Chile backs India, Brazil's UNSC bid

[damiendehorn]

The UNSC was for the world war 2 victors and ex-imperial powers.

 

[Hafizzz]

If it wasn't, so many countries wouldn't have supported its claim including the SC's P5.

Well USA calls the last shot ....

Obama in India: Why his Security Council overtures ring hollow
Obama in India: Why his Security Council overtures ring hollow - CSMonitor.com

President Obama endorsed India for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council as part of a push to modernize the body. But as Japan knows, the road to permanent membership is full of obstacles.

It does not matter China supports India or not. Nowhere written in the UN charter that inclusion of new members in UNSC requires absolute consensus. If US and RUSSIA support(which they are doing), it's then a matter of time to get membership and veto power.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep dreaming while it takes only 1 per. member to slash India's dream and that's a fact !

What will happen when the interests collide? I

That will never happen because USA will not allow the per. U.N. club to reform and therefore no new members will join the club.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It does not matter China supports India or not. Nowhere written in the UN charter that inclusion of new members in UNSC requires absolute consensus. If US and RUSSIA support(which they are doing), it's then a matter of time to get membership and veto power.

Incorrect.

Here is a link to the UN charter, from the UN website.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

Article 108

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including ALL the permanent members of the Security Council.

In order the amend the UN Charter, and to allow new permanent members into the UNSC... it needs to be ratified by ALL of the current permanent members. No exceptions, no neutral votes. It must be 5 positive votes from every member of the P5.

Though as long as it's without veto power as the President stated in the article, I don't see any problem.

 

[Ajatashatru]

So without veto power?

Isn't that kind of against the point?

I too believe that this veto system is wrong. Security Council is an organisation whose aim is to establish peace in the world, not an organisation made to further the policies of a handful of countries. Its structure should be that resolutions should be passed through the democratic votes of all countries of the world and there should be no veto. In fact, I believe that rather than campaigning for a permanent seat, India should lobby with other countries of the world and open a front with them to put pressure on UN to reform SC in favor of a democratic structure.

 

[Masters]

You need an independent foreign policy to be a permanent member of the UNSC. And India fails to fit this criteria. You cannot become a major power if you are a mere vassal state of another power. Until India gets an independent foreign policy, India will not get permanent seat in the UNSC. Countries pay lip service but that will be it.

India has done nothing to deserve being taken seriously as a global power. The Indian military is extremely weak, it's economy tiny, very limited technological base, weak currency, and most importantly have no independent foreign policy.

 

[sree45]

Well USA calls the last shot ....

Obama in India: Why his Security Council overtures ring hollow
Obama in India: Why his Security Council overtures ring hollow - CSMonitor.com

President Obama endorsed India for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council as part of a push to modernize the body. But as Japan knows, the road to permanent membership is full of obstacles.



LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep dreaming while it takes only 1 per. member to slash India's dream and that's a fact !



That will never happen because USA will not allow the per. U.N. club to reform and therefore no new members will join the club.

Well.. That's your opinion. But be prepared for the day when it happens.

 

[Hafizzz]

I too believe that this veto system is wrong. Security Council is an organisation whose aim is to establish peace in the world, not an organisation made to further the policies of a handful of countries. Its structure should be that resolutions should be passed through the democratic votes of all countries of the world and there should be no veto. In fact, I believe that rather than campaigning for a permanent seat, India should lobby with other countries of the world and open a front with them to put pressure on UN to reform SC in favor of a democratic structure.

Tell that to the white man because they are the ones who created the club and the rules.

Well.. That's your opinion. But be prepared for the day when it happens.

It is not my opinion but what USA is doing.

Ask yourself why USA would want to reform the club when doing so will cause more trouble for herself ???

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I too believe that this veto system is wrong. Security Council is an organisation whose aim is to establish peace in the world, not an organisation made to further the policies of a handful of countries. Its structure should be that resolutions should be passed through the democratic votes of all countries of the world and there should be no veto. In fact, I believe that rather than campaigning for a permanent seat, India should lobby with other countries of the world and open a front with them to put pressure on UN to reform SC in favor of a democratic structure.

Sure, the veto power is both unfair and meaningless.

But so what?

Geopolitics is all about one thing, serving your own national interests. That's how the world works, and it has never been fair.

Do you expect the Indian government to work all day and spend all their money to further the interests of Italy or Mexico? No, you want them to work for their own country.

 

[sree45]

You need an independent foreign policy to be a permanent member of the UNSC. And India fails to fit this criteria. You cannot become a major power if you are a mere vassal state of another power. Until India gets an independent foreign policy, India will not get permanent seat in the UNSC. Countries pay lip service but that will be it.

India has done nothing to deserve being taken seriously as a global power. The Indian military is extremely weak, it's economy tiny, very limited technological base, weak currency, and most importantly have no independent foreign policy.

India was the founding member of NAM. India voted for palestine's membership in the UN (when USA and it's allies were against it).
India buys its weapons from both USA and Russia. (The country which offers the best gets the contract)
If that isn't having independent foreign policy. then i dont know what is.

 

[sree45]

Sure, the veto power is both unfair and meaningless.

But so what?

Geopolitics is all about one thing, serving your own national interests. That's how the world works, and it has never been fair.

Do you expect the Indian government to work all day and spend all their money to further the interests of Italy or Mexico? No, you want them to work for their own country.

EXACTLY!! India knows that the P5 will never give any other country veto power. So, we lobby for the next best thing and thats what we are doing.

 

[Truth Finder]

Incorrect.

Here is a link to the UN charter, from the UN website.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

What do you think if US and RUSSIA want



In order the amend the UN Charter, and to allow new permanent members into the UNSC... it needs to be ratified by ALL of the current permanent members. No exceptions, no neutral votes. It must be 5 positive votes from every member of the P5.

Though as long as it's without veto power as the President stated in the article, I don't see any problem.

US and RUSSIA want total reform in UN. Old garbage won't work.They made the rules.There is a difference between amendments and total reform or changing systems. Who knows the reformed UN (or any other named organization) will not be far away from this present one? There is no relevance of these rules.

You need not to amend anything when you are changing it totally.

 

[Hafizzz]

EXACTLY!! India knows that the P5 will never give any other country veto power. So, we lobby for the next best thing and thats what we are doing.

But what's the point for having new members without veto power ? The p5 members will ask themselves why invite new members when their present makes no difference because they have no veto power ? So why invite new members ?

 

[Ajatashatru]

You need an independent foreign policy to be a permanent member of the UNSC. And India fails to fit this criteria. You cannot become a major power if you are a mere vassal state of another power. Until India gets an independent foreign policy, India will not get permanent seat in the UNSC. Countries pay lip service but that will be it.

India has done nothing to deserve being taken seriously as a global power. The Indian military is extremely weak, it's economy tiny, very limited technological base, weak currency, and most importantly have no independent foreign policy.

So according to you, India is a "vassal state" of which power?

 

[Hafizzz]

US and RUSSIA want total reform in UN. Old garbage won't work.They made the rules.There is a difference between amendments and total reform or changing systems. Who knows the reformed UN (or any other named organization) will not be far away from this present one? There is no relevance of these rules.

You need not to amend anything when you are changing it totally.

If what you said is "true" then why hasn't the USA push for reform in the club ?

So according to you, India is a "vassal state" of which power?

Yes India is a vassal state.

 

[Masters]

So according to you, India is a "vassal state" of which power?

United States of America.