India wants UNSC club expanded to 25 states

[Chinese-Dragon]

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.

We'll see what happens I guess.

If there is any transition, it will probably be slow.

The developed world may be losing economic steam, but almost everything else is in their favour. They built the current international order, all we can do is lobby to change it from the inside. From within existing institutions like the UN, the WTO, the IMF, etc.

 

[Imran Khan]

25 seats are not enough man make it 30 there is few passengers left lolz .

 

[conworldus]

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

Whatever you smoke must be some good stuff. Can I have it?

 

[gagaga]

the UN P5 system seems very similar to democratic centralism to me anyway... the expend version would be better, but still a system of democratic centralism, a communist system...

 

[Vibs]

the UN P5 system seems very similar to democratic centralism to me anyway... the expend version would be better, but still a system of democratic centralism, a communist system...

Never looked at it that way. You're actually right. Wonder how the democratic members making up the P-5 justify that!!

 

[Mo12]

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.

Not long until India takes over France and UK.

India has already overtook Russia.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Never looked at it that way. You're actually right. Wonder how the democratic members making up the P-5 justify that!!

Don't blame us, China was not a democracy to begin with.

The democracies of America, Britain and France... seem to be fine with the very "undemocratic" organizations that are the cornerstones of international law. From the UN to the WTO to the IMF.

 

[harpoon]

Whatever you smoke must be some good stuff. Can I have it?

Sorry, Can't name the source.

 

[Vibs]

Don't blame us, China was not a democracy to begin with.

The democracies of America, Britain and France... seem to be fine with the very "undemocratic" organizations that are the cornerstones of international law. From the UN to the WTO to the IMF.

You forgot World Bank. But great point.

 

[Jade]

Until now good discussion! Nice to read the posts.

 

[kawaraj]

not bad. how about this one.

UNSC, 15 members.

Members with VETO power: US, China
Members: UK, France, Russia, Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, South Africa, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

not bad. how about this one.

UNSC, 15 members.

Members with VETO power: US, China
Members: UK, France, Russia, Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, South Africa, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt.

I like the choices. But giving only America and China veto power, probably wouldn't turn out so well.

Given the above scenario, veto power would have to be removed entirely.

 

[kawaraj]

I like the choices. But giving only America and China veto power, probably wouldn't turn out so well.

Given the above scenario, veto power would have to be removed entirely.

no, veto power is a practical way in respecting the fact. theory is if there is one nation big enough to null any resolution, the resolution is an invalid one.

so basically only US and China today has the enormous power to execute an order from UN.

Vetos by UK and France have been a waste of institution of UNSC for a long time.

 

[dumelaraa]

Interesting..

 

[jdme]

Geriatric Indian politicians...They still think this is 1950s and UN actually has any power...