India is rightful claimant of UNSC permanent seat

[twocents]

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

LOL in the first minute they already refer to India as a superpower.

But let's be serious, none of the P5 will be willing to dilute their own veto power. Even Nikki Haley told India to forget about trying to get veto power.

Also, China won't even let India into the NSG when they already have a waiver. If China is unwilling to grant such a small concession to India, why would we ever even entertain the notion of granting India a permanent seat in the Security Council?

So India can use veto against China in the UNSC?

 

[war&peace]

LOL in the first minute they already refer to India as a superpower.

But let's be serious, none of the P5 will be willing to dilute their own veto power. Even Nikki Haley told India to forget about trying to get veto power.

Also, China won't even let India into the NSG when they already have a waiver. If China is unwilling to grant such a small concession to India, why would we ever even entertain the notion of granting India a permanent seat in the Security Council?

So India can threaten to veto our own UNSC resolutions?

Gangadesh without NSG and permanent UNSC seat is a trouble for region, and if the unthinkable happens, it will become a trouble for the whole world especially China...so better be smart than sorry, let Gangadesh stay what it is i.e. Gangadesh

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

This WION lol, it's based off in India and always takes shit about Pakistan.

 

[war&peace]

This WION lol, it's based off in India and always takes shit about Pakistan.

It is not just based off Gangadesh, it is a special arm of RAW.

 

[DrasticMeasure]

Well India does have a solid claim to the UNSC seat. China won't give out their support that easily, but overtime might be reluctantly forced to support. If most of the world major economics are asking for UNSC reform China alone can't keep blocking it.

UNSC reform will happen and when that happens India will be the first one in line.

Gangadesh without NSG and permanent UNSC seat is a trouble for region, and if the unthinkable happens, it will become a trouble for the whole world especially China...so better be smart than sorry, let Gangadesh stay what it is i.e. Gangadesh

Last time I checked Pakistan is not even considered a contender for a temporary UNSC seat.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well India does have a solid claim to the UNSC seat.

Based on what exactly?

 

[DrasticMeasure]

Based on what exactly?

@Chinese-Dragon you are no kid. You can answer this question yourself. Let me give you some starters.

India represents 1/6th of Humanity. 3rd largest consumer market in the world. 3rd Largest economy in PPP and 5th largest in Nominal. Nuclear power. Rest you can figure out yourself.

 

[BHarwana]

WTF they want to join the SC because their population is not in habit of using condoms and they produce so much babies and their population is increasing so much this is not a plus point but bad thing.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

@Chinese-Dragon you are no kid. You can answer this question yourself. Let me give you some starters.

India represents 1/6th of Humanity. 3rd largest consumer market in the world. 3rd Largest economy in PPP and 5th largest in Nominal. Nuclear power. Rest you can figure out yourself.

That's exactly what I thought you would say. But why don't we think about it, a little more deeply?

Population size - Irrelevant. Otherwise the UK and France would not be permanent members, and Brazil and Indonesia would be.

Large economy - Irrelevant. When China joined the UNSC in 1945 we were one of the poorest and weakest economies in the world. In fact we are still a developing country today.

Nuclear power - Irrelevant. Otherwise Israel and North Korea would have permanent seats.


Again, there was only one criteria to become a UNSC permanent member. Which was to have been a major independent country on the allied side of WW2 in 1945. That's all. India did not exist back then, so they were not considered for the seat. And nobody was going to give the UK two seats.

 

[war&peace]

Based on what exactly?

I can tell you the solid basis,

1. Lack of toilets for 600 - 800 million people
2. Worst human rights violations in IoJ&K
3. Divisive caste system that makes the weak slave for the powerful
4. Rape and lack of respect for women
5. Human rights violations in the whole country
6. Dokhlam debacle
7. Tibet conflict

 

[Cybernetics]

That's exactly what I thought you would say. But why don't we think about it, a little more deeply?

Population size - Irrelevant. Otherwise the UK and France would not be permanent members, and Brazil and Indonesia would be.

Large economy - Irrelevant. When China joined the UNSC in 1945 we were one of the poorest and weakest economies in the world. In fact we are still a developing country today.

Nuclear power - Irrelevant. Otherwise Israel and North Korea would have permanent seats.


Again, there was only one criteria to become a UNSC permanent member. Which was to have been a major independent country on the allied side of WW2 in 1945. That's all. India did not exist back then, so they were not considered for the seat. And nobody was going to give the UK two seats.

The entire UN was a construct of the post WW2 global reconfiguration. The permanent members: USSR (Russia), China, UK, USA, and France were the major countries that contributed significantly to the defeat of the Axis. The military contribution of British India was not significant compared to others, 87,000 died from military action and the rest were from famine.

Military deaths from WW2
USSR: 9-11 million
China: 3-4 million
USA: 400,000
UK: 380,000
Poland: 240,000
France: 210,000
India: 87,000

The permanent seat is not about the size and population of your country but how important it is in the formation of the global architecture, much of which was founded on blood and sacrifice. India has a lot of people and its population will likely surpass China in the near future, has nukes and a medium sized economy but other than that it has yet to prove itself worthy of the seat. It needs to prove to the world that it can form the global architecture for the next era (why else would P5 accept another member?), based on real action not rhetoric. That is the way to make other country feel it is acceptable for India to have a seat. As of now, you can't really blame the P5 for not wanting another country like India. What sacrifice has it contributed in shaping the next era and what results does it have to show for it? I don't like being so blunt as it may hurt the feelings of some aspirational ones but the reality is that India has yet to earn its place.

The advanced countries rejected China in joining the international space station project for many years but it will soon launch its own independent space station. There is no free meal in international relations, you only get what you put into it, rarely do you get things you don't deserve.

I'm not saying it is impossible for India to become a member of the P5 (P6) but it must contribute much more to the global architecture. Currently it's doing very little, Argentina contribues more funding to UN. PRC's bid into the UN to replace the ROC was the unconditional support and funding of African and other third world nations. China at the time of the 60s were starving in worse famines than African nations but still built rail roads and other infrastructure projects along with medical support for African nations, without asking for anything in return. In history what country was willing to do that under those conditions? This resulted in gaining support and respect from these countries to support the PRC in UN. This is also why propaganda against Chinese interests in Africa won't work and why African nations in general accept Chinese investment above others, our forefathers sacrificed to better the lives of people we are not related to even when we were starving. What actual benefit is India bringing to the world to make others respect it? not just asking others for support but real action to better others. So far its asking for too much and doing too little.

UN budget contributions:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/955

 

[faithfulguy]

That's exactly what I thought you would say. But why don't we think about it, a little more deeply?

Population size - Irrelevant. Otherwise the UK and France would not be permanent members, and Brazil and Indonesia would be.

Large economy - Irrelevant. When China joined the UNSC in 1945 we were one of the poorest and weakest economies in the world. In fact we are still a developing country today.

Nuclear power - Irrelevant. Otherwise Israel and North Korea would have permanent seats.


Again, there was only one criteria to become a UNSC permanent member. Which was to have been a major independent country on the allied side of WW2 in 1945. That's all. India did not exist back then, so they were not considered for the seat. And nobody was going to give the UK two seats.

How about India has the world fastest computer based on PPP?

 

[undercover JIX]

apnay mun mian mittoo....tarlay karan lag pai ne..

 

[Thanatos]

Well India does have a solid claim to the UNSC seat. China won't give out their support that easily, but overtime might be reluctantly forced to support. If most of the world major economics are asking for UNSC reform China alone can't keep blocking it.

UNSC reform will happen and when that happens India will be the first one in line.


Last time I checked Pakistan is not even considered a contender for a temporary UNSC seat.

How can a country who violates UNSC resolution ( on Kashmir) could ever be considered for permanent member of UNSC. India is a poor third world country. Its better if you get our of your Bollywood fantasy land.