Implications of India gaining a Parmanent Seat in the Security Council

[applesauce]

To burst your bloated balloon of Chinese super-power, let me make you know that it was India's then PM Nehru, who gave away UNSC's 5th seat to China. YES. You read it right. UNSC's 5th seat was offered to India. But Nehru was inclined to Non-Aligned Movement, and as a good-will gesture he offered India's seat to China.

If Nehru would have taken the seat that time, then it would have been China out of UNSC till now.

Of course it was a big mistake on Nehru's part.
.
But still you got the deal out of it because of India's good will gesture.

If India really wanted to attack China we would have taken UNSC seat, and would have been in a stronger position to hold China back. But instead India's gesture of giving UNSC's permanent seat to China, and now China putting roadblocks in the path of India to get a permanent seat in UNSC, truly shows CPC's attitude - Ehsaan faramosh.

The Asian-Pacific Century - India Currents(4th para)

here:
The Hindu : Miscellaneous / This Day That Age : dated September 28, 1955: UN seat: Nehru clarifies

also china was a part of the UNSC since its founding but was seated by ROC instead of the PRC what india supported at the time was the inclusion of the PRC .
so Nehru didnt "give" china its seat in the UNSC it was only a matter of time, the US cant ignore 1+ billion people forever. and even if india have gotten a seat in the UNSC china would still have(either the ROC or PRC) been a permanent member of the UNSC
personally i appreciate india's support at the time but india didnt give china anything other than its support.

 

[applesauce]

What BS!. Read up facts. All availible, credible and neutral sources recognize China as the aggressor. Read them up. Feel free to contraict me once uve read them.



Did not underestimate but under-emphasised. And that was not done by the army but by Nehru. All in all the truth lies in the fact that Chinese were too scared to continue their campaign, because of fear of IA strike back as well as attack by Soviets and US.

It was a unilateral ceasefire, while Indians were busy regrouping and planning an attack. So the reality is that the Chinese were too of going too far with this war.



It does, but it doesnt mean China-Russia relations aren as good as China-Pakistan one. There is always a thaw. And that makes Russians choose Indians over Chinese.




The main aim was not to 'stop another WW". But not to fail like League of Nations which was estabilished as an aftermath of WWI but was a disaster as it didn't have equal representation of the victorious and the defeated nations.

1. i did say china attacked first,anyways you do know about the forward policy? which lead to skirmishes, then Thag La happens which led to actual war, the cause (i wont say what the indians sees) for the PRC was a perceived Indian aggression against Chinese territory along the border which in itself had root in tibet(debate for another day)

2.that is ur view entirely supported by nothing, i supported my view based on the treat of u nuclear attack during Korea yet that didnt stop them, but yes it was a unilateral ceasefire. infact they only kept what they claim in the first place there was no point in going further if india would accept the cease fire. i do agree that logistics would be a problem if they continued any further. also, vehicles, weapons, and prisoners of war were returned as a show of goodwill.

3. whats that have to do with what i said? i mentioned that china has alot of russian made stuff, said nothing about their relations.

4. UN preamble:
FIRST LINE
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

1st and 2nd line of second paragraph
AND FOR THESE ENDS

* to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
* to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

of course they didn't want to fail like the league of nations but that is not a directly stated purpose, the stated purpose is to prevent war and promote peace and understanding

 

[Kasrkin]

Would be glad if you could provide a source for that. Wikipedia entry is for 2007.

My pleasure.

Monthly Summary of Contributors to UN Peacekeeping Operations

This is from June:

1 ) Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,603
2 ) Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,982
3 ) India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,607
4 ) Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,960
5 ) Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,148

You can check earlier months and years as well, Pakistan's on top.

 

[IAF]

My pleasure.

Monthly Summary of Contributors to UN Peacekeeping Operations

This is from June:

1 ) Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,603
2 ) Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,982
3 ) India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,607
4 ) Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,960
5 ) Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,148

You can check earlier months and years as well, Pakistan's on top.

gud work

why USA/RUSSIA/CHINA are less contributers i cant belive it some thing is going wrong i thing

 

[SandsofTime]

gud work

why USA/RUSSIA/CHINA are less contributers i cant belive it some thing is going wrong i thing

US and Europeans are already having troubles keeping NATO supplied. I wouldn't expect much from them in the line of UN forces contribution. China I guess have their inward looking policy and keeping out of others affairs. As for the Russian bears, most of the world is too hot to bear

 

[Peshwa]

Can someone help me understand....So currently China seems to be the only one opposing the entry of the India into the UNSC......

I understand that veto power exists only for the Big 5, so does this mean that if China keeps stamping on our bid for entry that we wont get in??

Also, shouldnt this be more of a world decision than only the Big 5?

Can someone with more knowledge shed some light?

Also hypothetically, in case a war flares up with China.....how does the UNSC feature in the scenario?

 

[luoshan]

As far as I know China is not opposing India's entry into UNSC.. Even in the BRIC meeting meeting in Russia, Chinese premier said so.. I think the main hurdle in the expansion of the UNSC is the parameters of the UNSC reforms. The P5 countries are dragging their foot on this issue and delay taking the correct decisions. All countries agree that if any country is qualified to enter UNSC as permanent country, that is India.

 

[garibnawaz]

My pleasure.

Monthly Summary of Contributors to UN Peacekeeping Operations

This is from June:

1 ) Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,603
2 ) Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,982
3 ) India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,607
4 ) Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,960
5 ) Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,148

You can check earlier months and years as well, Pakistan's on top.

Couple of months data doesnt prove that Pakistan is the largest contributor to UN.

Check out the official UN page on India's peacekeeping contributions.

INDIA AND UNITED  NATIONS

Also check this

List of United Nations peacekeeping missions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RPK]

Couple of months data doesnt prove that Pakistan is the largest contributor to UN.

Check out the official UN page on India's peacekeeping contributions.

INDIA AND UNITED* NATIONS

Also check this

List of United Nations peacekeeping missions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good find !

 

[s90]

Would be glad if you could provide a source for that. Wikipedia entry is for 2007.

30th April 2009 report :-

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2009/apr09_2.pdf

 

[Interceptor]

^^ Nope. UNSC was a fallout of WW2. It comprised of all major power ruling the world order in the 40s. Today UNSC has lost its relevance. With countries like India and Brazil, the world order has begun to shift. So has the focus from World Wars to Regional Wars.

I believe India deserves a place since it is among the worlds top five largest armed forces, and its commitment to UN has been second to none which marked by India supplying the largest number of troops for peacekeeping missions. After all this, where is the credit?

You wont even get a sticker for doing that, face it neither India nor Pakistan can take this seat since both are armed conflict makers, you don't want to see one side taking advantage do you now.

 

[wtf]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Analysis: India's Security Council seat bid

Hi All,

I was looking through an old news report on BBC on India's chances of making it into Security council as a parmanent memeber.

Obviously the hurdles of getting there are obvious, but with recent developments, recession, and news of the recovery from this depression relying on the economies of China and India may set this fire in the right direction!!

I think what could be the nail in the coffin could be the fact that America, which was undecided as far as its vote for or against India may now be party to this with the right incentives......

I look to you members to help me in debating on:

1) Apart from the obvious, which other hurdles does India need to overcome?
2) Implications to the world scenario, how the geo-political stage of the world would be modified?
3) Implications for China and its existing disputes with India?
4) Implications for Pakistan and its existing disputes with India?
5) Overall Gains for India?

Apology in advance....This is my first thread, if this is the wrong section, or if there is an existing topic, I request the mods to merge....

Also....I haven't read any recent updates on this topic....so any latest news stories would be much appreciated!!!

Don't count chickens before they are hatched ?

 

[wtf]

gud work

why USA/RUSSIA/CHINA are less contributers i cant belive it some thing is going wrong i thing

If you plot the contributors to UN, you'll see that it is inversely correlated with how wealthy a country is and is positively correlated with the population of the country (or size of standing army).

USA/Russia and China are much richer than India/Pak/BD, so overall the cost of the life of a soldier is perceived to be "higher" than in South Asian countries. You'll see the same thing if you plotted deaths in traffic accidents, flight safety or any kind of accidental death. Sick, but true.

Murders and other crimes (luckily) don't follow the same distribution.

 

[applesauce]

My pleasure.

Monthly Summary of Contributors to UN Peacekeeping Operations

This is from June:

1 ) Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,603
2 ) Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,982
3 ) India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,607
4 ) Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,960
5 ) Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,148

You can check earlier months and years as well, Pakistan's on top.

oh wow Nigeria and nepal.. didnt know they contributed so much...

 

[Peshwa]

Don't count chickens before they are hatched ?

Depends how you look at it....I obviously would love for India to win this seat....but would just want to know what makes this seat so prized from a standpoint of the current conflicts that India faces.....
How will this help India better deal with its neighbors and enemies...