China vows firm support for UN

[ahojunk]

China vows firm support for UN
2016-11-29 08:17 | Xinhua | Editor: Mo Hong'e

Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) meets with United Nations Secretary-General designate Antonio Guterres
in Beijing, capital of China, Nov. 28, 2016. (Photo Xinhua/Rao Aimin)​

Chinese President Xi Jinping met United Nations Secretary-General designate Antonio Guterres in Beijing on Monday, vowing stronger cooperation with the UN and firm support for its work.

Calling the UN the "most universal, representative and authoritative inter-governmental international organization," Xi said it has played an irreplaceable role in addressing global challenges.

Countries around the world expect the UN to play a greater role as the international situation develops, Xi said.

"The UN should uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, safeguard international peace and security, promote common development, and, in particular, implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on climate change," Xi said.

He called on the UN to take care of developing countries' interests, and give more voice and do more for such countries.

Guterres, on a China trip from Monday to Tuesday, said he appreciated China's support for his election as UN chief. He was appointed by the UN General Assembly in October to succeed Ban Ki-moon as UN secretary-general.

China has become an important pillar in the UN cause and multilateralism, said the 67-year-old Portuguese.

This year marks the 45th anniversary of China's restoration to its seat in the UN.

Hailing China-UN cooperation over the past years, Xi said China will continue to join and back UN cooperation in various areas, support UN work and multilateralism, and uphold international order with the purpose and principles of the UN Charter at the core.

Xi proposed facilitating China-UN cooperation by allowing for the leading role of high-level exchanges, and pushing forward progress in implementing China's measures to support the UN, which he announced when visiting UN headquarters in September 2015.

The measures included offering 2 billion U.S. dollars to set up a fund to support South-South cooperation, and establishing a permanent peacekeeping police squad and a peacekeeping standby force of 8,000 troops.

Guterres said Xi's proposals to back UN work at the UN summit last year were inspiring.

China has made a great contribution to world peace and development by initiating the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), participating in UN peacekeeping operations and mediation, as well as helping other developing countries, said the UN chief designate.

He pledged stronger cooperation with China in boosting world peace, stability and prosperity.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang (R) meets with United Nations Secretary-General designate Antonio Guterres
in Beijing, capital of China, Nov. 28, 2016. (Xinhua/Yao Dawei)​

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, State Councilor Yang Jiechi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi also met with Guterres on Monday.

Guterres will start a five-year term on Jan. 1, 2017. He was prime minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002, and served as UN High Commissioner for Refugees from 2005 to 2015.

 

[maximuswarrior]

Good to see China taking the lead role.

 

[TaiShang]

With China rising in power and influence, the UNSC system makes more sense.

The reference to South-South cooperation is very interesting. I thought this had already dropped from China's diplomatic corpus.

I even criticized a colleague on her paper on the AIIB and South-South cooperation. I need to admit I was wrong.

 

[shadows888]

With China rising in power and influence, the UNSC system makes more sense.

The reference to South-South cooperation is very interesting. I thought this had already dropped from China's diplomatic corpus.

I even criticized a colleague on her paper on the AIIB and South-South cooperation. I need to admit I was wrong.

The UNSC is still highly unfair. should drop UK and France and include India and a EU rep instead.

 

[TaiShang]

The UNSC is still highly unfair. should drop UK and France and include India and a EU rep instead.

India would not tip the balance. It would only replace UK and FR as an addition to the US sphere of influence.

In fact, now potential changes in UK and FR leaderships, their presence makes more sense. Including India would simply create a Pacific Alliance based on the US; a geographic change from the Atlantic alliance.

It would be the last thing we would want -- a Pacific Alliance modeled after the Atlantic Alliance at the UNSC. That's a terrible proposition.

EU cannot join as an institution, because it has many sovereign nations under it. AT the UNSC, it cannot veto or propose resolutions on behalf of some 23 countries.

I guess, now the Atlantic alliance declining and China-Russia alliance is growing, the UNSC is in its historically most perfect shape.

Keep it as it is.

@Chinese-Dragon , @terranMarine , @Dungeness , @long_

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The UNSC is still highly unfair. should drop UK and France and include India and a EU rep instead.

India just signed the LEMOA which basically means the US military can use Indian bases on Indian soil whenever they want.

How is that different from giving another vote to the USA?

At least France regularly votes against America, they have a reputation as a wild card in the UNSC.

 

[TaiShang]

India just signed the LEMOA which basically means the US military can use Indian bases on Indian soil whenever they want.

How is that different from giving another vote to the USA?

At least France regularly votes against America, they have a reputation as a wild card in the UNSC.

Exactly, brother.

I believe the UN is currently in its best shape.

I see no practical reason why China would like to allow any changes to it.

India or others need another world war to establish a new order. Otherwise, it is unchangeable. That's probably why we never hear China, while criticizing practical aspects of global governance, never talks negatively about the UNSC.

Right now, if China or Russia does not want to pass a UNSC Resolution, no power in this universe would force them to do otherwise.

Why change or even disturb such a position of prime influence?

 

[IndoUS]

India just signed the LEMOA which basically means the US military can use Indian bases on Indian soil whenever they want.

How is that different from giving another vote to the USA?

At least France regularly votes against America, they have a reputation as a wild card in the UNSC.

Correction, they can't use military bases in the country they can only use the naval ports for refueling which is only good for peacetime, during war the access will be denied.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Correction, they can't use military bases in the country they can only use the naval ports for refueling which is only good for peacetime, during war the access will be denied.

India doesn't have the capability to throw the US military out of Indian bases, not a single Indian weapon system can reach the American mainland. They could bomb you into the stone age and you couldn't even scratch them in retaliation.

You just have to ask them, and hope they do it. If they decide not to leave during wartime, well tough luck. This is what happens when you give the US military the right to use your bases on your own soil, i.e. the sale of your sovereignty.

Indians were never tired of warning Pakistan what that meant, but ironically India leapfrogged Pakistan straight into signing the LEMOA.

 

[AndrewJin]

Exactly, brother.

I believe the UN is currently in its best shape.

I see no practical reason why China would like to allow any changes to it.

India or others need another world war to establish a new order. Otherwise, it is unchangeable. That's probably why we never hear China, while criticizing practical aspects of global governance, never talks negatively about the UNSC.

Right now, if China or Russia does not want to pass a UNSC Resolution, no power in this universe would force them to do otherwise.

Why change or even disturb such a position of prime influence?

UNSC membership should be granted to real independent countries, China and Russia deserve it.

 

[Jlaw]

India doesn't have the capability to throw the US military out of Indian bases, not a single Indian weapon system can reach the American mainland. They could bomb you into the stone age and you couldn't even scratch them in retaliation.

You just have to ask them, and hope they do it. If they decide not to leave during wartime, well tough luck. This is what happens when you give the US military the right to use your bases on your own soil, i.e. the sale of your sovereignty.

Indians were never tired of warning Pakistan what that meant, but ironically India leapfrogged Pakistan straight into signing the LEMOA.

Apparently India never learned from Iraq, Libya, Grenada, Nicaragua, Afghanista..,

 

[IndoUS]

India doesn't have the capability to throw the US military out of Indian bases, not a single Indian weapon system can reach the American mainland. They could bomb you into the stone age and you couldn't even scratch them in retaliation.

You just have to ask them, and hope they do it. If they decide not to leave during wartime, well tough luck. This is what happens when you give the US military the right to use your bases on your own soil, i.e. the sale of your sovereignty.

Indians were never tired of warning Pakistan what that meant, but ironically India leapfrogged Pakistan straight into signing the LEMOA.

What? India doesn't even have a fight with US why would they need weapons to reach US. The incoherence in your statement seems like you have zero interest in actual discussing but just usual trolling. Secondly why would US need base in India when it has bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Diego Garcia, South East Asia and so on. And lastly India didn't allow Russia to host it's bases in India why would US be allowed. Any party that allows foreign soldiers would be rooted out in election so that fails the entire point.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

What? India doesn't even have a fight with US why would they need weapons to reach US. The incoherence in your statement seems like you have zero interest in actual discussing but just usual trolling. Secondly why would US need base in India when it has bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Diego Garcia, South East Asia and so on. And lastly India didn't allow Russia to host it's bases in India why would US be allowed. Any party that allows foreign soldiers would be rooted out in election so that fails the entire point.

The point is, after India signed away their sovereignty, they lost the ability to say no. They can only beg and plead on the goodwill of the US military to be kind, they have no actual means of retaliation if the USA decides to revisit their 1970's view of India (sending Carriers against them).

Depending on the goodwill of foreigners (Westerners in this case) is not good geopolitics, since they can always change their mind.

Why do you think China developed ICBM's and thermonuclear warheads way back in the 1970's. India could build these things too, but they are afraid of having the capability to strike back against Westerners.

 

[IndoUS]

The point is, after India signed away their sovereignty, they lost the ability to say no. They can only beg and plead on the goodwill of the US military to be kind, they have no actual means of retaliation if the USA decides to revisit their 1970's view of India (sending Carriers to threaten them).

Lol an agreement that allows both side to refuel at port during peacetime. In that case any nation that signs agreement with other nation is selling their sovereignty.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Lol an agreement that allows both side to refuel at port during peacetime. In that case any nation that signs agreement with other nation is selling their sovereignty.

Just think about it, what if the USA turns anti-India again like they did during the 1970's?

Would you ask them to "please" leave Indian military bases? They will laugh in your face. The decision no longer belongs to you.

That's what happens after you sell your sovereignty. After all these years of Indians warning Pakistan about exactly this, it so happens that India was the one who wanted to sell their sovereignty all along.