Expansion essential to make UN security council credible: India

[Jade]

Be very careful what you wish for. Too many people create problems.

Even in the year 2040, it is the US that'd be the largest consumer market. Through and through. A large population wouldn't mean much. Even an educated one.

India always had more population than most countries through out India's history. Population is a not a problem for India, and Hinduism that celebrates life has always had a calming effect on our way of life. And as on consumer market, irrespective of other consumer markets, India is going to be one hell of a consumer market. Every corporation will want to be in India or will fail.

Now, what could effect India from reaching its full potential? IMO 1) Corruption 2) Diseases 3) Caste system 4) Conflicts with Pakistan or China 5) Armed conflicts with in such as Kashmir 6) regional conflicts among states. 7) Illiteracy

I don't see Population, currency fluctuation, size of the economy or economic growth as most posters have pointed out to be of concern for India on long term basis.

 

[Destro]

It is not the question of your liking or hating.

Germany is the past, India is the future. We have the size, population, military, influence, and economy that can match any of the aspirants of UNSC or the members of UNSC. Moreover, unlike Germany, these above parameters are going to grow enormously for India in future. Imagine a world 20 years hence, and then imagine Germany and India's place in such a world. You will get the answer.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether India gets into UNSC or not. At least I don't care. Apart from China and US, I don't see anyone competing directly with India 20 years hence . India will have its own sphere of influence that will rivals any of the great power in future and that sphere of influence also includes Bangladesh.

20 years from there won't even be an India.

As SUPARCO has said, India's economic ranking was the same now as that of 1990.
20 years and no progress relative to other countries.

India can never be a powerful country because the concept of India is like the concept of Yugoslavia. It's ethnically and religiously divided. As Lee Kuan Yew said, India is a union of 34 countries glued together. These type of unions collapse once the people get food in their bellies and they want to get involved in politics.

India will always remain like it is. It will eventually break up as the Indian economy has has its growth peak and it will slow down from now due to the horrible fundamentals.

 

[Jade]

20 years from there won't even be an India.

As SUPARCO has said, India's economic ranking was the same now as that of 1990.
20 years and no progress relative to other countries.

India can never be a powerful country because the concept of India is like the concept of Yugoslavia. It's ethnically and religiously divided. As Lee Kuan Yew said, India is a union of 34 countries glued together. These type of unions collapse once the people get food in their bellies and they want to get involved in politics.

India will always remain like it is. It will eventually break up as the Indian economy has has its growth peak and it will slow down from now due to the horrible fundamentals.

Don't bother, before India is going to be no more, Indians are going to make sure China too is wiped from the face of the earth. We too have nukes.

 

[Destro]

Every country has a future, but the question is how much its future is going to affect the world around them that matters. As you correctly mentioned India will be developing for many years, that is where all the difference lies. A developing economy and that too a size of India will bring with it wealth of opportunities and growth at much faster rate than say any advanced economy.

By all means India is going to over take China in population with in next 15 years and would reach 1.7 billion by 2040. Imagine the size of India's economy by by 2040 even if it grows by a modest 5 to 6%, and imagine the relatively well off consumer market of 1.7 billion by 2040. With this kind of market power, India is sure to wield a huge influence across the world.

98% of India's population is in absolute poverty that are uneducated. They contribute nothing to society and India will have to deal with a population that's as similar to China but with 3 times less land area. India is too overpopulated as they breed like crazy and the regime can't build enough schools to educate these people.

India also don't have the resources to grow. Infrastructure is inadequate to deal with the overpopulation.

India's problems are the same problems Africa has. Too many people the state cant support and not enough schools to educate them. 

Don't bother, before India is going to be no more, Indians are going to make sure China too is wiped from the face of the earth. We too have nukes.

Who said anything about nukes, India has separatist groups all across India. When the regime loses control, India will Balkanize. 

India always had more population than most countries through out India's history. Population is a not a problem for India, and Hinduism that celebrates life has always had a calming effect on our way of life. And as on consumer market, irrespective of other consumer markets, India is going to be one hell of a consumer market. Every corporation will want to be in India or will fail.

Now, what could effect India from reaching its full potential? IMO 1) Corruption 2) Diseases 3) Caste system 4) Conflicts with Pakistan or China 5) Armed conflicts with in such as Kashmir 6) regional conflicts among states. 7) Illiteracy

I don't see Population, currency fluctuation, size of the economy or economic growth as most posters have pointed out to be of concern for India on long term basis.

Overpopulation and separatist movements will get the better of India. By 2050, there won't be an India. There will be Khalistan, Tamil Nadu, etc as countries.

India is very much like Yugoslavia.

 

[Zabaniyah]

India always had more population than most countries through out India's history. Population is a not a problem for India, and Hinduism that celebrates life has always had a calming effect on our way of life. And as on consumer market, irrespective of other consumer markets, India is going to be one hell of a consumer market. Every corporation will want to be in India or will fail.

Sorry, I rather prefer to be pragmatic than religious. But true, India is an attractive market for foreign investors. But how does that fit for UNSC criteria?

Not to mention staple goods like FMCG's are provided by the likes of Unilever and P&G, both Western corporations. Do you have any idea how much money those guys make? The tax revenue their governments earn out of them? It's massive. And that's partly why they are so powerful.

Sure, foreigners would like to invest in India, but the issue of control ultimately lies with them. Means very little in regards to UNSC.

And if I'm not mistaken, Indian consumers are highly ethnocentric. They'd prefer a low-quality Indian made product over a foreign made one any day. Generally speaking that is.

Now, what could effect India from reaching its full potential? IMO 1) Corruption 2) Diseases 3) Caste system 4) Conflicts with Pakistan or China 5) Armed conflicts with in such as Kashmir 6) regional conflicts among states. 7) Illiteracy

I don't see Population, currency fluctuation, size of the economy or economic growth as most posters have pointed out to be of concern for India on long term basis.

Good points. War is undoubtedly a factor. So is corruption and various insurgencies.

Currency fluctuations are usually always temporary, and should not have any impact in India's economy. It can pay off its debts tomorrow if it wants to.

Population is important, yes. But, it should be at an optimal level and at healthy growth so that folks can enjoy decent standards of living. But even then, people can create problems. Too many, becomes just too many.

Rule of thumb in economics: Wants are unlimited, whereas resources are limited.

 

[Kolaps]

UNITED NATIONS: Stressing on the need for reform of the UN security council, India has said expansion in its membership is essential to make the world body credible and ensure continued confidence of the international community in the institution.

...............................................................

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...ouncil-five-permanent-members-working-methods

If India want the chair, some of the European members should be expelled.

UN security council should remain small. Bigger number just make the decision maker harder, at the end make UN useless.

I'm agree that India should be part of it, since 4 of 5 members are European, we need more non-European...theoretically. China and India should work together for the benefit of whole world.

But but but...India is still a poor country with a lot of problem inside. India should prove themselves to the world first that India is capable and reliable.

 

[Kambojaric]

The current security council makeup represents the post WWII era power structure. France and UK today are however far from major powers and essentially only vote what the western worlds hegemon the US decides for them. I say remove these two and add Brazil and Turkey as permanent members.

 

[faithfulguy]

The current security council makeup represents the post WWII era power structure. France and UK today are however far from major powers and essentially only vote what the western worlds hegemon the US decides for them. I say remove these two and add Brazil and Turkey as permanent members.

If France and GB vote as what US dictates, than there are actually 3 decision makers there. The less number of decision makers, the less conflicts. No need to add more members with decision making ability unless UNSC cannot function without them.

There are no countries outside of UNSC that UNSC can do without.

 

[vostok]

UNSC formed on the basis of the last great war. If someone want review the composition of the UN Security Council - he will have to revise the outcome of the war. That is - to start and win a new war.

 

[faithfulguy]

UNSC formed on the basis of the last great war. If someone want review the composition of the UN Security Council - he will have to revise the outcome of the war. That is - to start and win a new war.

If that is the case, than you are shutting the door on Indian aspiration of being UNSC member. I propose that if UNSC cannot survive India as a permanent member, than India should be invited. Until then, India should wait quietly for the invitation. How India can get invited will not be base on how much India whines or complains. But on actual results it produces. So far, it does not produce any result that warrants a permanent membership in UNSC.

 

[vostok]

If that is the case, than you are shutting the door on Indian aspiration of being UNSC member. I propose that if UNSC cannot survive India as a permanent member, than India should be invited. Until then, India should wait quietly for the invitation. How India can get invited will not be base on how much India whines or complains. But on actual results it produces. So far, it does not produce any result that warrants a permanent membership in UNSC.

Personally, I am completely opposed to the expansion of the UN Security Council. If you start to review the most important thing, the core of UN - Security Council membership, then you can review everything. It is better to let it stay the way it is.

 

[twocents]

Personally, I am completely opposed to the expansion of the UN Security Council. If you start to review the most important thing, the core of UN - Security Council membership, then you can review everything. It is better to let it stay the way it is.

UNSC has been pretty non-functional as is. New members will bring more gridlock, especially if they insist on having the veto. A lot of noise has been made for the past 20 years but nothing is going to happen for at least the next 20. We shall see.

 

[Kambojaric]

If France and GB vote as what US dictates, than there are actually 3 decision makers there. The less number of decision makers, the less conflicts. No need to add more members with decision making ability unless UNSC cannot function without them.

There are no countries outside of UNSC that UNSC can do without.

We are entering an era which is not bipolar (like the cold war) or unipolar (past two decades) but multi polar. If the UNSC does not adapt to this change then it will become more and more a useless organization. Many countries in Africa, South America, Middle East and South and South East Asia are rising both economically and militarily speaking. Excluding them from the supreme authority on this planet, above independent nations, that the UN claims to be would mean that these countries will become increasingly disgruntled. Russia, China and the US are and will remain major players but one would have to be blind to ignore the increasing presence of say Turkey in the Middle East and SE Europe. If the UN wants to continue to claim being representative of all the regions and all the nations of this earth, then it will have to adapt.

With regards to "adding" new members, im not doing that. Im simply replacing two countries whose views are nevertheless represented by the US in the SC anyways, so there is no need for them to be there in the first place. I will concede however that which countries should replace them will create a lot of problems. I have suggested Brazil and Turkey. Others will suggest India or South Africa, and have perfectly valid reasons to suggest that. BUT one thing that I am adamant about is that the UN does need to adapt with time. Otherwise it will become an organization that will become less and less relevant in the long run.

 

[faithfulguy]

We are entering an era which is not bipolar (like the cold war) or unipolar (past two decades) but multi polar. If the UNSC does not adapt to this change then it will become more and more a useless organization. Many countries in Africa, South America, Middle East and South and South East Asia are rising both economically and militarily speaking. Excluding them from the supreme authority on this planet, above independent nations, that the UN claims to be would mean that these countries will become increasingly disgruntled. Russia, China and the US are and will remain major players but one would have to be blind to ignore the increasing presence of say Turkey in the Middle East and SE Europe. If the UN wants to continue to claim being representative of all the regions and all the nations of this earth, then it will have to adapt.

With regards to "adding" new members, im not doing that. Im simply replacing two countries whose views are nevertheless represented by the US in the SC anyways, so there is no need for them to be there in the first place. I will concede however that which countries should replace them will create a lot of problems. I have suggested Brazil and Turkey. Others will suggest India or South Africa, and have perfectly valid reasons to suggest that. BUT one thing that I am adamant about is that the UN does need to adapt with time. Otherwise it will become an organization that will become less and less relevant in the long run.

And when the time to adopt comes, then UN will adapt to the changes. Look at the major economic group was G-7 at one time. Now, G-7 is less relevant as its replaced by G-20. Its because G-7 recognize it no longer has the ability to have proper economic influence so G-20 was created to replace it. (Now, G-7 is mostly a old friends get together)

The same can be say about UNSC. Eventually, new member will be added or a new organization will replace it. but the time for that is not yet at hand as UNSC still humming along.

 

[armchairPrivate]

For no valid reasons, I just like odd numbers. 3, 5, 7, 9,....

I just don't like deadlocks. For now, five is a good number.