How realistic is UNSC permanent seat for India???

[faithfulguy]

Well the Chinese have now been put in a tight spot. Because the 2 countries vying for a permanent SC seat are Japan and India. I think China will prefer t choose the lesser of the two evil because it is much more harder with Japan onboard than India.

None of the countries g4 countries will get the security counsel permanent seat. Japan had been the world's 2nd largest economy for a long time and if that does not qualify for permanent member. I do not know what does. Even with their WWII defeated status. So its best for one of these 4 countries to wait until their absence will make P5 irrelevant. For example, China was not part of the G8 economic powers. Now looked at what happened to G8. Its now irrelevant as the worlds 2nd largest economy is not part of the group as Japan was doing its best to prevent China from joining. Now, no one would care less to join the G8 meetings as G20 replaced G8. That is how a country should respond to an international organization that prevent it from joining. India should wait for invitation instead of demanding one. If the invitation comes, it would come with a veto power. If it succesfully get into the organization because of good labbying or noise making, it would not come with the veto power.

 

[Motabhai]

The permanent security council seat for India or not. The fact of the matter is that India is living at odds and unresolved problems with most of its neighbours notably Pakistan and to a lesser exetent with BD, Nepal. etc. How will you justify a permamnent seat for it, while nearly all the issues it has left unresolved with its neighbours and notably with countries with which it has common cultural background. Sorry I wish i could write something else.

 

[relativiti]

i think except the united states all other P5 members' influence is limited to a regional scenario......look at france...and uk......can somebody plz explain me how they were qualified for the permanent seat except testing the N-bomb in time....i mean how much influence do these country really have in the present world order???? i think there should be only one unified representation from the EU and India should represent the south-south east asia as a whole...what do you say??

 

[Abingdonboy]

The permanent security council seat for India or not. The fact of the matter is that India is living at odds and unresolved problems with most of its neighbours notably Pakistan and to a lesser exetent with BD, Nepal. etc. How will you justify a permamnent seat for it, while nearly all the issues it has left unresolved with its neighbours and notably with countries with which it has common cultural background. Sorry I wish i could write something else.

Same logic applies to China- land disputes with India and Japan.

 

[shaktiman2010]

India should wait 10 years, the seat will automatically come to India.

Nuclear deal was a desperate act by MMS to gain something before time, which would have come automatically, if only he had focused on Indian economy and domestic R&D for next 10 years.

Vajpayee wasn't hungry and was in no hurry to grow a superpower. He waited and didn't sign the deal till end because he knew the offer didn't match price.

Let's see where MRCA goes. Hope that MMS sees the light and stop his mad visionless horses which are running ahead of time, into dark.

 

[relativiti]

India should wait 10 years, the seat will automatically come to India.

10 years is far more time...i think india should target it by 2015

anyway i can say the day these corrupted leaders of our nation leaves india will join the new world order as a power centre and may be a leader

 

[shaktiman2010]

Vajpayee was far less educated than MMS but he had clear vision and faith in Indian future. He denied to barter it off because he didn't have short-sighted hunger to grow faster.

Always grow as per your capacity. Too fast is harmful. Is MMS listening?

 

[relativiti]

India should wait 10 years, the seat will automatically come to India.

Nuclear deal was a desperate act by MMS to gain something before time, which would have come automatically, if only he had focused on Indian economy and domestic R&D for next 10 years.

Vajpayee wasn't hungry and was in no hurry to grow a superpower. He waited and didn't sign the deal till end because he knew the offer didn't match the potential India would have in next 10 years. Unfortunately, US got a fool in MMS.

Let's see where MRCA goes. Hope that MMS sees the light and stop his mad visionless horses which are running ahead of time, into dark.

whoever the leader is i don't not care but at least they must reach a common consensus for very important foreign policy matters..its not a bloody joke....its not a backyard fight with swords and bamboos......india should be more flexible, bold and quick in its descisions.......i doubt whether these parties even have a proper vision of foreign policy

 

[ashok321]

World equation (International power-politics matrix) is changing - the case in point is powerful G-8 which got dissolved into G-20 of which India is a member. Similarly UNSC P-5 can not remain silent to the cries of G-4, as they (P-5) themselves have agreed to expand the UNSC further under new world scenario.

 

[relativiti]

Yeah right. I know the truth hurts. India is a greedy and belligerent bully to all its adjacent countries.

it was bound to happen if a country is much much larger in size, economy, military and etc etc...it may look bullish from their point of view....but i'd like to advise before building and breeding stereotypes and prejudices about india (like the pak guys have developed) you guys should wait coz india's approach is constantly evolving....

 

[trystwithdestiny]

If India has vied for a Permanent Seat in SC Council, it in all probabilities must have read and understood the pre-requisites to crave for such position. Currently India has envisaged her candidature by trying to get a ratification by 2/3rd majority of the general assembly members, but more so to get the nod of P-5. In light of the recent developments, the only obstacle or hurdle faced is China's acceptance of a Veto Based UNSC membership to make it P-6 but China has accepted India's candidature to a Non-Veto based permanent membership.

From the time of Boutros Boutros-Ghali to Kofi Annan's 24 member UNSC proposal, there has been a continuous effort to have influx of more members to UNSC Permanent membership. From one decade to another UN General Assembly has seen few countries which have craved for Veto Based permanent membership, the classic example being the G-4 nations (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan). The coffee club of UN which also includes Pakistan didn't want a change in P-5 status, reasoning that UN will lose its effectiveness if the Veto power is shared among other countries.

It is a natural tendency in every walk of life to aspire to be The Best or to be Among the Best. And this very notion had made many in UN to thrive for the coveted permanent seat in UN which happens to be the global consortium of International Policy making.

If the very notion of further expanding the number of permanent members was not viable then the statements made by four powerful nations of UN supporting the candidature of various aspirants at different stages must have been a joke. But if those statements were infact a reflection of further expanding the P-5 membership then it’s just a matter of time that all these P-5 member should accept a thoroughly deserving nation to become P-6 and then it will be just a beginning.

Coming to India’s candidature, there is no denial that we stand afoot with similarly aspiring and equally deserving countries who are vying at the coveted P-6 spot, but as I said this decade happens to be India’s decade. The only hurdle being China’s veto possibility, which in all probabilities looks absolute.
India’s best chance is now to raise a proposed resolution in UN general assembly to get it to ratify a declaration or amendment which states that “ In case of Veto there should a voting system, rather than allowing a single veto to quash a proposed resolution”. This would then nullify China’s Veto as other P-4 countries would still vote for India and in the long run will allow the continuity of UN, because on the day when the other non permanent member of the world body starts realizing that in the growing global platform a selected few are deciding the International governance and existence of the sovereignty of other countries and that too merely based on WW-II sustenance it would then start challenging the very existence of this world body.

 

[ashok321]

And yes before I forget this unique fact......

India is the only country which has made recent record in the UNO with numbers of vote it got when it was choosen for one of the 10 member non permanent member.

 

[angeldemon_007]

According to me we definitely deserver UNSC seat more than UK and France but i don't think we will be able to make it sometime soon. We will always have 3 votes UK, France and Russia but China will always oppose and even though US is saying out loud that they support India's seat in UNSC, actually they don't want this. Just look at what Hillary Clinton's wikileaks cable said. US knows India can pose hurdles in many decisions because of her independent foreign policy. US doesnot want to propose a country for UNSC which creates trouble for themselves.

Its just like China also said that they will support India's seat for UNSC but everybody knows they won't. US is not such a big opposer but it will quitely make sure that we don't get it.

 

[CardSharp]

India will get the seat before the year is up, but it will be without a veto, Indian diplomats have told this much to reporters.

The silver lining may be that India will be the only first one (or two) to get a perm. seat on the expanded UNSC.

 

[CardSharp]

As for those who say the UNSC is irrelevant, I'll say that would be over-stating the case for UN ineptitude. It still provide legal authority as demonstrated by the Libyan no-fly-zone issue and represents an important corner of international consensus.

The US, UK, France, NATO said they will not act without a clear legal mandate and this can only be provided by the UNSC, they've themselves said as much.