China aims to capture Arunachal Pradesh/Southern Tibet in next 10-15 years

[magra]

only after WW3 lol

Not necessarily. Currently, only US and Russia and at times China disregard UN decisions.
Once non P5 countries also start disregarding UN decisions citing discriminatory UN body, then the world will feel the need to create another UN from scratch with fair representation.
Anyways, the appetite by big powers of taking military action for ignoring UN decisions is decreasing.

 

[MH.Yang]

Any such reform would be vetoed by one of the P5
1. Extending permanent membership to India (will be vetoed by China at Pak's behest)
2. Disabling veto power (will be vetoed by all P5)
3. Disabling permanent membership (will be vetoed by all P5)
4. Replacing UK with India in P5 (will be vetoed by UK, France, China)

Only solution I see is a completely new organization which replaces UN altogether.

Let me remind you of something.
The veto power of the P5 can only be used in the Security Council, not the UN General Assembly.
New members to join the UN or the Security Council need due to the P5 review. However, the restoration of seats does not require the review of the Security Council, which is a resolution of the UN General Assembly.
India can ask the UN General Assembly to vote on a resolution by questioning the permanent membership of Britain, which belongs to all members of Britain at 1945.
This is the only way to succeed.


This path was analyzed by Ma Zhaoxu, China's former ambassador to the United Nations, during a TV program. He knows the UN Charter better than you do.

 

[doorstar]

Only solution I see is a completely new organization which replaces UN altogether.

founding members being:

1. India
2. BD
3. Maldeep
4. Bhutan
5. Dassault Aviation

 

[SIPRA]

founding members being:

1. India
2. BD
3. Maldeep
4. Bhutan
5. Dassault Aviation

Add:
Timbuktu
Tanganyika
Djibouti

 

[MH.Yang]

Not necessarily. Currently, only US and Russia and at times China disregard UN decisions.
Once non P5 countries also start disregarding UN decisions citing discriminatory UN body, then the world will feel the need to create another UN from scratch with fair representation.
Anyways, the appetite by big powers of taking military action for ignoring UN decisions is decreasing.

In 1971, China resumed its seat on the Security Council instead of Taiwan.
In 1991, Russia resumed its seat on the Security Council as the successor of the Soviet Union.

If you Google, you can know that both of these times passed resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, avoiding the veto power of the Security Council.

Why haven't Indians heard of these two things? Why has the Indian govt never mentioned this way to obtain a permanent seat?

because:

The Indian govt is afraid to challenge Britain, but Indian netizens think Britain and France are small countries

 

[magra]

Let me remind you of something.
The veto power of the P5 can only be used in the Security Council, not the UN General Assembly.
New members to join the UN or the Security Council need due to the P5 review. However, the restoration of seats does not require the review of the Security Council, which is a resolution of the UN General Assembly.
India can ask the UN General Assembly to vote on a resolution by questioning the permanent membership of Britain, which belongs to all members of Britain at 1945.
This is the only way to succeed.

This path was analyzed by Ma Zhaoxu, China's former ambassador to the United Nations, during a TV program. He knows the UN Charter better than you do.

Even if what you say if remotely feasible, it would still not solve the discriminatory nature of UN having P5 with extra powers. So it will be hypocritical of India to go this approach.

In 1971, China resumed its seat on the Security Council instead of Taiwan.
In 1991, Russia resumed its seat on the Security Council as the successor of the Soviet Union.

If you Google, you can know that both of these times passed resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, avoiding the veto power of the Security Council.

Why haven't Indians heard of these two things? Why has the Indian govt never mentioned this way to obtain a permanent seat?

because:
View attachment 777870

The Indian govt is afraid to challenge Britain, but Indian netizens think Britain and France are small countries

China replacing Taiwan was a special case as PRC said that it is in fact the true govt of China and not the one sitting in Taiwan.
Remember the P5 seat was given to the country China and not to any specific govt.

Similarly, Russia was the largest bloc of USSR, so it was not difficult.

P5 seat is given to UK. How can an entirely different geographical entity India claim UK's seat saying we are the UK govt.

 

[nang2]

This is just some fearmongering routinely sprung out by some Indians who have their own secret agenda, which can only be accomplished by fooling other Indians.

What China is doing only proves that China finally has learned a page or two from India: do small scale and patient squeezing to gain small advantages. Southern Tibet has a much smaller strategic value to China comparing with Aksai Chin, despite its bigger size, bigger population and better climate. China considered to cede the claim on southern Tibet in exchange of India ceding the claim on Aksai Chin. Apparently India wants both so no deal. Capturing southern Tibet is also likely creating a whole new set of problems while Aksai Chin is pretty much under China's control already.

 

[MH.Yang]

Not necessarily. Currently, only US and Russia and at times China disregard UN decisions.
Once non P5 countries also start disregarding UN decisions citing discriminatory UN body, then the world will feel the need to create another UN from scratch with fair representation.
Anyways, the appetite by big powers of taking military action for ignoring UN decisions is decreasing.

The Indian govt sent the talents cultivated by India to the USA.
Indians cheer: great, the CEOs are all Indians, and India rules the world.
Then the Indians continued to be blackmailed by a group of illiterate bureaucrats.

The Indian govt privatized state-owned enterprises, which were divided up by relatives of corrupt officials.
Indians cheered: great, that's what China does, and we will succeed.
In fact, China's state-owned enterprises account for 40% of all enterprises. 64% of China's govet revenue comes from state-owned enterprises.
After Indians abandoned all state-owned enterprises, the govt began to revise the tax law. Indians wonder why the Indian government has no money to implement welfare, but the tax revenue of enterprises is very high (India's total tax rate is 61.7%, the 18th in the world)?

 

[magra]

The Indian govt sent the talents cultivated by India to the USA.
Indians cheer: great, the CEOs are all Indians, and India rules the world.
Then the Indians continued to be blackmailed by a group of illiterate bureaucrats.

The Indian govt privatized state-owned enterprises, which were divided up by relatives of corrupt officials.
Indians cheered: great, that's what China does, and we will succeed.
In fact, China's state-owned enterprises account for 40% of all enterprises. 64% of China's govet revenue comes from state-owned enterprises.
After Indians abandoned all state-owned enterprises, the govt began to revise the tax law. Indians wonder why the Indian government has no money to implement welfare, but the tax revenue of enterprises is very high (India's total tax rate is 61.7%, the 18th in the world)?

Indian govt did not send anyone. Individuals go out of their own free will. Some of them come back later to setup firms in India.
Eg. Flipkart was started was Indians working in Amazon. After selling Flipkart, many of them started more startups in India.

China has a model of state owned firms which works for them. In India, we prefer only very essential firms to be govt owned. Private but regulated is better for the rest.

 

[nang2]

The Indian govt sent the talents cultivated by India to the USA.
Indians cheer: great, the CEOs are all Indians, and India rules the world.
Then the Indians continued to be blackmailed by a group of illiterate bureaucrats.

The Indian govt privatized state-owned enterprises, which were divided up by relatives of corrupt officials.
Indians cheered: great, that's what China does, and we will succeed.
In fact, China's state-owned enterprises account for 40% of all enterprises. 64% of China's govet revenue comes from state-owned enterprises.
After Indians abandoned all state-owned enterprises, the govt began to revise the tax law. Indians wonder why the Indian government has no money to implement welfare, but the tax revenue of enterprises is very high (India's total tax rate is 61.7%, the 18th in the world)?

China's govet revenue comes from state-owned enterprises is through tax. So, I don't know what you are trying to argue here. Having state-owned enterprises or having different tax laws?

 

[Titanium100]

Southern tibet is China

 

[magra]

Don't deny that India is a colony of Anglo Saxon. Your govt dare not challenge Britain. When your people were raped by the west, but your govt shouted "come on" standing nearby. Westerners shit on your face and ask your wife to send them toilet paper, and your govt ordered you to eat the toilet paper and say thank you.

View attachment 777887

Reported for trolling.

 

[MH.Yang]

China's govet revenue comes from state-owned enterprises is through tax. So, I don't know what you are trying to argue here. Having state-owned enterprises or having different tax laws?

China's state-owned enterprises need to pay profits to the government. For example, profits from PetroChina and SINOPEC are used to supplement China's pension funds.


In 2019, China tobacco administration paid 1177 billion CNY ($183.9 billion) in profits to the govt:
https://m.nbd.com.cn/articles/2020-03-01/1412789.html
In addition to paying profits, they also paid 1205.6 billion yuan ($188.4 billion) in taxes.

 

[nang2]

China's state-owned enterprises need to pay profits to the government. For example, profits from PetroChina and SINOPEC are used to supplement China's pension funds.


In 2019, China tobacco administration paid 1177 billion CNY ($183.9 billion) in profits to the govt:
https://m.nbd.com.cn/articles/2020-03-01/1412789.html
In addition to paying profits, they also paid 1205.6 billion yuan ($188.4 billion) in taxes.

As I said, it is through tax. In fact, tax revenue makes 85% of total government revenue. Check the data from China's statistics bureau: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2019/indexeh.htm Look for section 7-2. Tell me which part is from the state corporations' profit.

 

[MH.Yang]

As I said, it is through tax. In fact, tax revenue makes 85% of total government revenue. Check the data from China's statistics bureau: http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2019/indexeh.htm Look for section 7-2. Tell me which part is from the state corporations' profit.

The chronology of the China Bureau of statistics has hundreds of thousands of words. You can find it yourself.

As I told you in the link I gave, in 2019, China Tobacco paid two parts of the money. The profits are handed over to the NDRC. Taxes are handed over to the STA.