India and UNSC permanent seat

[JayAtl]

Chinese posters are still ignorantly thinking that adding members to the UNSC can only be done through consensus of the permanent members. They can veto it, but it does not hold same weight as veto on a UN resolution.

THIS IS NOT A UN RESOLUTION! - Its adding a member to UNSC.

I have explained how there is another path for India with the support of remaining members and majority of the 194 nations.

I HAVE also talked that the UN is a useless body . Many in american politico call for the US to drop out of it. It holds no teeth. Example: could not stop US from attacking Iraq.

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Indonesia,Malaysia,Turkey,UAE,Oman or even saudi arabia,watch from the wider perspective.

You are somewhat right. However, Pakistan has nucler weapons. Indonesia is up there too, alone with Turkey.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Even China does support India, there is still no guarantee that India would become the newest permanent member.

Indian members should have more realistic expectation regarding to this issue.

 

[ares]

Even China does support India, there is still no guarantee that India would become the newest permanent member.

Indian members should have more realistic expectation regarding this issue.

Why is that..other 4 permanent members have already assured their support.

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

Guys calm down, India will get into UNSC, but it wont be any time soon, maybe after 10 years hopefully, when we will have less poverty and much better infrastructure and a higher GDP

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Why is that..other 4 permanent members have already assured their support.

They have to keep their promise, but we will see.

 

[RollingStones]

There are no absolute NOs in international politics. Everything has a price. For instance, the US may ask for preferential access to retail and financial services, in exchange for a UNSC support. Other countries are also probably looking at preferential deals that generate jobs in their own countries. I dont know about India or China that much to comment on what's going on. But, I'll go by logic. What does China want out of India or vice versa? It is all a bargain. That is all. UNSC is a man made organization. It is not the be all and end all of countries.

 

[CardSharp]

Why is that..other 4 permanent members have already assured their support.

P4 support is for membership without veto. China also made general statements about the need to expand permanent membership. This is also is presumably without veto power.

All in all, you can have a seat but not a veto.

 

[ares]

P4 support is for membership without veto. China also made general statements about the need to expand permanent membership India's accession, this also is presumably without veto power.

All in all, you can have a seat but not a veto.

Maybe I missed this disclaimer ..could you print it again in bold and perhaps this time with a source.

 

[CardSharp]

Maybe I missed this disclaimer ..could you print it again in bold and perhaps this time with a source.

Circumstantial but still pretty clear if you read between the lines

But Rhodes said the United States is "not getting into" details about the time frame in which the United States would like to see India get the permanent seat and whether it will push to get India veto power as well.

Obama backs permanent seat for India on Security Council - CNN.com

2005 US stance.

The United States has warned four nations campaigning jointly for permanent seats on the UN Security Council that Washington will not support their cause unless they agree not to ask for the veto power that the five current permanent council members hold, senior diplomats and administration officials said.

US to India plus 3: want seat, forget veto

India and the G-4 is considering going ahead with membership reform putting on hold the veto issue (implying a sticking point)

Though G-4 in general and India in particular is not in favour of any "second grade" permanent membership in the UNSC, they have floated the idea of a deferred veto-that a new member can go without veto power for 15 years way back in 2005. And that still remains a starting point for negotiation.

UN reform meet in March: Delhi - Hindustan Times

The same resolution of deferred veto was suggested again at the end of last year in the UN. (I can find the link again if you want)

France and UK are keen for reforms, but Russia and China have issues on veto, and as usual, US is not using a straight bat when it comes to the reform of the UNSC, though President Barack Obama had endorsed Indian candidature for a permanent seat last year.

UN reform meet in March: Delhi - Hindustan Times


There other articles as well, but no one has explicitly supported India's membership with veto only India's membership.

 

[CardSharp]

Oh and I found this while looking the sources.


UNSC seat: India ready for the deal without veto



New Delhi/United Nations: India’s long desired wish in the International arena– to get a permanent seat in the United Nation Security Council (UNSC)– is going to be fulfilled as soon. But this seat will be offered to India without veto power.

According to the diplomatic sources placed in UN, told ‘Live India’ that India is near about completed its negotiations with all 192 countries in which around 180 had given their nod for India in UNSC as permanent member. 128 votes required to get a permanent seat in security council.
“We had cleared all the hurdles in getting this, but this (seat) will be without veto power as we had to wait for atleast 10-15 years for veto rights”, the diplomat said.

“But we will take the seat and start our negotiations for getting the veto too”, he added.

Few days back India appreciated the support of US President Barack Obama for its quest for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. India said that the US support has come at a time when momentum is building up for the expansion of this most powerful wing of the world body.
With inputs from Kumar Gaurav

 

[ares]

You said it yourself its pretty circumstantial..no country (including China) has claimed India should not get the veto power..whereas all except China(yet) have supported India's cause.
India has made it very clear,that there will be no one without the other..but if perhaps..you want we can have self imposed restriction on ourselves (for use of veto ) for next 10-15yrs.

 

[tanlixiang28776]

You said it yourself its pretty circumstantial..no country (including China) has claimed India should not get the veto power..whereas all except China(yet) have supported India's cause.
India has made it very clear,that there will be no without the other..but if perhaps..you want we can have self imposed restriction ourselves (for use of veto ) for next 10-15yrs.

Wish you would actually read the sources people put up. America is the one with the official stance that India should not get veto power.

 

[CardSharp]

You said it yourself its pretty circumstantial..no country (including China) has claimed India should not get the veto power..whereas all except China(yet) have supported India's cause.
India has made it very clear,that there will be no one without the other..but if perhaps..you want we can have self imposed restriction on ourselves (for use of veto ) for next 10-15yrs.

Hey genius, it's not a self-imposed restriction. You think that India would have refused veto if it was possible to get? The resolution making India a permanent member WILL NOT PASS if veto is tagged on.

The story is closed as far as I'm concerned. No veto for 10-15 years, then veto negotiable.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/94432-unsc-seat-india-ready-deal-without-veto.html

 

[ares]

Hey genius, it's not a self-imposed restriction. You think that India would have refused veto if it was possible to get?


The story is closed as far as I'm concerned.

Bull$hit this new you posted is regarding, India getting a non permanent seat (which is always without veto power) at UNSC this year, after a self imposed restriction(not contesting for this seat for last 20yrs).