Does India Qualify For UNSC Special Status?Poll

[Chinese-Dragon]

At the time that China became a permanent member, it was not a particularly strong or influential country. However it was one of the "big four" Allies during World War II and had a strong relationship with the United States.
Keep in mind that this China was the Republic of China, with whom the United States had very close political and military ties, and not the Communist government that later came to power as the People's Republic of China, which only took over China's Security Council seat in 1971.

I am well aware the seat was held by the Republic of China, but the seat belongs to a COUNTRY, not a government. That's why it passed to the People's Republic of China when the world recognized it as the representative of China, like the Soviet Union's seat passed to the Russian Federation.

The requirements in 1945 were for an independent country, which India was not, they were a part of the British Empire at that time.

But none of that particularly matters.

What matters is why would the P5 dilute their veto power, when the new entrants might vote against them?

 

[Levina]

India doesn't have the resources or influence compared to the current P5. Those rich people earned this position through their strength. And even now can project power (soft or hard) across the globe. India can neither. Instead of begging, India should quietly develop itself so that giving it a seat becomes inevitable.

The reason why I think India should make it to UN security council is that

• India is a frequent rotational member of UN,
• relatively more trusted by other countries including middle
• India's contribution to UN peacekeeping force
• India has the support of some major players like France, russia...and US(thats what Obama had to say).

But then they 're very slim chances of India making it to UN's permanent members as whatever support P5 may give India is nothing but lip service, they will likely keep tabling the issue because allowing one country to join the permanent members sets a precedent that might open a floodgate and upset the power balance.

 

[Ind4Ever]

H ow can you ignore 1.3 billion people democracy with world's largest skilled work force with nuclear power ?

YES YES YES YES YES With VETO Power No one can stop us. We are the future of humanity , unity and prosperity . We can improve the life of billions across the world With our more innovative mind and young blood .

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

1. Africa is a continent not a country.

2. which country in Africa or Middle East represents a major chunk of human population.

3. UNO stands for United Nations Organisation. Africa is not a nation and neither is middle East.

So India should be represented, but the vast populations in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and SE Asia should not be?

And if we give permanent seats by country population, then the entire UNSC would be composed of developing countries.

Which are not actually more powerful than the developed countries, and lack the economic/military/diplomatic influence to actually do the job of the UNSC.

Power projection and economic strength is currently dominated almost entirely by developed countries. USA + EU alone make up more GDP and military power than the rest of the world combined.

 

[Kloitra]

I am well aware the seat was held by the Republic of China, but the seat belongs to a COUNTRY, not a government. That's why it passed to the People's Republic of China when the world recognized it as the representative of China, like the Soviet Union's seat passed to the Russian Federation.

The requirements in 1945 were for an independent country, which India was not, they were a part of the British Empire at that time.

But none of that particularly matters.

What matters is why would the P5 dilute their veto power, when the new entrants might vote against them?

On that note, India generally (very rarely) doesn't go against any P5 on international matters. Indian concerns are very regional, quite close to home.

 

[Ind4Ever]

India is "special" like "differently enabled"

Like our mainlanders ... ..... .... .... .. Short

 

[Kloitra]

The reason why I think India should make it to UN security council is that

• India is a frequent rotational member of UN,
• relatively more trusted by other countries including middle
• India's contribution to UN peacekeeping force
• India has the support of some major players like France, russia...and US(thats what Obama had to say).

I agree, but do you think that it is on par with the P5? They are both economic and military powers. With global influence.
I can't see India standing on par with them right now.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

On that note, India generally (very rarely) doesn't go against any P5 on international matters. Indian concerns are very regional, quite close to home.

But we're not voting on India alone, we can't reform the UNSC for every prospective member. Even one reform is taking (apparently) forever.

It will be one big reform resolution (if it ever comes) which will include ALL of the G4. So if anyone in the P5 has a problem with Brazil, Japan, Germany, India (and maybe South Africa as a +1), then the entire reform resolution won't pass.

Look at the G4, it's a very pro-American bunch. How do you think China and Russia will give veto powers to them, just for them to vote on behalf of America?

Russia alone would stop it, and China has already said we will veto Japan. So it's a no-go.

 

[ares]

So India should be represented, but the vast populations in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and SE Asia should not be?

And if we give permanent seats by country population, then the entire UNSC would be composed of developing countries.

Which are not actually more powerful than the developed countries, and lack the economic/military/diplomatic influence to actually do the job of the UNSC.

They should be represented, if you can find a single country amongst them, which represents the entire region.
Does South Africa represents entire Africa, or Does Nigeria?
Similarly for Middle East.

Population is just of one of the criterias where India deserves a seat, there are so many more which qualify India to be the premanent member.

 

[Levina]

What matters is why would the P5 dilute their veto power, when the new entrants might vote against them?

Veto power has been used by P5 for their own good, it has become a political tool in hands of a few rendering the security council impotent.
USA uses its veto power very generously, almost always against resolutions that are critical of Israel.
China has been reluctant to use its veto, except with regard to issues that pertain directly to Chinese national interests, Syria should be an example.
So UN needs a more neutral country among its permanent members. Japan and India should make it!!

I agree, but do you think that it is on par with the P5? They are both economic and military powers. With global influence.
I can't see India standing on par with them right now.

As I mentioned earlier countries like China became more powerful only after it joined P5. And why do you think P5 countries 've always collectively and steadfastly refused to reform the voting system??/
It is because the veto gives each with privileges too great to rescind, they do not even consider the detrimental effect their veto has on the UN’s efficiency or the consequences it has on innocents caught up in mass atrocities.
Am I wrong?
So its the veto power which bestows more power on 'em.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Veto power has been used by P5 for their own good, it has become a political tool in hands of a few rendering the security council impotent.
USA uses its veto power very generously, almost always against resolutions that are critical of Israel.
China has been reluctant to use its veto, except with regard to issues that pertain directly to Chinese national interests, Syria should be an example.
So UN needs a more neutral country among its permanent members. Japan and India should make it!!

You'd be asking the P5 to dilute their veto power willingly.

India is known to be pro-Russian, how does America know you won't vote against them regarding sanctions against Russia? Or Iran sanctions?

Everyone saw Modi hugging Obama just now, as well as all the US-India defence deals, how do the Russians know India won't vote against them one day? Opinion polls show Indians are overwhelmingly positive towards America, for example.

China has an active territorial dispute with India, how on Earth could we expect India not to vote against us one day?

If India only "abstains" on every vote, then what's the point of being in the P5 at all?

Think about it from the perspective of the P5, they would be giving up their power for no benefit.

As I mentioned earlier countries like China became more powerful only after it joined P5.

True. China in 1945 was extremely weak, we only fulfilled the conditions just barely, of being a major independent allied power.

But today China has earned our place, we have the 2nd highest GDP and 2nd highest defence spending.

India should seek to surpass the GDP and defence spending of Britain and France first, currently even Saudi Arabia has a much larger defence budget than India.

 

[MilSpec]

In my personal opinion India doesn't need to be in the UNSC, at least not yet.. We should concentrate on our own reforms and developments, maintain the same refreshed foreign policy reforms. Stay absolutely out of any military coalition force that is policing around the world with UN peace keeping being the exception.

rest @nair in the words of Phusuk wangdu ......

 

[Levina]

You'd be asking the P5 to dilute their veto power willingly.


China has an active territorial dispute with India, how on Earth could we expect India not to vote against us one day?

If India only "abstains" on every vote, then what's the point of being in the P5 at all?

Think about it from the perspective of the P5.

Your this statement proves that India is very neutral....

India is known to be pro-Russian, how does America know you won't vote against them regarding sanctions against Russia? Or Iran sanctions?

Everyone saw Modi hugging Obama just now, as well as all the US-India defence deals, how do the Russians know India won't vote against them one day? Opinion polls show Indians overwhelmingly favor America, for example.

If India can be a friend to both Russia and America but at the same time if these countries feel that India could use its power to vote against 'em then it proves my point that we're neutral.

True. China in 1945 was extremely weak, we only fulfilled the conditions just barely, of being an independent allied power.

But today China has earned our place, we have the 2nd highest GDP and 2nd highest defence spending.

India should seek to surpass the GDP and defence spending of Britain and France first, currently even Saudi Arabia has a much larger defence budget than India.

GDP??
Defence budget?? really?
Pls dont make me snigger.
And for once I genuinely do want to see KSA make it to the permanent members of UN, they supported the Syrian cause after all.

 

[+4vsgorillas-Apebane]

The best path for India is to subvert France and the British and take one of their spots. Argue why they dont belong rather than trumping up Indian power and entitlement.

Not now though, the 2 European powers are still stronger than India on many important parameters.

I voted yes.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Your this statement proves that India is very neutral....

If India can be a friend to both Russia and America but at the same time if these countries feel that India could use its power to vote against 'em then it proves my point that we're neutral.

Then be neutral.

Why would China dilute our veto power in favor of India, when we have an active territorial dispute? India claims Chinese land (Aksai Chin) for example, how does it make sense for us to dilute our veto power in your favor?

How can you be neutral to us while claiming our land? That doesn't make sense.

Neutrality isn't a point in favor of P5 status anyway, it's just a wasted seat.

GDP??
Defence budget?? really?
Pls dont make me snigger.
And for once I genuinely do want to see KSA make it to the permanent members of UN, they supported the Syrian cause after all.

And China and Russia vetoed the Syria resolution.

What would India have done? Cave in to the threats and warnings from America and NATO to not veto their resolution? Joined with China and Russia to veto it?

Or just be "neutral" and abstain? Then what's the point of being on the P5 at all?