G-4 nations put joint bid for Security Council expansion

[Andross]

You want my opinion on this matter? Here it goes: I want a united voice for Europe, if not for the whole of Europe (excl. Russia) then at least one voice for the EU. Right now, we are divided between the US lapdog UK and continental Europe with France, which unfortunatly since Sarkozy became president has also become a lap dog as well and reversed de Gaul's independent policy.

But first things first. We first have to disband the NATO under the leadership of the US and form an EU Army under European leadership. After that we should give up one seat at the UNSC and give that seat to Brazil. Asia is already represented by China and I think it's unfair to have two seats for one continent. If an additional seat should be created, than that seat must go to a well developed African country.

That will not happen as no EU country like UK and France will give up the veto. Europe is going broke and by 2040 India will be the 3rd biggest economy in the world and win a seat on the UNSC there is no doubt about it.

 

[Andross]

Brazil will win Seat for South America but Asia is too big and important for just China who is seen as a threat by many players in the region so to balance it India will also win a seat.

---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

Brazil military is week and has no strategic importance like India

 

[lynx]

Lets our political leadership develop a strong spine then we can think about permanent seat in UNSC.

 

[Andross]

Lets our political leadership develop a strong spine then we can think about permanent seat in UNSC.

UN reform will not be done overnight it will take 5-10 years at least by that time India be even more stronger while Europe goes bust and China takes over its assets.

 

[lynx]

UN reform will not be done overnight it will take 5-10 years at least by that time India be even more stronger while Europe goes bust and China takes over its assets.

India will definitely become stronger economicaly and militarily but politically ..I don't think so. 5-10 years down the line the same people in charge of us now will be in charge of us then. Being a permanent UNSC member means to take hard cold decisions.I don't think Indian leadership have the stomach to do so.

 

[Andross]

India will definitely become stronger economicaly and militarily but politically ..I don't think so. 5-10 years down the line the same people in charge of us now will be in charge of us then. Being a permanent UNSC member means to take hard cold decisions.I don't think Indian leadership have the stomach to do so.

Who knows maybe we can have stronger leaders like Modi instead of the old tired faces

 

[Abingdonboy]

India should stop pushing for UN security expansion plan without an exclusive china understanding, its not possible.
India as a permanent member is in China future interest, if you take a look at any international crisis weather its Iran tension or something else.
India is more or less always stand with Russia and china. It is absolutely insane to think Japan, Brazil and Germany will ever say no to any of American request. India is safest bet, i believe after few years china will come to realize this....

Very good point, well made.


However in 2012 the current structure of the UN security council is utterly ridiculous. The fact that India with 1.2 BILLION people, an economy that will be the 3rd largest by 2030, with the second largest contribution to UN peacekeeping missions and one of the largest donors to it, is left out of the security council is beyond a joke. Added to that no voices from Africa or Latin America? "United" Nations my a$$. The UN represents an era that has long since passed when UK (who is struggling to even keep hold of SCOTLAND!!) and Russia were still globally relevant. The only reason any of the P5 would stand opposed to such reforms would be self-interest.

Every day this elitist, outdated hypocrisy exists is another blemish on the UN's already tarnished name.

 

[IndianTiger]

Yahoo. . .

 

[lynx]

Who knows maybe we can have stronger leaders like Modi instead of the old tired faces

Lets face it..Modi is never gonna become a national leader.

PS: I am no Modi hatter, just stating the obvious.

 

[Andross]

Lets face it..Modi is never gonna become a national leader.

PS: I am no Modi hatter, just stating the obvious.

Yeah he most probs will not be leader but who knows in future new stronger leaders might emerge we have to hope.

 

[Holmes]

To put it simply, the no of lethal nuclear weapon one posses makes an easy path to the UN seat, else it will be ignored however economic power it. (we'll see abt that in coming years).
So its high time someone makes thousands of nukes or it will be just a bragging for a seat.

 

[sancho]

You want my opinion on this matter? Here it goes: I want a united voice for Europe, if not for the whole of Europe (excl. Russia) then at least one voice for the EU. Right now, we are divided between the US lapdog UK and continental Europe with France, which unfortunatly since Sarkozy became president has also become a lap dog as well and reversed de Gaul's independent policy.

Is it? Or did they realised that Germany is an important partner when it comes to economy and leadership in the EU, but that Germany is completely unimportant on a global level and when it comes to taking bold and strong steps.

We first have to disband the NATO under the leadership of the US and form an EU Army under European leadership.

That's exactly what France and the UK showed in the Libyan conflict, while Germany just showed how unreliable and weak their foreign politics and decision making is and that's why it could never lead a European defence force!
Moreover, the failure of Germany to show France that they can bet on German support, be it politically or with military, made it even more obvious, that there are only 2 countries in Europe strong and able to lead. That's why the defence relations of France and their long time enemy UK are closer today then ever before. The US like you claim has nothing to do with it, but the fact that they have common policies in terms of power projection to places all around the world (unlike Germany), nuclear deterrence, even at joint developments in the defence field. That's why France will remain to be Germanys close partner in the EU, but will be closer to the UK in the UNC and in terms of defence reasons.

Asia is already represented by China and I think it's unfair to have two seats for one continent.

First of all, to which continent do you count Russia then? Secondly, by this logic we need another seat for a country from Oceanic region / Australia if you want a continent itself and what about the middle east, which belongs neither to Africa, nor to Asia?

 

[Tshering22]

Japan and Germany will never qualify as a Great Power, because their countries are too tiny.

Either you were barred from studying pre-1945 history or you don't want to admit it. Both these countries had developed stuff that you and I don't have technically in our own rights even today. The only thing that is stopping these two is their own constitutions. How do you know that they won't change it? It is made by the people and it can change anytime. It was this same tiny Germany and tiny Japan that made half the world wet their pants 70 years ago.

I would like to exclude the tiny countries of Britain and France from the P-5 as well, because they don't really belong. However, it is difficult to remove an existing P-5 member and not worth the trouble.

I strongly agree with you here. These both countries are no longer as powerful as they used to be.

---------- Post added at 11:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------

Has it ever occurred to you that it is not India's choice as to whether it is permitted to develop thermonuclear weaponry?

Firstly, India is nowhere close to developing a thermonuclear weapon.

Secondly, it takes decades to miniaturize a H-bomb into a W-88 class warhead.

Anytime during those decades, a neighboring Great Power can declare that its national security interest prohibits India from testing and deploying thermonuclear weaponry. Otherwise, India faces the ultimatum of denuclearization (e.g. destruction of all nuclear and missile-manufacturing facilities).

The choice of whether India is allowed to pursue thermonuclear weaponry belongs to a neighboring country. They decide, not you.

You have a fancy way of talking.

 

[ashokdeiva]

I will say this one last time. Those countries are weak and not deserving of P-5 membership.



To Kazhugu, take a look at the calendar. Is it 1945 or 2012?

You can't expect to apply in 2012 for U.N. Security Council membership with a permanent veto and pledge to meet 1945 criteria. Everyone will just laugh.

You should be aware that technology continues to advance. The criteria to be recognized as a Great Power is fluid and the bar is constantly being raised. In the near future, applicants for P-5 membership may be required to demonstrate AESA-radar-equipped destroyer capability to control the battlespace. Otherwise, many people would consider you militarily weak and not worthy.

If you want a seat at the big table, you have to possess the same military power as the big boys. Otherwise, you're just a pretender.

Clash of the Titans

Only China has been able to match the American Arleigh Burke with their Type 052C Lanzhou-class destroyer with AESA radar. This makes the Pentagon very unhappy. The distinctive convex structures are the phased array radars.

U.S. Arleigh Burke is the world's first naval AESA destroyer. The distinctive hexagonal plates are the phased array radars.

Is the UN about Destruction or is it about Construction. Enough of your nonsence that your A$$ is bigger and brighter than that of the others.

 

[Martian2]

If India submits a joint bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council P-5 with the African Union (representing Africa) and Brazil (representing Latin America), you will garner my support and those of many others.

China will never accept any co-application with Japan (which refuses to sincerely apologize for WWII atrocities, glorifies its war criminals in the Yasukuni Shrine, and refuses to pay compensation to its victims) for a seat on the UNSC P-5. Germany cannot be a candidate, because there are already two European countries on the UNSC P-5.