Expansion essential to make UN security council credible: India

[Jade]

A domestic lead growing economy just show that India do not produced anything that anyone else wants. As a result, India growth is stuck in neutral. The domestic lead growth and service lead growth are two of the biggest lies about Indian growth. India need to have a manufacturing and exporting economy first before worrying about a service and domestic economy. All the successful newly developed economies follow this path. There is no other way.




And the reality differ from most of your points.

Blah...blah...blah... I can do without your nonsense

Anyway, I am not going to argue about India's economy, and neither is Taiwan any competition to India.

 

[Destro]

What is there to quit...UN is a joke...it is just a glorified coffee club. India will gain not much even if it enters UNSC neither are we waiting to be included.

Anyway, when UNSC is going to be expanded, India is going to be the first to enter or risk being not representative of the world's population.

As I said before India can do without UNSC, but can UNSC do without India?

I've already answered your question of whether India needs the UNSC or the INSC needs India.

 

[Destro]

Nothing changed...as I said before currency effects were short term...anyway unlike China, India is a domestic economy. Last year India over took Japan as the third largest economy by PPP....,meaning peoples purchasing power are going up, a clear sign of decreasing poverty and growing middle class.

India has strong fundamentals to grow.

1) Large and growing consumer base
2) Huge opportunities for investment across all sectors especially in infrastructure
3) Good saving rates.
4) Strong financial system.
5) Strong private enterprise
6) Stable political system.
7) Relative peace in the country
8) Highly competitive market
9) Good reputation for its mind power across the world.
10) Relatively advanced industrial base.
11) Relatively strong in science and technology base.

Nice sugar coating of all the staggering problems in India.

First of all, India does not have a stable political system. It's extremely unstable which means reforms are impossible to do.

Secondly, Indian economy is extremely reliant on hot money from the Fed to fund its deficit.

When there was a hint of tapering, the Rupee collapsed and when tapering didn't happen, the Rupee rebounded.

If the the Rupee could rebound, then the greatest garbage could rebound.

Without the hot money, the Indian economy disintegrates into chaos. This proves the Indian fundamentals are dreadful where an economy has to rely on hot money to merely survive. That's an economy that has no future.

Indian economy is already slowing dramatically even with hot money because India has reached it's full potential as India lacks the manufacturing capability to grow your way without using debt.

India uses debt based consumption to grow which gives no return. You go into debt to invest in the future and pay back the debt. Building factories using debt is fine if you can produce goods and export and earn surpluses. But India goes into debt to consume depreciating consumer goods that give no future return.

Indian economy is fundamentally flawed to the core. Even Jim O'neill (BRIC guy) and Jim Rogers have said India is a horror story.

I think one area where experts get India wrong is that they think India has the same leadership quality of China so India could be like China due to population size. But as Lee Kuan Yew said India is a union of 34 countries glued together so major economic reforms are impossible to do because the Indian regime needs to keep the different ethnicities and religions happy.

Another area where India is shackled is in the Indian intellect. I truly believe the low IQ of the bottom 95% of Indians greatly hamper India's development. Overpopulation has meant there are not enough schools to educate the youth, which means they are useless humans that contribute nothing to India. This causes them to rape and do all sort of sick things.

India has been a flawed union from the very beginning and its social, ethnic and religious problems will mean India will struggle to keep the union together let alone be a superpower.

 

[xunzi]

Look, my Indian friend. We have nothing against you but reality and substance speaks here. At this current point, India is not strong enough to join the P5. There are other candidates that want to join P5 but are opposed by other interest camp. You have to prove to the international community that your participation will help strengthen world peace, security, and equality than your ambition and interest to be in the exclusive club prestige. I know deep down, India just want in for status and prestige. That is not how world politics work. Many countries want the same thing India wants, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, etc... but you have to be a great power first. India is currently just a middle power.

 

[Spring Onion]

Here is a list of countries by GDP (2012):

1 United States 16,244,575
2 China 8,221,015
3 Japan 5,960,269
4 Germany 3,429,519
5 France 2,613,936
6 United Kingdom 2,476,665
7 Brazil 2,253,090
8 Russia 2,029,813
9 Italy 2,014,078
10 India 1,841,717

And here is a list of countries by Defence budget (2012):

1 United States 682.0
2 China 166.0
3 Russia 90.7
4 United Kingdom 60.8
5 Japan 59.3
6 France 58.9
7 Saudi Arabia 56.7
8 India 46.1
9 Germany 45.8
10 Italy 34.0


-------------------------------

As we can clearly see, every single member of the P5 has a larger economy than India.

And every single member of the P5 has a larger Defence budget than India.

And let's not even talk about the technological gap.

So by what rationale does India deserve a place in the P5 more than Britain or France do?

'India doesn't DESERVE to be in the UNSC'
Last updated on: January 30, 2012 14:03 IST

India can never become a great power unless it assumes hard power status, says national security hawk Bharat Karnad
Bharat Karnad, one of India's leading national security hawks, believes that India right now doesn't deserve a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Karnad, research professor in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, bemoaned how humiliating it is to watch "every wretched visitor who comes to Delhi," being canvassed by the government to endorse India's bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC.


"India, as is, I am afraid doesn't deserve to be in the United Nations Security Council," he said during a panel discussion on Indian Views on Economics, International Institutions and Transnational Issues at a conference organised by George Washington University's Sigur Centre for Asian Studies and the Centre for a New American Security, titled India as a Global Power, Contending Views from India. Karnad, who is the author of several books on strategy in South Asia, including Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy and India's Nuclear Policy, lectures regularly at various military and other forums.
"I don't see a UN Security Council seat, especially with a veto as an entitlement. Somehow, there is a belief in Delhi, that it is a right and I believe that has to be earned," he said. Karnad argued that the permanent five members of the UN Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- are there "because they are great powers, not because they are individual countries."



"India can never become a great power and assume a seat, unless it assumes hard power status," he asserted, and said it could never assume such a status with per-capita economic prowess. Karnad said India would have to do it only through it own strength, "and not because the United States and its Western friends endorse India's seating in the UN Security Council."

"What I mean is that if India becomes a great power, then I don't see a talk about per capita and so on, because given the kind of population, we can never reach per capita scores of the kind that the United States or Western countries will -- it will never happen for another 200 years," he said. Karnad reiterated that India can be considered and respected only "in terms of hard power, in terms of being consequential in the affairs of the world as it were, what kind of role you are going to play and it has to be a substantial role. It has to be a role that other countries can't do without. Only then will India begin to be counted as a great power deserving of a seat."


"And we shouldn't beg for it, as seems to be the case. Every wretched visitor who comes to Delhi is canvassed by the government about a UN Security Council seat. It hurts my self-respect in a personal sort of way; it hurts the national self-respect begging for a seat."



Karnad was also a part of the first National Security Advisory Board of the National Security Council of the government of India as a member of the Nuclear Doctrine Drafting Group and the external security and the technology security groups for the Strategic Review.
He continued, "We will get it when we exercise hard power and begin to take responsibility for the security of the region -- for the new order in the Indian Ocean and so on and so forth."


But former Indian ambassador to the US and ex-foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh shot back, "Why not India? Why do you have France, why do you have UK? Why not India?" "In 1945, if it reflected the power structure of the world.

Today, does the present permanent membership reflect the power structure? Is it acceptable that you have one country representing three continents -- Asia, Africa and Latin America," he said. Mansingh argued, "So there is a need for a change and if you do change, India has a right to be there." "The response we are getting is that it is so difficult to change the charter and it's going to take a long time. If it takes a long time, India's response is to hell with the UNSC, we are not interested," he said.



Mansingh said, "By all means, we've got other forums -- the G-20 and other places -- where India is welcome, where India is held in respect. If that's the trend of the world, then the UNSC and the UN will be sidelined and other forums will take their place."


Meanwhile, when the chair Richard Fontaine on CNAS pressed Karnad on why India decided for 'technical' reasons to go with the European Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft instead opting for American fighter jets for 'geo-political' considerations, Karnad said,


"The problem is that there is enormous mistrust in the Indian military and maybe it infects and seeps down to the government that when it comes to supplier transactions, you simply cannot trust America's contractual obligations."


He recalled that "time and time again, the United States has backed off from virtually treaty agreements, leave alone commercial contracts, like the one on Tarapur fuel. So, this seeds the kind of suspicion and certainly distrust on the Indian side.


We don't trust the Americans as we do perhaps other countries." Karnad argued, "Even if there was a geopolitical element that was defeated by the trust deficit, you couldn't be certain that tomorrow the US Congress would not write something into law that would retroactively pretty much wipe out obligatory contractual obligations and there is nothing India could do." "We have suffered from it and so there was a salutatory message from that as to how much can India trust the United States as a supplier of critical military systems," he added.


http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-sh...esnt-deserve-to-be-in-the-unsc/20120130.htm#4

 

[Ayush]

India ko har uss cheez ki pari hoti ha jo uss ki nahi ha

permanent seat hamari hogi.

 

[sincity]

'India doesn't DESERVE to be in the UNSC'
Last updated on: January 30, 2012 14:03 IST

India can never become a great power unless it assumes hard power status, says national security hawk Bharat Karnad
Bharat Karnad, one of India's leading national security hawks, believes that India right now doesn't deserve a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Karnad, research professor in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, bemoaned how humiliating it is to watch "every wretched visitor who comes to Delhi," being canvassed by the government to endorse India's bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC.


"India, as is, I am afraid doesn't deserve to be in the United Nations Security Council," he said during a panel discussion on Indian Views on Economics, International Institutions and Transnational Issues at a conference organised by George Washington University's Sigur Centre for Asian Studies and the Centre for a New American Security, titled India as a Global Power, Contending Views from India. Karnad, who is the author of several books on strategy in South Asia, including Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy and India's Nuclear Policy, lectures regularly at various military and other forums.
"I don't see a UN Security Council seat, especially with a veto as an entitlement. Somehow, there is a belief in Delhi, that it is a right and I believe that has to be earned," he said. Karnad argued that the permanent five members of the UN Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- are there "because they are great powers, not because they are individual countries."



"India can never become a great power and assume a seat, unless it assumes hard power status," he asserted, and said it could never assume such a status with per-capita economic prowess. Karnad said India would have to do it only through it own strength, "and not because the United States and its Western friends endorse India's seating in the UN Security Council."

"What I mean is that if India becomes a great power, then I don't see a talk about per capita and so on, because given the kind of population, we can never reach per capita scores of the kind that the United States or Western countries will -- it will never happen for another 200 years," he said. Karnad reiterated that India can be considered and respected only "in terms of hard power, in terms of being consequential in the affairs of the world as it were, what kind of role you are going to play and it has to be a substantial role. It has to be a role that other countries can't do without. Only then will India begin to be counted as a great power deserving of a seat."


"And we shouldn't beg for it, as seems to be the case. Every wretched visitor who comes to Delhi is canvassed by the government about a UN Security Council seat. It hurts my self-respect in a personal sort of way; it hurts the national self-respect begging for a seat."



Karnad was also a part of the first National Security Advisory Board of the National Security Council of the government of India as a member of the Nuclear Doctrine Drafting Group and the external security and the technology security groups for the Strategic Review.
He continued, "We will get it when we exercise hard power and begin to take responsibility for the security of the region -- for the new order in the Indian Ocean and so on and so forth."


But former Indian ambassador to the US and ex-foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh shot back, "Why not India? Why do you have France, why do you have UK? Why not India?" "In 1945, if it reflected the power structure of the world.

Today, does the present permanent membership reflect the power structure? Is it acceptable that you have one country representing three continents -- Asia, Africa and Latin America," he said. Mansingh argued, "So there is a need for a change and if you do change, India has a right to be there." "The response we are getting is that it is so difficult to change the charter and it's going to take a long time. If it takes a long time, India's response is to hell with the UNSC, we are not interested," he said.



Mansingh said, "By all means, we've got other forums -- the G-20 and other places -- where India is welcome, where India is held in respect. If that's the trend of the world, then the UNSC and the UN will be sidelined and other forums will take their place."


Meanwhile, when the chair Richard Fontaine on CNAS pressed Karnad on why India decided for 'technical' reasons to go with the European Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft instead opting for American fighter jets for 'geo-political' considerations, Karnad said,


"The problem is that there is enormous mistrust in the Indian military and maybe it infects and seeps down to the government that when it comes to supplier transactions, you simply cannot trust America's contractual obligations."


He recalled that "time and time again, the United States has backed off from virtually treaty agreements, leave alone commercial contracts, like the one on Tarapur fuel. So, this seeds the kind of suspicion and certainly distrust on the Indian side.


We don't trust the Americans as we do perhaps other countries." Karnad argued, "Even if there was a geopolitical element that was defeated by the trust deficit, you couldn't be certain that tomorrow the US Congress would not write something into law that would retroactively pretty much wipe out obligatory contractual obligations and there is nothing India could do." "We have suffered from it and so there was a salutatory message from that as to how much can India trust the United States as a supplier of critical military systems," he added.


http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-sh...esnt-deserve-to-be-in-the-unsc/20120130.htm#4

India can't bring anything to the table why would other nations want India to join the P5.

 

[Srinivas]

India is in the path of achieving a regional power, we have no plans to stop there either as a regional power. India is a strong country in ancient times and India will attain more than that status in the near future.

'India doesn't DESERVE to be in the UNSC'
Last updated on: January 30, 2012 14:03 IST

India can never become a great power unless it assumes hard power status, says national security hawk Bharat Karnad
Bharat Karnad, one of India's leading national security hawks, believes that India right now doesn't deserve a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Karnad, research professor in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, bemoaned how humiliating it is to watch "every wretched visitor who comes to Delhi," being canvassed by the government to endorse India's bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC.


"India, as is, I am afraid doesn't deserve to be in the United Nations Security Council," he said during a panel discussion on Indian Views on Economics, International Institutions and Transnational Issues at a conference organised by George Washington University's Sigur Centre for Asian Studies and the Centre for a New American Security, titled India as a Global Power, Contending Views from India. Karnad, who is the author of several books on strategy in South Asia, including Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy and India's Nuclear Policy, lectures regularly at various military and other forums.
"I don't see a UN Security Council seat, especially with a veto as an entitlement. Somehow, there is a belief in Delhi, that it is a right and I believe that has to be earned," he said. Karnad argued that the permanent five members of the UN Security Council -- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- are there "because they are great powers, not because they are individual countries."



"India can never become a great power and assume a seat, unless it assumes hard power status," he asserted, and said it could never assume such a status with per-capita economic prowess. Karnad said India would have to do it only through it own strength, "and not because the United States and its Western friends endorse India's seating in the UN Security Council."

"What I mean is that if India becomes a great power, then I don't see a talk about per capita and so on, because given the kind of population, we can never reach per capita scores of the kind that the United States or Western countries will -- it will never happen for another 200 years," he said. Karnad reiterated that India can be considered and respected only "in terms of hard power, in terms of being consequential in the affairs of the world as it were, what kind of role you are going to play and it has to be a substantial role. It has to be a role that other countries can't do without. Only then will India begin to be counted as a great power deserving of a seat."


"And we shouldn't beg for it, as seems to be the case. Every wretched visitor who comes to Delhi is canvassed by the government about a UN Security Council seat. It hurts my self-respect in a personal sort of way; it hurts the national self-respect begging for a seat."



Karnad was also a part of the first National Security Advisory Board of the National Security Council of the government of India as a member of the Nuclear Doctrine Drafting Group and the external security and the technology security groups for the Strategic Review.
He continued, "We will get it when we exercise hard power and begin to take responsibility for the security of the region -- for the new order in the Indian Ocean and so on and so forth."


But former Indian ambassador to the US and ex-foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh shot back, "Why not India? Why do you have France, why do you have UK? Why not India?" "In 1945, if it reflected the power structure of the world.

Today, does the present permanent membership reflect the power structure? Is it acceptable that you have one country representing three continents -- Asia, Africa and Latin America," he said. Mansingh argued, "So there is a need for a change and if you do change, India has a right to be there." "The response we are getting is that it is so difficult to change the charter and it's going to take a long time. If it takes a long time, India's response is to hell with the UNSC, we are not interested," he said.



Mansingh said, "By all means, we've got other forums -- the G-20 and other places -- where India is welcome, where India is held in respect. If that's the trend of the world, then the UNSC and the UN will be sidelined and other forums will take their place."


Meanwhile, when the chair Richard Fontaine on CNAS pressed Karnad on why India decided for 'technical' reasons to go with the European Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft instead opting for American fighter jets for 'geo-political' considerations, Karnad said,


"The problem is that there is enormous mistrust in the Indian military and maybe it infects and seeps down to the government that when it comes to supplier transactions, you simply cannot trust America's contractual obligations."


He recalled that "time and time again, the United States has backed off from virtually treaty agreements, leave alone commercial contracts, like the one on Tarapur fuel. So, this seeds the kind of suspicion and certainly distrust on the Indian side.


We don't trust the Americans as we do perhaps other countries." Karnad argued, "Even if there was a geopolitical element that was defeated by the trust deficit, you couldn't be certain that tomorrow the US Congress would not write something into law that would retroactively pretty much wipe out obligatory contractual obligations and there is nothing India could do." "We have suffered from it and so there was a salutatory message from that as to how much can India trust the United States as a supplier of critical military systems," he added.


http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-sh...esnt-deserve-to-be-in-the-unsc/20120130.htm#4

 

[Srinivas]

Says who??

A cent earning army guys from China or guys who are kept under tight internet control and brainwashed to CCP propaganda?

So far, India has not gained enough respect to be in UNSC as a permanent member. India still need to wait until the day arrived. And no one knows when will it be, if ever.

 

[INDIC]

A domestic lead growing economy just show that India do not produced anything that anyone else wants. As a result, India growth is stuck in neutral. The domestic lead growth and service lead growth are two of the biggest lies about Indian growth. India need to have a manufacturing and exporting economy first before worrying about a service and domestic economy. All the successful newly developed economies follow this path. There is no other way.

Do you think tiny Island like Taiwan deserved to sit in UN security council seat.

 

[Srinivas]

Kashmir aside, India has nothing significant to represent permanent UNSC seat .

In the region India has bad relations with all its neighbours, globally India wont be able to take part in military invasions keeping in mind your internal politics unlike NATO alliance .

Your own serious Indian analysts are of the view that India should not be there since it has no credentials yet

Invasion is the last thing to do when exerting influence on any foreign region. Great power status comes with lot of other factors which India have and will posses in the near future.
War is not all about destruction, that is the last step in conquering any region. It all starts from opinion making and making the region favorable to the conqueror.
There is a whole lot of science and tactics involved in modern warfare, May be we can discuss this on another day.

 

[sweetgrape]

Thank god you didnot say Pakistan.... That would have been an insult

Seems, you are happy that NK and India are put together, The most democratic country and the most totalitarian country, also have common character, perfect group,



Reading the indian comments is very funny thing, the indian overvalue themself too much, if that importance, why not get out of UN, build another "UN"?

 

[INDIC]

That prediction was made before India's growth rate fell to 3-4%.

They just assumed India would increase their growth rate to 10%, but it never happened. Instead, India's growth rate fell down to below Pakistan's.

Pakistan surpasses India's growth rate

China either PRC or ROC had nothing special at those time to get Permanent Seat in security council. China's economic miracle is just a too recent story.

 

[INDIC]

Kashmir aside, India has nothing significant to represent permanent UNSC seat .

In the region India has bad relations with all its neighbours, globally India wont be able to take part in military invasions keeping in mind your internal politics unlike NATO alliance .

Your own serious Indian analysts are of the view that India should not be there since it has no credentials yet

Boring comment. Russia and China aren't the member state of NATO.

first you were joking about India's claim about UN security council membership forgetting that your government is indulged in moves how to stop India from getting Security council membership.

 

[xuxu1457]

For your Information, India was offered a seat in P5 before China, but due to bad leadership, we signed NAM (non aligned movement). So don't come up with your boring facts.

Sorry，Security Council was found in 13.01.1946,at that time India was still in the hand of UK, and India didn't a role of WWII