China supports India's desire ‘to play bigger role’ in UN Security Council

[LaBong]

No current permanent members support any new members with veto power. permanent membership, yes. Veto power, no.

What is your source?

 

[ajtr]

"We support rational and necessary reform of the UN Security Council, and increasing the representation of developing countries at the UNSC should be a priority," said the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson.

Well that opens chances for pakistan to be on UNSC representing OIC.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

its all speculative at the moment. i agree apart from china, other p-5 countries will support india's entry into security council but its not confirmed wether the new entrants like germany japan or india will be given veto powers.

 

[BigTree.CN]

What is your source?

Any source that says they support India to get a membership with veto?

Given the current circumstances, one who only thinks with his feet is able to reach the conclusion that none of the P5 is willing to include anyone to dilute their exclusive power in UNSC.

 

[sid1508]

Dreaming!

So you are!

 

[Avatar]

Dreaming!

Why ? We already have what is ours, except for Aksai Chin.
Come take the rest if you want to.

 

[LaBong]

Any source that says they support India to get a membership with veto?

Given the current circumstances, one who only thinks with his feet is able to reach the conclusion that none of the P5 is willing to include anyone to dilute their exclusive power in UNSC.

The bold part is a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance, the burden of proof is not on me.

Rest is your opinion.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Why ? We already have what is ours, except for Aksai Chin.
Come take the rest if you want to.

Modern China isn't into military expansion. Negotiation is the way forward, like what happened during the HK handover and the Tajikistan deal.

Also, I like your signature.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

Modern China isn't into military expansion. Negotiation is the way forward, like what happened during the HK handover and the Tajikistan deal.

Also, I like your signature.

i agree with u CD but problem is i think china has till now succeffully negotiated all border disputes in its favour. in this case, i dont think a resolution is possible without each side ceeding some ground to other.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The bold part is a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance, the burden of proof is not on me.

Rest is your opinion.

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person who made the positive claim.

Faithful guy made a negative claim (that India was -not- promised veto power by any of the P5).

Just out of curiosity, which P5 member has supported India gaining UNSC veto power?

 

[LaBong]

Actually, the burden of proof is on the person who made the positive claim.

Faithful guy made a negative claim (that India was -not- promised veto power by any of the P5).

Just out of curiosity, which P5 member has supported India gaining UNSC veto power?

Who's that person?

You're getting impatient with ambiguity, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Who's that person?

No one. Which is why I prefaced my last question with, "just out of curiosity"...

 

[LaBong]

No one. Which is why I prefaced my last question with, "just out of curiosity"...

I meant who's the person who made positive claim?

P5 not mentioning veto power doesn't prove that they are against it.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I meant who's the person who made positive claim?

No one, as far as I can tell. At least not about the P5 promising veto power to India.

P5 not mentioning veto power doesn't prove that they are against it.

That's true. I was just asking my question out of curiosity.

 

[LaBong]

That's true. I was just asking my question out of curiosity.

No one has mentioned the word veto as far as I know, but India has been very clear that she wants permanent membership with veto power when she appealed for it.