How realistic is UNSC permanent seat for India???

[AerospaceEngineer]

plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
not again,
free invitation to chinese trolls

Actually there are far FEWER Chinese trolls than Indian trolls.

There are only two things Indian can beat Chinese at:

1. The ability to Troll.
2. The ability to ENVY.

 

[Vinod2070]

I was talking about today's world.

Those are the countries, that are commonly referred to as great powers. In today's world.

It is just a useful coincidence that they are already represented as the P5.

This is just my opinion.

Cool. That is your opinion and I have a different opinion. Let's agree to disagree.

Also, I see a possible mixing of cause and effect. Are they great powers because they are P5 or vice versa?

 

[shaktiman2010]

Chinese-Dragon,

things have changed since WW-II.

France on its own has no political influence on any part of world anymore. EU is only forum through which they can maintain their relevance. So, France's position in P-5 today, is as irrelevant as Sweden in NSG.

 

[shaktiman2010]

There are only two things Indian can beat Chinese at:

1. The ability to Troll.
2. The ability to ENVY.

Same applies to Chinese.

1. Yes, we can see here. Its poor.
2. We could see that on Chinese envoy's face, when he walked out with red face from NSG meeting during Indian nuclear proposal. Neighbour's ENVY?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Chinese-Dragon,

things have changed since WW-II.

France on its own has no political influence on any part of world anymore. EU is only forum through which they can maintain their relevance. So, France's position in P-5 today, is as irrelevant as Sweden in NSG.

France has considerable influence within the EU, a lot of influence with its many ex-colonies, and the 5th largest economy in the world.

Which non-P5+1 country is more influential than that?

(Except maybe Japan, but their "pacifist constitution" makes them a bad option for the Security Council.)

 

[Vinod2070]

UN is not a military alliance. It should represent countries based on a variety of factors.

It is funny really. The entrenched ones trying to keep it to themselves and the outsiders trying to get in. It is all self interest, nothing based on values.

The problem is, too much greed can take down the whole structure.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It is funny really. The entrenched ones trying to keep it to themselves and the outsiders trying to get in. It is all self interest, nothing based on values.

Of course. Politics has always been like this.

The USA and China were even partners during the Cold war, due to the mutual threat of the Soviet Union.

It is all realpolitik, values don't really come into it.

 

[Vinod2070]

Of course. Politics has always been like this.

The USA and China were even partners during the Cold war, due to the mutual threat of the Soviet Union.

It is all realpolitik, values don't really come into it.

That is fine. Everyone wants to protect their interests. The question is only on the best way to do it.

Like Britain has always been pretty good about it. They knew when the time was for it to align with the USA and maintain its reduced position by giving in what it had to anyway.

I have no doubt that the UN reforms will happen and the reluctant ones will be taken along kicking or screaming or be left behind.

Just like what happened in the case of NSG. One can't really stop the inevitable, just delay it. And even causing the delay will have some repercussions.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I have no doubt that the UN reforms will happen and the reluctant ones will be taken along kicking or screaming or be left behind.

I personally disagree, due to this:

In order the amend the UN Charter, and to allow new permanent members into the UNSC... it needs to be ratified by ALL of the P5 permanent members.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

This is a direct link to Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter.

I suppose that expanding the permanent membership might work. But expanding veto power? I think that is very unlikely.

 

[Vinod2070]

I personally disagree, due to this:

I suppose that expanding the permanent membership might work. But expanding veto power? I think that is very unlikely.

I know it is difficult.

Veto is just an imperial legacy. For any reform to be credible, it has to go away or shard with the new permanent members.

It is not the colonial world anymore and no new member is likely going to accept a diluted status.

Some people will resist as much as they can. All power to them.

 

[shaktiman2010]

I personally disagree, due to this:

I suppose that expanding the permanent membership might work. But expanding veto power? I think that is very unlikely.

How many times Veto has been used in last 3 decades? And, do you think Veto will help China or suppress Taiwan's voice?

This is not iron age where countries will sit and listen to Veto's. Veto has only symbolic significance now.

The reasons GoI is pushing for it, are different. Think on it, homework for you.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The reasons GoI is pushing for it, are different. Think on it, homework for you.

Wouldn't it be easier if you just told me?

Also, America used its veto very recently, to block a condemnation of the new Israeli settlements.

But on the UNSC issue, no vetoes will be needed. The amendment cannot pass, without being ratified by ALL of the P5 members.

You can check the UN charter yourself, it is linked above.

China and India are not friendly, and there is no benefit in diluting the power if the UNSC veto.

 

[Vinod2070]

Wouldn't it be easier if you just told me?

Also, America used its veto very recently, to block a condemnation of the new Israeli settlements.

But on the UNSC issue, no vetoes will be needed. The amendment cannot pass, without being ratified by ALL of the P5 members.

You can check the UN charter yourself, it is linked above.

China and India are not friendly, and there is no benefit in diluting the power if the UNSC veto.

It doesn't have to be. It is enough if there is no overt hostility.

If we garner enough support from the world, China won't be able to stop it without isolating itself.

Possibly not even then as we saw during NSG negotiations. A rule on paper is something, how it works in the real world is something else.

 

[faithfulguy]

How many times Veto has been used in last 3 decades? And, do you think Veto will help China or suppress Taiwan's voice?

This is not iron age where countries will sit and listen to Veto's. Veto has only symbolic significance now.

The reasons GoI is pushing for it, are different. Think on it, homework for you.

Veto is actually very powerful as a veto can kill the whole proposal. Without veto, Israel would be blamed again and again by its enemies. So its a tangible power, not an empty previlege. I don't think Indian government should push for it because that would just make India seem desperate. India just need to be patient and develo itself. If eventually the current P5 feel that UNSC cannot function without India, than they will invite India to join. So India just need to be patient and grow its economy. But if it insist on having a seat in the table, its certain that even if India can get into UNSC permanent member, it would not get the veto power. So India should stop demanding and start working hard.

 

[faithfulguy]

It doesn't have to be. It is enough if there is no overt hostility.

If we garner enough support from the world, China won't be able to stop it without isolating itself.

Possibly not even then as we saw during NSG negotiations. A rule on paper is something, how it works in the real world is something else.

That depend on what isolated mean. Would you say that US was isolated when we veto the condemnation of Israel? NO. Because its just exercising its rights. So China could also do that. As for veto power to any new members, no current P5 would support that.