Expansion essential to make UN security council credible: India

[Kambojaric]

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.

The very fact that the G-20 is more important than the G-7 now is the general acceptance of the fact that there are a lot more new powers present in the world today. Not giving these new powers adequate representation in the UNSC is because the old group does not want to lose its political hold over world politics. Sooner or later they will have to give in, so better to do it sooner and get it done in a "friendly" atmosphere than have these new powers forcibly make their presence felt.

 

[Nan Yang]

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

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.

Maybe France should be removed. After all what did they do during WW2.

 

[faithfulguy]

The very fact that the G-20 is more important than the G-7 now is the general acceptance of the fact that there are a lot more new powers present in the world today. Not giving these new powers adequate representation in the UNSC is because the old group does not want to lose its political hold over world politics. Sooner or later they will have to give in, so better to do it sooner and get it done in a "friendly" atmosphere than have these new powers forcibly make their presence felt.

Did the members of G-20 forceful make their presence felt? Of course not. But G-20 was created because G-7 members realized that G-7 is not capable of have any impact so G-20 was created. No worries, once UNSC cannot operate without your country India, India will be invited to join.

 

[Kambojaric]

Did the members of G-20 forceful make their presence felt? Of course not. But G-20 was created because G-7 members realized that G-7 is not capable of have any impact so G-20 was created. No worries, once UNSC cannot operate without your country India, India will be invited to join.

Im Pakistani and personally would not like to see India become a SC member, but that is my personal opinion. If I look at it from an unbiased pov than considering the percentage of the global population that resides in India and the fact that as mentioned before 2 other countries already represent the vote that France would have given anyways, then India definitely has a bigger claim to a SC seat than say France.

 

[Speeder 2]

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. 


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


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.

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. 


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


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.

The easiest way to get India right is to think of sub-sahara Africa (SSA):

1. India is made of 34 or so tribes glued together; Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) has several dozens countries as well- they have a club called Africa Union.

2. India has 1 billion+ population and fast growing; SSA has 1 billion+ population and fast growing, too.

3, India's GDP per cap is similar to SSA's GDP per cap

4. SSA often has inter-tribal armed conflicts, hey, India, too, and has more!

5. India has the similar illiteracy rate as SSA, and HIV rate.

6. India is the only contender in the world to compete with SSA to get the title of the world's Rape Capital, and you know what India is almost there.

7. SSA is very hungry and malnutricious; however, India tops it being the most hungry country in the world. Only 7 States of India already have more hungry people than all of SSA combined. Beat that!

8. SSA is one of the largest Aids/free handout recepients in the world since the end of WW2. India, again, tops it on this.

9. SSA and India have the similar level of HDI.

10. SSA and India has the similar level of infrastructure: roads, eletricity , schools, hospitals, bridges, trains, slums... till even toilets or the lackof needless to say.

11. SSA and India share the world's bottom 2 lowest average IQ, with India 10 points higher.

12. If both SSA as a whole and India participate together in PISA test, they would monoply the bottom 2 on the list, perhaps permanently, without doubt.

13. Frankly speaking, Theie people look quite the same. You can't tell too much the facial difference btw SSAers and curry-munching Indians without sniffing.

...

I can go on.

So you see, in a nuteshell, India = Sub Sahara Africa (SSA), without the latter's natural resources though.

The differences are:

1. It is much easier to deal with SSA as they don't have the same level of hatred amongst themselves as Indians do, due to the lack of hungreds of casts, thousands of cults and millions of gods.

2. Unlike their Indian counterparts, menatally-healthy SSA dictators, democrated-elected leaders and SSA web surfers don't usuaully, at least I've never seen once myself, declare that they are world's superpower, neither seem they having an intention to be one in the foreseeable future.

3. Apart from having 0 desire of finding water or indoor-plumbing technology or whatsayyou on Mars, unlike their Indian counterparts SSA elite scientists can't afford the luxury of shooting some imported expansive Ruskie missile fireworks on some Christmas Day to celebrate the occasion.

and 4. On the OP, unlike their Indian counterparts, SSA people don't think it is their natural right, and haven't expressed their burning need, to lead the whole world by means of UNSC.

 

[Destro]

The easiest way to get India right is to think of sub-sahara Africa (SSA):

1. India is made of 34 or so tribes glued together; Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) has several dozens countries as well- they have a club called Africa Union.

2. India has 1 billion+ population and fast growing; SSA has 1 billion+ population and fast growing, too.

3, India's GDP per cap is similar to SSA's GDP per cap

4. SSA often has inter-tribal armed conflicts, hey, India, too, and has more!

5. India has the similar illiteracy rate as SSA, and HIV rate.

6. India is the only contender in the world to compete with SSA to get the title of the world's Rape Capital, and you know what India is almost there.

7. SSA is very hungry and malnutricious; however, India tops it being the most hungry country in the world. Only 7 States of India already have more hungry people than all of SSA combined. Beat that!

8. SSA is one of the largest Aids/free handout recepients in the world since the end of WW2. India, again, tops it on this.

9. SSA and India have the similar level of HDI.

10. SSA and India has the similar level of infrastructure: roads, eletricity , schools, hospitals, bridges, trains, slums... till even toilets or the lackof needless to say.

11. SSA and India share the world's bottom 2 lowest average IQ, with India 10 points higher.

12. If both SSA as a whole and India participate together in PISA test, they would monoply the bottom 2 on the list, perhaps permanently, without doubt.

13. Frankly speaking, Theie people look quite the same. You can't tell too much the facial difference btw SSAers and curry-munching Indians without sniffing.

...

I can go on.

So you see, in a nuteshell, India = Sub Sahara Africa (SSA), without the latter's natural resources though.

The differences are:

1. It is much easier to deal with SSA as they don't have the same level of hatred amongst themselves as Indians do, due to the lack of hungreds of casts, thousands of cults and millions of gods.

2. Unlike their Indian counterparts, menatally-healthy SSA dictators, democrated-elected leaders and SSA web surfers don't usuaully, at least I've never seen once myself, declare that they are world's superpower, neither seem they having an intention to be one in the foreseeable future.

3. Apart from having 0 desire of finding water or indoor-plumbing technology or whatsayyou on Mars, unlike their Indian counterparts SSA elite scientists can't afford the luxury of shooting some imported expansive Ruskie missile fireworks on some Christmas Day to celebrate the occasion.

and 4. On the OP, unlike their Indian counterparts, SSA people don't think it is their natural right, and haven't expressed their burning need, to lead the whole world by means of UNSC.

Best post on this forum I've seen so far.

Excellent observations.

Indians and sub-Saharan Africans are liabilities to the human race. Your post proves this.

 

[xunzi]

How many times do we have to keep repeating ourselves that the makeup of UNSC P5 is due to the outcome of the Great War. Because of that, they are forming the P5 with the objective aim of keeping security and world peace by preventing the great power from directly involved in war with each other and keep track of the distribution of arm and weapon around the world. It is no wonder that the P5 are top 10 Arm Exporter in the world and are nuclear recognized state. The danger they possess is enormous to world peace if they are not part of the UNSC.

It is regrettable that Germany is not part of the P5 because they are more deserving than any non-P5 members. Germany lost the great war, so the P5 had a stronghold on Germany, particularly by the US/Britain. But if UNSC doctrines were to be rewritten, then it has to dramatically changing the reform of the P5. No longer is the great war outcome consider importance, but instead, it will be form on the basis of security, economic, geopolitical matter. In that case, I have a proposal for the best representation of UNSC.


I propose a 3+Regional Blocs Permanent UNSC with veto right.

The 3 members are USA, China, Russia. And the regional blocs are EU, ASEAN, Arab League, South Asia league, Africa Union, and the Latin America Union.

That 9 Permanent members + 1 additional that can be vote in by General Assembly. To make it P10.

Who represent the regional bloc can be voted and decided by their regional members.

 

[deckingraj]

Are you referring to 1945 where ROC became a member of permanent security council or 1971 where PRC become a member of permanent security council?

I am very much talking about 1945...Now please don't give me this ROC/PRC concept...It was the question of who represents china..ROC was the one representing China during 1945 with simply no influence in any aspect on the world or even third world!!.....and still UN took a whopping 26 years to transfer the seat to its real owner(which by the way India supported!!)

Because by 1971, PRC is a nuclear state with ability to produce its own tanks, fighters and submarines. More importantly, PRC also managed to defeat a UN force at Korean Peninsula, Indians (which is, at the time, believed to be the leader of third world countries) during the skirmish at 1962 and managed a stalemate with USSR in 1969. Basically, PRC managed to stood its ground against all other members of UN permanent security council in open conflict and earned recognition for its military strength.

I will not indulge in this talk because i have a very different view on this..PRC was never a force to reckon with but then all it matters is the end result..

Now, RoC's track record isn't as great as PRC. It was able to wear out Japan in a war of attrition. Its expeditionary force's performance in Southeast Asia was also recognized by Allies. I will admit that the strength between China and India is rather close back in 1945. In fact, if history is different, there is a very real possibility for India to get on the permanent council. However, the reality is that when UN permanent security council is founded, India is still a British colony while China is an independent nation and by the time India managed enough influence, 1962 occurred and effectively confined India influence into the south Asia subcontinent.

That's all what i am trying to say...So this question about who can produce tanks blah blah is just an hogwash...To be fair had i been part of P5 i would simply ask why should i give India a veto power without finding anything in return?? and to be honest with you here in India we all know that this is not going to happen anytime sooner as well...However with passage of time world will realize that Ignoring India will not help and thiings will fall in place...so peace ..

 

[faithfulguy]

The easiest way to get India right is to think of sub-sahara Africa (SSA):

1. India is made of 34 or so tribes glued together; Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) has several dozens countries as well- they have a club called Africa Union.

2. India has 1 billion+ population and fast growing; SSA has 1 billion+ population and fast growing, too.

3, India's GDP per cap is similar to SSA's GDP per cap

4. SSA often has inter-tribal armed conflicts, hey, India, too, and has more!

5. India has the similar illiteracy rate as SSA, and HIV rate.

6. India is the only contender in the world to compete with SSA to get the title of the world's Rape Capital, and you know what India is almost there.

7. SSA is very hungry and malnutricious; however, India tops it being the most hungry country in the world. Only 7 States of India already have more hungry people than all of SSA combined. Beat that!

8. SSA is one of the largest Aids/free handout recepients in the world since the end of WW2. India, again, tops it on this.

9. SSA and India have the similar level of HDI.

10. SSA and India has the similar level of infrastructure: roads, eletricity , schools, hospitals, bridges, trains, slums... till even toilets or the lackof needless to say.

11. SSA and India share the world's bottom 2 lowest average IQ, with India 10 points higher.

12. If both SSA as a whole and India participate together in PISA test, they would monoply the bottom 2 on the list, perhaps permanently, without doubt.

13. Frankly speaking, Theie people look quite the same. You can't tell too much the facial difference btw SSAers and curry-munching Indians without sniffing.

...

I can go on.

So you see, in a nuteshell, India = Sub Sahara Africa (SSA), without the latter's natural resources though.

The differences are:

1. It is much easier to deal with SSA as they don't have the same level of hatred amongst themselves as Indians do, due to the lack of hungreds of casts, thousands of cults and millions of gods.

2. Unlike their Indian counterparts, menatally-healthy SSA dictators, democrated-elected leaders and SSA web surfers don't usuaully, at least I've never seen once myself, declare that they are world's superpower, neither seem they having an intention to be one in the foreseeable future.

3. Apart from having 0 desire of finding water or indoor-plumbing technology or whatsayyou on Mars, unlike their Indian counterparts SSA elite scientists can't afford the luxury of shooting some imported expansive Ruskie missile fireworks on some Christmas Day to celebrate the occasion.

and 4. On the OP, unlike their Indian counterparts, SSA people don't think it is their natural right, and haven't expressed their burning need, to lead the whole world by means of UNSC.

I have not seen any SSA superpower movie or video. have you seen one? Would making a movie qualify them for being a superpower?

 

[tranquilium]

I am very much talking about 1945...Now please don't give me this ROC/PRC concept...It was the question of who represents china..ROC was the one representing China during 1945 with simply no influence in any aspect on the world or even third world!!.....and still UN took a whopping 26 years to transfer the seat to its real owner(which by the way India supported!!)

I will not indulge in this talk because i have a very different view on this..PRC was never a force to reckon with but then all it matters is the end result..

That's all what i am trying to say...So this question about who can produce tanks blah blah is just an hogwash...To be fair had i been part of P5 i would simply ask why should i give India a veto power without finding anything in return?? and to be honest with you here in India we all know that this is not going to happen anytime sooner as well...However with passage of time world will realize that Ignoring India will not help and thiings will fall in place...so peace ..

Actually, RoC has a great deal of influence in 1945. It has a four million men army with decent training and better equipment than most third world countries. There is also the fact that India was still a colony at the time.

As for whether PRC is force to be reckon with, we only need to look at the wars it has fought. I mean if PRC is not a force to be reckon with, what does it make UN forces at Korea Peninsula, Indian forces in 1962 or USSR forces at 1969?

 

[Nav]

1/3 of the population is Muslim . they are rich with Natural resources . but still they don't have permanent seat in UNSC..

 

[deckingraj]

Actually, RoC has a great deal of influence in 1945. It has a four million men army with decent training and better equipment than most third world countries. There is also the fact that India was still a colony at the time.

Just because they had equipment better than most third world countries(even that is debatable) doesn't make them a world leader, right?? I mean what kind of force are we talking about here who had to pack bags and run into an Island merely 5 years after given the world power status??

Please so far you have been reasonable, why to debate on something which is black and white??

As for whether PRC is force to be reckon with, we only need to look at the wars it has fought. I mean if PRC is not a force to be reckon with, what does it make UN forces at Korea Peninsula, Indian forces in 1962 or USSR forces at 1969?

Look as said i don't want to debate on this aspect..We both are perhaps on different context...it all depends upon the intent of the adversaries involved...In 1962 India was hardly a military power, having said that there are various accounts which says had we used IAF things might have been different...Anyhow as said in the end it is the result that matters...but just to give you another example

- We did our first nuclear test in 74...Irrespective of how China/US/Britain felt we went ahead and divided Pakistan into two countries...Even after the debacle in 62 we held our grounds in 67 skirmishes with China...now does all of that made us into a force to reckon with, heck no?

My moot point is - your claims that one has to be a military super-power before one gets a seat in UN security council is not correct(bcoz that was not the criteria to begin with)...The structure did make sense in 40's but now there are more players...and the world order cannot be maintained by keeping a structure of 40's in shape for 21st century...I understand that P5 will never want that to happen but eventually there won't be any other alternative...

 

[Echo_419]

I think the first paragraph needs some re-wording, because by 1955, RoC has been on the permanent security council for close to a decade.

To be honest, 1955 is probably the best time for India to obtain a seat on permanent security council, because PRC's industrialization process has just begun and India was believed to be the strongest third world country.

However, even back then, India would have faced some pretty stiff resistance:
RoC would be against the decision for obvious reasons.
US would have been resistant to the idea due to the fact that India is supplied by USSR.
UK would have been against the decision in order to preserve its colonial empire.
There is also the fact that back in 1955, USSR and China was in the golden age of their relationships.
All these are on top of the fact India would asking the members of UNPSC to share their power.

Well now you can see how much damage these Pacifist/Socialist Leaders can do
China is also doing a good job at the UNSC,not passing resolutions against us & stuff
Your govt is also ready to support our membership at the UN

 

[Srinivas]

The simple fact that all the minorities are called now hans, because of false Hannization theory says it all, how dubious chinese are and their posts.

there is a whole continent living in China each province has its culture and ethnicity. stop spreading your B.S.

The easiest way to get India right is to think of sub-sahara Africa (SSA):

1. India is made of 34 or so tribes glued together; Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) has several dozens countries as well- they have a club called Africa Union.

2. India has 1 billion+ population and fast growing; SSA has 1 billion+ population and fast growing, too.

3, India's GDP per cap is similar to SSA's GDP per cap

4. SSA often has inter-tribal armed conflicts, hey, India, too, and has more!

5. India has the similar illiteracy rate as SSA, and HIV rate.

6. India is the only contender in the world to compete with SSA to get the title of the world's Rape Capital, and you know what India is almost there.

7. SSA is very hungry and malnutricious; however, India tops it being the most hungry country in the world. Only 7 States of India already have more hungry people than all of SSA combined. Beat that!

8. SSA is one of the largest Aids/free handout recepients in the world since the end of WW2. India, again, tops it on this.

9. SSA and India have the similar level of HDI.

10. SSA and India has the similar level of infrastructure: roads, eletricity , schools, hospitals, bridges, trains, slums... till even toilets or the lackof needless to say.

11. SSA and India share the world's bottom 2 lowest average IQ, with India 10 points higher.

12. If both SSA as a whole and India participate together in PISA test, they would monoply the bottom 2 on the list, perhaps permanently, without doubt.

13. Frankly speaking, Theie people look quite the same. You can't tell too much the facial difference btw SSAers and curry-munching Indians without sniffing.

...

I can go on.

So you see, in a nuteshell, India = Sub Sahara Africa (SSA), without the latter's natural resources though.

The differences are:

1. It is much easier to deal with SSA as they don't have the same level of hatred amongst themselves as Indians do, due to the lack of hungreds of casts, thousands of cults and millions of gods.

2. Unlike their Indian counterparts, menatally-healthy SSA dictators, democrated-elected leaders and SSA web surfers don't usuaully, at least I've never seen once myself, declare that they are world's superpower, neither seem they having an intention to be one in the foreseeable future.

3. Apart from having 0 desire of finding water or indoor-plumbing technology or whatsayyou on Mars, unlike their Indian counterparts SSA elite scientists can't afford the luxury of shooting some imported expansive Ruskie missile fireworks on some Christmas Day to celebrate the occasion.

and 4. On the OP, unlike their Indian counterparts, SSA people don't think it is their natural right, and haven't expressed their burning need, to lead the whole world by means of UNSC.

 

[ephone]

German will say, we have done way more than india has done.

India, the world’s second most populous country and is one of the world’s largest contributors of U.N. peacekeeping personnel not a member of security council..... Why?????