you have in mind

If India wants a seat then it requires some sacrifice. That is the way of the world.

 

[El Sidd]

If India wants a seat then it requires some sacrifice. That is the way of the world.

The seat is not worth more than India itself.

 

[Andhadhun]

The seat is not worth more than India itself.

That is a choice India will have to make.

India will get that seat only if India wants it badly enough. Enough to make the whole world want to give it to India.

 

[El Sidd]

That is a choice India will have to make.

India will get that seat only if India wants it badly enough. Enough to make the whole world want to give it to India.

Will you be my witness that i warned you against it?

 

[Andhadhun]

Will you be my witness that i warned you against it?

Don't worry, India even today plays by the rules. Hence do not qualify for the seat.

A different choice will have to be made in the future. Will it make that choice ? time will tell.

 

[jamahir]

@Jyotish, I selected the last option ( abolishment of UNSC ) because of four reasons :

1. The UNSC does not have permanent representation of many countries who could claim the seat for various reasons ( which we can guess ). So if one of these countries is given a permanent seat the others should too. Where would it stop ??

2. The UNSC has for long been used as a legitimizing authority for inhumane direct military interventions / invasions by Western powers and their allies. This was seen in the Korea War, then the Iraq invasion and the Libyan invasion.

3. Certain countries who are temporary members currently or have been in the past and wish to become permanent members, could have alliance with the Western powers in military invasion plans.

4. Certain countries who are temporary members currently and wish to become permanent members, can possibly indirectly support military invasion plans of Western powers by simply abstaining from a UNSC vote. This abstaining could be deliberate or naiveity. This has happened for the Libya invasion in 2011.

Therefore to avoid such chaos it is best to abolish the UNSC and discuss all military matters in the UN General Assembly.

@Joe Shearer @Naofumi @RealNapster

 

[Naofumi]

@Jyotish, I selected the last option ( abolishment of UNSC ) because of four reasons :

1. The UNSC does not have permanent representation of many countries who could claim the seat for various reasons ( which we can guess ). So if one of these countries is given a permanent seat the others should too. Where would it stop ??

2. The UNSC has for long been used as a legitimizing authority for inhumane direct military interventions / invasions by Western powers and their allies. This was seen in the Korea War, then the Iraq invasion and the Libyan invasion.

3. Certain countries who are temporary members currently or have been in the past and wish to become permanent members, could have alliance with the Western powers in military invasion plans.

4. Certain countries who are temporary members currently and wish to become permanent members, can possibly indirectly support military invasion plans of Western powers by simply abstaining from a UNSC vote. This abstaining could be deliberate or naiveity. This has happened for the Libya invasion in 2011.

Therefore to avoid such chaos it is best to abolish the UNSC and discuss all military matters in the UN General Assembly.

@Joe Shearer @Naofumi @RealNapster

UN is itself a practically defunct organisation which should be restructured or abolished. I believe that with the balance of power will shift away from west, it will grow more and more obsolete.
India should focus on building it's soft power and counter Chinese influence than focusing on an increasingly obsolete organisation's membership.

 

[waz]

Was China a 1st grade nation and rich enough to be in permanent member???

Any way i believe if any country to get permanent membership if not India, then It is Japan. Although China got membership but Japan should be the country to represent Asia than China.

The 'victors's of the Second World War then formed the security council. Indian leaders officially boycotted the war.
Japan? As much as I like the nation but no way. The nation literally raped Asia in the Second World War and committed some of the worst atrocities ever seen in history, leaving such deep scars on many. They are also no 'leader' in Asia by any stretch and seem to constantly want to be seen with the 'five eyes'.
The UNSC should stay as it.

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

The most probable candidate for the UNSC should be Germany. They are someone who has good influence worldwide. India comes much later in terms of probable UNSC membership , it doesn't have that much influence to be considered a UNSC member as of now.