India wants UNSC club expanded to 25 states

[Vibs]

NEW DELHI: Minister of state for foreign affairs Preneet Kaur reiterated on Wednesday that India wants United Nations' Security Council (UNSC) membership expanded from the current 15 states to 25. India in collaboration with Brazil, Japan and Germany - together known as the G-4 - has proposed expansion of the UNSC membership from 15 to 25, with the addition of six permanent and four non-permanent members.

"India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations had in a statement, at a meeting of the UN General Assembly plenary on the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council on March 2, 2011, clearly stated India's views regarding expansion of the Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories," Kaur told the Lok Sabha.

There are a range of proposals, suggesting an increase in the numbers of permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. "During the course of intergovernmental negotiations, the proposals for expansion of the Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories have commanded the most support among UN member states," she added.

The government has been actively seeking support from all UN member states for India's candidature for permanent membership in an expanded UNSC. As a result of these efforts, Kaur said, there has been a steady increase of support for India's candidature. Both India and the US are actively involved in the ongoing negotiations on SC reform in the UN and seek an expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories of the Council's membership.
India wants UNSC club expanded to 25 states - The Times of India

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

To modify the UN charter, you need unanimous approval from ALL P5 members, as well as a 2/3 supermajority in the general assembly.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

Extremely difficult, would be a serious understatement.

 

[Lankan Ranger]

I dont think, it will happen soon, P5 members wont be happy about it.

 

[SpArK]

I dont think, it will happen soon, P5 members wont be happy about it.

We will tickle them until they laugh.. Then all of them will be happy.. and we will have new members .. and happily they live ever after...

The End.

 

[Vibs]

To modify the UN charter, you need unanimous approval from ALL P5 members, as well as a 2/3 supermajority in the general assembly.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XVIII: Amendments

Extremely difficult, would be a serious understatement.

Difficult, yes, but the UN is losing credibility as it is. There is a serious need to relook it's functioning capacity. Regional alliances like NATO,SCO etc etc are potentially threatening to take over the areas supposed to be covered by the UN. Besides, despite having Russia and China as permanent members with veto powers, NATO members have been able to aggressively push their agenda by exerting diplomatic muscle.

I dont think, it will happen soon, P5 members wont be happy about it.

Don't expect them to be. But the world is no longer the same as it was when they were given permanent membership.

 

[harpoon]

I dont think, it will happen soon, P5 members wont be happy about it.

Who cares? but its high time that the UN recognize the fact that the world has changed a lot since 1945.

The following countries should be given permanent membership:
Asia: India & Japan
ME: Egypt
Africa: South Africa
South America: Brazil
Europe: Germany

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Who cares? but its high time that the UN recognize the fact that the world has changed a lot since 1945.

The world has changed, but the nations internationally recognized as "Great powers", have more or less stayed the same.

Great power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SpArK]

The world has changed, but the nations internationally recognized as "Great powers", have more or less stayed the same.

Great power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also post ur risk rate link.... i mean that high risk, low risk one you daily post..

 

[Vibs]

The world has changed, but the nations internationally recognized as "Great powers", have more or less stayed the same.

Great power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a big issue with this term simply because the categorization is extremely vague and subjective. If you go by the criteria mentioned in the link you sent they are population and territory; resource endowment; economic capability; political stability and competence; and military strength. Competence and military strength are subjective. But the rest of the criteria are no longer balanced in the favor of the P5.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

But the rest of the criteria are no longer balanced in the favor of the P5.

I can't really agree with that.

The P5 and their allies, still account for most of the political power on Earth. America and Russia in particular.

(Japan and Germany have big economies, but they also have "pacifist" constitutions, as a legacy of WW2. Not a great critera to be in the "Security" council.)

 

[Vibs]

I can't really agree with that.

The P5 and their allies, still account for most of the political power on Earth. America and Russia in particular.

(Japan and Germany have big economies, but they also have "pacifist" constitutions, as a legacy of WW2. Not a great critera to be in the "Security" council.)

They hold political power because they belong to the elite club of the UN and not the other way round. Compare these criteria after eliminating USA and China from the P5. (population and territory; resource endowment; economic capability)

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Compare these criteria after eliminating USA and China from the P5.

Population and territory; resource endowment; economic capability; political stability and competence; and military strength.

Population and territory: America, Russia and China are three of the largest countries on Earth by land area, and population.

Economic capability: All the P5 members are amongst the world's largest economies, minus Russia.

Diplomatic strength: America and Russia are at the top of the world.

Military strength: America and Russia are at the top of the world.

Political stability: All are stable, apart from perhaps Russia and China.

Competence: All P5 members have historically proved that they can carry out their political will, both at home and overseas. For good or bad.

 

[Vibs]

Population and territory: America, Russia and China are three of the largest countries on Earth by land area, and population.

Economic capability: All the P5 members are amongst the world's largest economies, minus Russia.

Diplomatic strength: America and Russia are at the top of the world.

Military strength: America and Russia are at the top of the world.

Political stability: All are stable, apart from perhaps Russia and China.

Competence: All P5 members have historically proved that they can carry out their political will, both at home and overseas. For good or bad.

Population and territory: America, Russia and China are three of the largest countries on Earth by land area, and population. BRICS would be bigger

Economic capability: All the P5 members are amongst the world's largest economies, minus Russia. but currently in the midst of an economic crisis with the BRICS driving growth.

Diplomatic strength: America and Russia are at the top of the world.

Military strength: America and Russia are at the top of the world.
No argument.But others (notably China and India) are catching up. For relative diplomatic strength ,you should see what happens at WTO meetings.

Political stability: All are stable, apart from perhaps Russia and China. Earlier was restricted to a select few. I'd say even China along with India, Japan and South Africa are pretty stable now.

Competence: All P5 members have historically proved that they can carry out their political will, both at home and overseas. For good or bad. Youthink their decisions on Iraq and Libya were competent? I'm sure a lot of us would disagree.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Youthink their decisions on Iraq and Libya were competent? I'm sure a lot of us would disagree.

There was a lot of incompetence yes, but they carried it out.

When China is capable of invading two countries on the opposite side of the planet (Iraq/Afghanistan for the US), then maybe I'll talk.

Heck, we don't even have a blue water navy. Even Britain has more power projection than us.

The developed world have "guanxi" (relationships) with each other, like an Old Boys Network. That's why the West still rules the world, they stick together.

 

[Vibs]

There was a lot of incompetence yes, but they carried it out.

When China is capable of invading two countries on the opposite side of the planet (Iraq/Afghanistan for the US), then maybe I'll talk.

Heck, we don't even have a blue water navy.

The developed world have "guanxi" (relationships) with each other, like an Old Boys Network. That's why the West still rules the world, they stick together.

Agree on all points. But I still think the current scenario requires a lobbying for an extended council to take place. It'll all go hand in hand with the parallel development in the global stage with sustained pressure of BRICS on the IMF and World Bank as well as the progress of the SCO. In the end, I believe it'll be China's vote that's going to make a difference. Traditionally they have been the ones in opposition of India's bid and that seems to be linked to the bids of the other 3 nations. There will be a need for the two countries to work together like they do in the trade and economic forums.