China opposes India's call for quick UNSC reforms

[Chinese-Dragon]

However, in one sweep of the pen, Richard Nixon, the US President dumped Taiwan and had it replaced by China. This was accepted by the members of the
UN without question, because it “was common sense to accept and recognize the voice of some 600 million people” China represented.

Absolutely wrong.

The Permanent seat belonged to "China" the country. The question was.... did the PRC (People's Republic of China) or the ROC (Republic of China) deserve to sit in China's seat? They both claimed to represent China.

The "country" who has a Permanent seat has never changed since the founding of the UN.

For example, Russia's seat was originally held by the Soviet Union, then transferred to the Russian Federation.

By the same logic, the Republic of China (ROC) originally held China's seat, then it was transferred to the PRC (People's Republic of China).

The country holding the seat doesn't change. Only the political representative.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

5+1 will sabotage UNSC reform as long as possible, and only will go through if certain countries influence will increase, like with these 4 countries mentioned joining and possible removal of the veto - US influence will greatly increase in UNSC. Instead of Russia/China facing hostile 3+1 UNSC members, they would face 6 hostile countries.

Lets say veto is removed as some suggest - it would mean US and its alies through majority would get through any resolution anytime they want.

 

[Korean]

Just do away with veto power and problem solved. No need to change the structure of the security council then.

It is because of the damned veto power that atrocities at Syria goes undealt with.

 

[fallstuff]

I do think the sheer number of people in India qualifies it to be in the UNSC in some sort of permanent status, I doubt the power holders will allow another veto powered member.

 

[anarchy 99]

India needs to solve its electricity problems, Sikh independence, corruption, defacation problems before getting anywhere near a UN Security Council member.

Once India gets an independent foreign policy and not have your foreign policy decided by Washington DC, then we will think about it.

No independence on foreign policy, you get NOTHING.

Dream on.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

India needs to solve its electricity problems, Sikh independence, corruption, defacation problems before getting anywhere near a UN Security Council member.

Once India gets an independent foreign policy and not have your foreign policy decided by Washington DC, then we will think about it.

No independence on foreign policy, you get NOTHING.

Dream on.

Sikh Independence.

Foreign policy? What makes you say that we are controlled by Washington except your brain farts?

 

[Harry_Thomason]

Just do away with veto power and problem solved. No need to change the structure of the security council then.

It is because of the damned veto power that atrocities at Syria goes undealt with.

UNSC is already undemocratic and unjust dictatorship of a few powerful countries, and if veto is removed - UNSC would become just a US tool, nothing more.

Atrocities in Syria are created by West and Arabs imported and armed terrorists.

 

[fallstuff]

No one gives up power just like that. The veto is indeed a strategic weapon, nobody will give it up or share it with the Indians.

A UNSC permanent membership with veto power will just be a dream for the Indians in the foreseeable future.