China ready to support Indian bid for UNSC
- Thread starter unicorn148
- Start date
GORKHALI
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,689
- Reaction score
- -9
And the source for the India withdrawal from UNSC candidate race was cooked by Pakistan green media again for domestic consumption and give atleast something laugh and celebrate upon........
India abandons quest for permanent UN Security Council seat | World | DAWN.COM
India abandons quest for permanent UN Security Council seat | Geo News Updates
India abandons quest for permanent UN Security Council seat | Pakistan Today | Latest news, Breaking news, Pakistan News, World news, business, sport and multimedia
India abandons quest for UNSC seat
You people still didn't learnt lesson from your past(Fake Wikileaks remember anyone ?)
Not bad. I would prefer an actual source that is not from the subcontinent, but let's assume that it is real for now.
1/5 - You're on your way.
Check your UN voting record regarding issues important to America, like the Iraq war, Libya or Iran. You've voted against them, on almost every one of these major issues.
It only takes one P5 member to stop the whole thing (you need unanimous support from all five). That's even assuming you can get 2/3 majority of the general assembly, which is extremely difficult.
You might get the permanent seat (though I doubt China would ever support that), but I think it will take till hell freezes over before all the P5 members all decide to let India have veto power.
India getting support from the General Assembly is too easy. In the recent election round. India got the vote of every single member except three. The highest vote record for any country who went to the UNSC.
The real roadblock is China. And its up to China if they want to have a stable relationship with India or have a problem on their hands which they regret in the future
ChinaToday
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2011
- Messages
- 4,557
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
India’s Big Power aspirations face bigger hurdles
On a tour of party duty in China, comrade Sitaram Yechury has some seemingly gratifying news to convey. Chinese leaders, he says, have assured him that China is keen to improve its relations with India – and that it will even support India’s candidature for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council under certain conditions.
For many in India, which aspires for a seat at the High Table of global governance, it would appear that Yechury has succeeded where countless persuasive Indian diplomats have failed: in securing support for India’s candidature from China, the only one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that has thus far held back on its support.
India's dreams of permanent membership of the UN Security Council face high hurdles. Chip East / Reuters
And what conditions must India meet? According to Yechury, India must disassociate itself from making a joint bid for permanent membership along with three other countries – Japan, Germany and Brazil – who too want in. Given the historical strains in China’s relations with Japan – going back to Japanese occupation and wartime aggression – China would never support Japan, and India would lose out if it tied itself to Japan’s bid.
Is this a game-changing prescription that could see India’s Big Power dream come true? Should India become more pragmatic, abandon its allies, and go it alone?
Jaswant Singh, one of the most delightful storytellers in Indian politics, once drew on an earthy metaphor to explain the cynical mechanics of Big Power politics. Gaining admittance into the Power Club, he said, was a bit like jostling with a crowd to get into an unreserved train compartment: you do whatever it takes to get in, whereas those inside want to keep you out. But once you manage to get in, you become an ‘insider’ and your best interests lie in similarly ensuring that no one else gets in.
India has for some time now been banging on the door of the Big Power compartment, demanding entry on the strength of its growing economic muscle, and the fact that it is home to one-sixth of humanity. In informal alliance with Japan, Germany and Brazil, it has been pitching for permanent membership of the Security Council, that most exclusive of High Tables.
But to its eternal frustration, that door has been wedged firmly in place by the five permanent members inside – the US, the UK, Russia, France and China – who don’t want to debase their club’s exclusivity by letting more members in.
In recent years, however, and particularly after the 2008 global financial crisis showed up the changing nature of global economic dynamics, there’s been some chatter about reshaping the power balance at international institutions, including the Security Council. The ostensible purpose of such a rebalancing was to make more room for emerging economies and for countries like Japan and Germany (which, though big economies, were on the wrong side of the Second World War, when the current security architecture was drawn up).
Stepping up its diplomatic offensive last year, India secured the support of four of the five permanent members (barring China) for its candidacy. During his visit to India in November last year, US President Barack Obama offered the most unambiguous support: in an address to the Indian parliament, he said, “In the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.”
Yet, the process of reforming the Security Council is exceedingly complex. As Dr Stewart M. Patrick, global governance expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, explained in an interview to me last year, given the entrenched vested interests, there are “high hurdle” for such reforms.
And recent effort by the Group of 4 nations (India, Japan, Germany and Brazil) to circulate a resolution seeking an expansion in the UN Security Council met with at best lukewarm support among member-states.
And for all of China’s well-meaning articulations of support as conveyed by Yechury, there is as yet no certainty that China actually favours an expansion in the Security Council. As a WikiLeaks cable from April 2009 made clear, China was concerned by the “momentum” that was building up for Security Council reform, which it felt was “not good” for the five permanent members. That cable also quoted Chinese officials as telling US diplomats that the US should not be “proactive” on the subject – and that the “P-5 club” should not be diluted – as, otherwise, “if we end up with a P-10”, both China and the US would be in trouble.
And at the recent Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting, too, China effectively argued against India’s membership proposal.
In other words, for all the words of Chinese goodwill whispered into Yechury’s ears, India could be banging on the doors of the Big Power railway compartment for a long while.
India’s Big Power aspirations face bigger hurdles | Firstpost
On a tour of party duty in China, comrade Sitaram Yechury has some seemingly gratifying news to convey. Chinese leaders, he says, have assured him that China is keen to improve its relations with India – and that it will even support India’s candidature for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council under certain conditions.
For many in India, which aspires for a seat at the High Table of global governance, it would appear that Yechury has succeeded where countless persuasive Indian diplomats have failed: in securing support for India’s candidature from China, the only one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council that has thus far held back on its support.
India's dreams of permanent membership of the UN Security Council face high hurdles. Chip East / Reuters
And what conditions must India meet? According to Yechury, India must disassociate itself from making a joint bid for permanent membership along with three other countries – Japan, Germany and Brazil – who too want in. Given the historical strains in China’s relations with Japan – going back to Japanese occupation and wartime aggression – China would never support Japan, and India would lose out if it tied itself to Japan’s bid.
Is this a game-changing prescription that could see India’s Big Power dream come true? Should India become more pragmatic, abandon its allies, and go it alone?
Jaswant Singh, one of the most delightful storytellers in Indian politics, once drew on an earthy metaphor to explain the cynical mechanics of Big Power politics. Gaining admittance into the Power Club, he said, was a bit like jostling with a crowd to get into an unreserved train compartment: you do whatever it takes to get in, whereas those inside want to keep you out. But once you manage to get in, you become an ‘insider’ and your best interests lie in similarly ensuring that no one else gets in.
India has for some time now been banging on the door of the Big Power compartment, demanding entry on the strength of its growing economic muscle, and the fact that it is home to one-sixth of humanity. In informal alliance with Japan, Germany and Brazil, it has been pitching for permanent membership of the Security Council, that most exclusive of High Tables.
But to its eternal frustration, that door has been wedged firmly in place by the five permanent members inside – the US, the UK, Russia, France and China – who don’t want to debase their club’s exclusivity by letting more members in.
In recent years, however, and particularly after the 2008 global financial crisis showed up the changing nature of global economic dynamics, there’s been some chatter about reshaping the power balance at international institutions, including the Security Council. The ostensible purpose of such a rebalancing was to make more room for emerging economies and for countries like Japan and Germany (which, though big economies, were on the wrong side of the Second World War, when the current security architecture was drawn up).
Stepping up its diplomatic offensive last year, India secured the support of four of the five permanent members (barring China) for its candidacy. During his visit to India in November last year, US President Barack Obama offered the most unambiguous support: in an address to the Indian parliament, he said, “In the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.”
Yet, the process of reforming the Security Council is exceedingly complex. As Dr Stewart M. Patrick, global governance expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, explained in an interview to me last year, given the entrenched vested interests, there are “high hurdle” for such reforms.
And recent effort by the Group of 4 nations (India, Japan, Germany and Brazil) to circulate a resolution seeking an expansion in the UN Security Council met with at best lukewarm support among member-states.
And for all of China’s well-meaning articulations of support as conveyed by Yechury, there is as yet no certainty that China actually favours an expansion in the Security Council. As a WikiLeaks cable from April 2009 made clear, China was concerned by the “momentum” that was building up for Security Council reform, which it felt was “not good” for the five permanent members. That cable also quoted Chinese officials as telling US diplomats that the US should not be “proactive” on the subject – and that the “P-5 club” should not be diluted – as, otherwise, “if we end up with a P-10”, both China and the US would be in trouble.
And at the recent Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting, too, China effectively argued against India’s membership proposal.
In other words, for all the words of Chinese goodwill whispered into Yechury’s ears, India could be banging on the doors of the Big Power railway compartment for a long while.
India’s Big Power aspirations face bigger hurdles | Firstpost
navtrek
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2009
- Messages
- 3,169
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Correct me if i am wrong but i remember that the Russians support India with Veto power
dont they ?
tvsram1992
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,808
- Reaction score
- -1
Yes, even french will be ready if they win MRCA.Correct me if i am wrong but i remember that the Russians support India with Veto power
I think a lot of people are not really looking at the big picture here.
The permanent members of the Security Council with veto powers were originally picked as they were the 5 strongest powers on the winning side in WW2. And before anyone says anything about China, yes they contributed massively by fighting the Japanese, which was the only reason that the Indian subcontinent was not overrun by the Japanese.
Now things have changed slightly since 1945. New great powers are now starting to emerge. There are some strong candidates for a permanent seat with veto power but by far the strongest must be India.
The UN might as well disband itself if by 2030, if by then India is not in there with a permanent seat. The idea of a country that has around 20% of the world's population not being in there would be preposterous. The only reason that it has not already happened is due to both history and also India's poor economic performance from independence in 1947 till 1991. But it has now revolutionised it's economy since 1991 and Indians these days are disappointed with "only" 8% GDP growth when in the 5 decades after independence they could barely managed 4% a year on average.
Others like Brazil are surely likely to end up being a permanent veto-wielding member but India is by far the strongest candidate.
The permanent members of the Security Council with veto powers were originally picked as they were the 5 strongest powers on the winning side in WW2. And before anyone says anything about China, yes they contributed massively by fighting the Japanese, which was the only reason that the Indian subcontinent was not overrun by the Japanese.
Now things have changed slightly since 1945. New great powers are now starting to emerge. There are some strong candidates for a permanent seat with veto power but by far the strongest must be India.
The UN might as well disband itself if by 2030, if by then India is not in there with a permanent seat. The idea of a country that has around 20% of the world's population not being in there would be preposterous. The only reason that it has not already happened is due to both history and also India's poor economic performance from independence in 1947 till 1991. But it has now revolutionised it's economy since 1991 and Indians these days are disappointed with "only" 8% GDP growth when in the 5 decades after independence they could barely managed 4% a year on average.
Others like Brazil are surely likely to end up being a permanent veto-wielding member but India is by far the strongest candidate.
faithfulguy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 13,651
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
What would India do if the British set the same condition on Typhoon.
India should disassociate political moves like this from military purchases and reject any ties of UNSC membership with military purchase.
On the side note, no one would support a new candidate with a veto power. What India need to do is be patient. If India is relevant enough that UNSC will not function without India, then either India would be asked to join with veto power or another organization will be formed with India that will supersede the authority of the UNSC. We can see the case of G8 replaced by G20. If for some reason the UNSC structure never changed for another 50-100 years, India only have itself to blame as it never make itself relevant, do not blame the other
faithfulguy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 13,651
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Correct me if i am wrong but i remember that the Russians support India with Veto power
No one supports a new permanent member with veto power.
Japan is not a good friend because they have discriminated us based on nuclear technology even now they have stopped the nuclear negotiation both the country had because of Fukhishima disaster...........Japanese are only interested in the big automobile market they have in INdia......
If India and China work their difference and along with Russia we G3 can be a very deadly combo in all areas and fields.............I am always for peace and big time friendship with China, Russia and Pakistan ofcourse......... we will be a mighty big match for US and West!!!!!!!!!!!
Skull and Bones
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 18,601
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
It can also be said like "Not a single member mentioned anything about VETO".
danger007
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,007
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
you mean handover Kashmir to Pakistan. it wont happen
^^^^ don't troll. how can India be strongest?? currently after USA and China Pakistan (and may be after Russia) is strongest country. get your facts correct and don't post anything just for the sake of posting
Yes sir, yes sir.
In fact, Pakistan is the superpower and the strongest country in the world. Happy??
