What's new

India in China's gunsights

India was offered a permanent seat on the council 55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was declined by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead.

Obama supports adding India as a permanent member of U.N. Security Council

Jawaharlal Nehru "declined a United States offer" to India to "take the permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council" around 1953. Nehru declined the offer about the same time as he turned down "with scorn" John Foster Dulles' support for an Indian Monroe Doctrine. Nehru suggested that the United Nations Security Council seat held by Taiwan be offered to Beijing instead.

United Nations Security Council at AllExperts

Not that I expect anyone to accept this and let the issue rest..... Even if Nehru, Mao, Eisenhower and Khrushchev were to rise from the grave and tell the story, some people will still say it is an urban legend.
 
.
why should chinese-dragon give way to unreal illusion that india morally-high enough to concede the permanent seat??? the truth is that india has never been qualified for permanent seat as stated in UN charter as mentioned in a previous statement posted by indian ironman himself...

wonder why the freshly joined ''american'' tankgirl feeling down and desperate for the indian ''concession'' not appreciated by chinese???
 
.
You, Sir, are a Shameless Hypocrite of the highest order, with the typical loser mentality of supporting everything that fits your argument while blindly dismissing everything else.:hitwall::hitwall::hitwall:

Typical personal attacks.

You guys never ever give any evidence to support this claim. It's just an urban legend you tell yourselves to feel better.

If anyone wants to give any real evidence, i.e. some kind of official statement from any National government, then feel free to do so...
 
.
why should chinese-dragon give way to unreal illusion that india morally-high enough to concede the permanent seat??? the truth is that india has never been qualified for permanent seat as stated in UN charter as mentioned in a previous statement posted by indian ironman himself...

Exactly right. :tup:

The UN Security council was formed by the major powers at the end of WW2 that were both victorious and independent.

India won't get on the UNSC, without some significant reform of the charter. Any such reform resolution will be of course, subject to the P5 veto.
 
.
It was India that gave you such a previlige to be so (P-5), Nehru gave you a gift, because India was not interested as a non aligned member then.

Are you saying China wants to be rude and thankless?

Those Indians’ mind is just full of delusive fantasy… do Ashoka’s edicts provide evidence of your claim? :lol:

Otherwise prove your point with credible sources.
 
.
and i think if the theory of india is able to replace republic of china instead of 'verbally supporting' prc in 1950s then why didnt india sieze the opportunity of soviet demise and replace soviet seat in unsc instead of letting russian federation take the successor seat? dont tell me indian is again morally-upright to not to take the vacant permanent seat and violate game rules stated in un charter? after all, the formation of un charter game rule is determined by the respective power and strength of independent victorious nations after second world war. just allow the death of this myth and legend of india ''morally'' and ''decisively-powerful support'' for china to make china able to sit in p5, india was not among the independent victorious powers after all.
 
.
Typical personal attacks.

I am sorry if you took it personally, but there is nothing attacking about my statement. I gave very clear evidence from your own posts to show why I said you are a hypocrite and you know that you can't even argue with me about it. So if you still feel bad, go sit in a corner and cry for some time; there is nothing I can do about it.

You guys never ever give any evidence to support this claim. It's just an urban legend you tell yourselves to feel better.

At least read my post above before you rush to justify your jingoistic babbling. I already gave you evidence from American websites to support my claim and I also predicted that you would go on with the "urban legend" nonsense and ....well you didn't disappoint me.

bigmoneymaker said:
wonder why the freshly joined ''american'' tankgirl feeling down and desperate for the indian ''concession'' not appreciated by chinese???

What gave you the impression that Americans will not support the Indians over the Chinese, especially on matters of common interest?? In case you didn't realize it, America and China are not exactly best buddies and we don't give a damn what people from small Asia Pacific Islands think about our opinion. As for "freshly joined".....Listen Son, I may be new in posting on this forum,but I joined this world a long time ago and have seen quite a thing or two that would shock the hell out of you.....:devil:
 
. .
So if you still feel bad, go sit in a corner and cry for some time; there is nothing I can do about it.

^^^ Hey buddy you can believe in whatever urban legend you want.

Just thought it would be nice to see some actual evidence of it. :azn:

China has had the UNSC permanent seat ever since the end of WW2. China was first represented by the Republic of China, and then recognition was switched to the People's Republic of China. The seat always belonged to the cultural entity known as "China", just represented by two different governments due to a civil war.

And still, any official evidence is welcome.
 
.
why didnt india sieze the opportunity of soviet demise and replace soviet seat in unsc instead of letting russian federation take the successor seat? dont tell me indian is again morally-upright to not to take the vacant permanent seat and violate game rules stated in un charter? after all, the formation of un charter game rule is determined by the respective power and strength of independent victorious nations after second world war. just allow the death of this myth and legend of india ''morally'' and ''decisively-powerful support'' for china to make china able to sit in p5, india was not among the independent victorious powers after all.

Are you really a moron to ask such a silly question??? Do you seriously expect India to try to steal the Soviet seat from the country that supplied almost all their weapons and was their only dependable major ally at that time??? Go read some books and try to get some sense into your head man rather than spewing nonsense and embarrassing yourself.

As for victorious powers, Yeah Right!!!
France surrendered in the most cowardly fashion without even putting up a fight. China still goes on crying about how the guys from the small Island pawned them during the war and Britain was screaming for help as loud as they could. World war 2 was won firmly and indisputably by American involvement and before that we armed and financed all other major allies, without which they would have simply been crushed. The only other power that put on a respectable show was the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
.
Are you really a moron to ask such a silly question???

Wow even MORE personal attacks.

It is probably pointless to debate with you. :tup:

And as before, you can continue to believe urban legends if you wish.
 
.
Are you really a moron to ask such a silly question??? Do you seriously expect India to try to steal the Soviet seat from the country that supplied almost all their weapons and was their only dependable major ally at that time??? Go read some books and try to get some sense into your head man rather than spewing nonsense and embarrassing yourself.

As for victorious powers, Yeah Right!!!
France surrendered in the most cowardly fashion without even putting up a fight. China still goes on crying about how the guys from the small Island pawned them during the war and Britain was screaming for help as loud as they could. World war 2 was won firmly and indisputably by American involvement and before that we armed and financed all other major allies, without which they would have simply been crushed. The only other power that put on a respectable show was the Soviets.

look at the bolded part in first paragraph!! this man is already in identity confusion between uncle sam and bharat!~! we people just arguing with such a person suffer identity problem, what a waste of time....
 
.
look at the bolded part in first paragraph!! this man is already in identity confusion between uncle sam and bharat!~! we people just arguing with such a person suffer identity problem, what a waste of time....

It's a waste of time buddy, don't bother responding. All you'll get is personal attacks.
 
.
Resolution 2758 which recognized the representatives of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations", was supported by India. But that offcourse doesn't make China liable to support India's bid. No countries make their foreign policy based on good-will.

Anyway, if you have the power of arm twisting, the designation would come automatically. IMO the designation shouldn't come before India attaining that economic/military power, would make her look rather in poor light.
 
.
Resolution 2758 which recognized the representatives of the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations", was supported by India. But that offcourse doesn't make China liable to support India's bid.

Anyway, if you have the power of arm twisting, the designation would come automatically. No countries have their foreign policy based on good-will.

That's right, no country has their foreign policy based on good-will. Geopolitics is all about interests, if you have something that interests other nations (like a big domestic market) then they will favour you.
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom