India will become permanent member of UN Security Council: Sushma Swaraj

[Dungeness]

France supported the extension while Russia and China did not make any submission on the issue, Swaraj said.

By: PTI | New Delhi | Updated: April 6, 2017 6:43 pm


“I am confident that if not this time, then next time, India would become a permanent member of the Security Council,” Sushma Swaraj said. (Representational Image)
Expressing confidence that India would become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj on Thursday said the country expected that the new members would have the same rights, including the veto power, as the existing permanent members.

During the Question Hour in Rajya Sabha, Swaraj said India has all the credentials to become a permanent member of the Security Council and four permanent members, US, UK, France and Russia have extended support.

The fifth member, China, has also “not publicly opposed it”, the External Affairs minister said.

“I am confident that if not this time, then next time, India would become a permanent member of the Security Council,” she said.

To a question whether India would also get the ‘veto’ power, Swaraj said the country wants the same esponsibilities, prerogatives as well as obligations as the current permanent members.

“We don’t want any discrimination between old and new members. We don’t want two classes – that there is a first class and a second class of permanent members. This should make it clear that India wants the same responsibilities, prerogatives and obligations as the current permanent members,” she said.

She said India has been making diplomatic efforts to ensure not only expansion but also reform in the Security Council. She said India wanted expansion of its permanent as well as non-permanent membership of the council.

In her reply tabled in the House, Swaraj said on the issue of extending veto powers to new permanent members in their submission during the inter-governmental negotiation process of the 69th General Assembly, USA and UK opposed extension of veto to new members.

France supported the extension while Russia and China did not make any submission on the issue, she said.

She said discussions were currently on in the UN General Assembly through inter-governmental negotiation and India and other pro-reform groupings have been calling commencement of text based negotiations.

One of India's problems is their political leaders never have to be held accountable for their big mouth, so there are plenty of them there. Being a big mouth is their version of political correctness, and they regard "Big Mouthing" as "Inspiration".

 

[Hassan Guy]

There was only one requirement to become a UNSC P5 member... to have been a major independent power on the Allied side of WW2 in 1945.

That's all.

India did not exist in 1945, so they did not qualify. And Britain already had a P5 seat.

Pretty sure India's leaders at the time where pro-Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

 

[Shotgunner51]

India didn't exist in 1945. Tell me how do you give a P5 seat to a country that does not exist?

Good. Then ask India to stop begging China for an NSG seat and a UNSC seat.

As elaborated above, United Nations is a direct results of WWII, P5 of UNSC comprised of Allied "Big Four", and later France added, then ROC replaced by PRC, USSR replaced by Russia, becoming the P5 as what we know nowadays.

The world has changed alot in the past 70 years, notably the resurgence of two ex-Axis powers. Both topped the Comprehensive Industrial Performance indicator (CIP) by UNDP, and are world's top two largest creditor economies per UN-IMF, holding largest net external assets (NIIP) outside their borders. They are also among UN's top 5 sources of funding.

Gross, 2016 UN Regular Budget
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/932
​

Existing P5 might be a bit outdated, however reform is not easy. Which nations should be added (or removed) from list?

1. If technological, industrial, economic and financial strengths are criteria, then Japan and Germany. But there are queries on international political trust especially from regional neighbors (China is very cautious of Tokyo's growing WWII Revisionism), and that the region might be over-represented in UNSC (should Germany replace UK or France?).
2. If population then India, Indonesia, Brazil?
3. Religion could be another criteria, say representative of Muslim world, this is difficult given the sectarian differences.
4. If large geographies need to be represented, perhaps Brazil can represent LatAm. Africa also needs one, Nigeria, Egypt or South Africa?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Existing P5 might be a bit outdated, however reform is not easy. Which nations should be added (or removed) from list?

From the articles I have read on this forum, it seems that the USA, Russia and China are all opposed to any kind of "alteration or expansion of veto power".

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...nsc-reforms/story-MxtYV7ZFUk67mWut8upPyO.html

American ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said in her letter to Kutesa that the US is "open in principle" to a "modest" expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members but the condition that "any consideration of an expansion of permanent members must take into account the ability and willingness of countries to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the United Nations."

She also reiterated that the US remains opposed to "any alteration or expansion of the veto".

Sources told PTI that the US opposition to aspects of the reform process can be perceived as a "duplicity" since President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his support for a reformed UN Security Council with India as a permanent member.

Russia, which has also supported India's candidacy as permanent member, said in its letter to Kutesa that the "prerogatives of the current permanent members of the Security Council, including the use of the veto, should remain intact under any variant of the council reform".

---------------------------

Which makes sense, since why would the P5 voluntarily dilute their own veto power? I think any new additions to the UNSC will have to accept that they won't get veto power.

And without veto power, a permanent UNSC seat loses most of its importance. People will just start to talk about the 5 veto powers instead.

 

[El Sidd]

India has the potential to be a permanent member of the UNSC. It just needs another 25 years of stable growth and internal stability.

 

[Srinivas]

There was only one requirement to become a UNSC P5 member... to have been a major independent power on the Allied side of WW2 in 1945.

That's all.

India did not exist in 1945, so they did not qualify. And Britain already had a P5 seat.

You should be supporting Britain instead of china because hong kong is Britain in 1945.

 

[illusion8]

India has the potential to be a permanent member of the UNSC. It just needs another 25 years of stable growth and internal stability.

China was one of the poorest countries in the world when it was made a UN permanent member, the criteria by which it became one was because of its huge population and because it was on the winning side by default.

India has long qualified to be a permanent member for its sheer size and population, economy or achievements isn't the criteria to become a member - china wouldn't have been one if that was the case.

 

[El Sidd]

China was one of the poorest countries in the world when it was made a UN permanent member, the criteria by which it became one was because of its huge population and because it was on the winning side by default.

India has long qualified to be a permanent member for its sheer size and population, economy or achievements isn't the criteria to become a member - china wouldn't have been one if that was the case.

By that definition Pakistan should be UNSC member before India.

As long as both countries are facing instablity, both cannot be considered as viable candidate.

Pakistan will support Indian contention for UNSC once Kashmir issue is resolved as per Kashmiris wishes and UN resolution.

 

[illusion8]

By that definition Pakistan should be UNSC member before India.

As long as both countries are facing instablity, both cannot be considered as viable candidate.

Pakistan will support Indian contention for UNSC once Kashmir issue is resolved as per Kashmiris wishes and UN resolution.

How does Pakistan qualify to be a UNSC member?

How is India facing instability?

I don't think India counts Pakistani support for the UNSC.

 

[El Sidd]

How does Pakistan qualify to be a UNSC member?

How is India facing instability?

I don't think India counts Pakistani support for the UNSC.

Pakistan qualifies by the same definition as India.
India may not need Pakistan's support but UNSC needs Pakistan's support in this regard.
India is in an economic bubble and face pressing issues in terms of governance.
The world cannot afford another USSR in India at this moment in time.

As I said in time India will be a permanent member at UNSC but there is work to be done.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

As President Trump would say "You're Vetoed!"

 

[Kambojaric]

The current members will oppose it to the greatest extent possible The US and its allies might say they support Indian entry, but they know that China wont allow this hence they come out as the good guys by saying they support India. In reality nobody wants to share the immense power that the SC permanent members have.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China was one of the poorest countries in the world when it was made a UN permanent member, the criteria by which it became one was because of its huge population and because it was on the winning side by default.

India has long qualified to be a permanent member for its sheer size and population, economy or achievements isn't the criteria to become a member - china wouldn't have been one if that was the case.

Population was never a criteria, nor was economy. Or culture. Or anything else of that nature.

The criteria was to have been a major independent country on the allied side of WW2 in 1945. India was not a country back then, so there was never any consideration for it being given a permanent seat. And they sure as Hell weren't going to give Britain 2 permanent seats.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You were also not a country during WW2 and were a Japanese colony, buddy.

Let's not forget that partly or wholly, there was no complete China when the imperial Japanese had divide the entire population into either puppet states or subjects.

The bottom line is, despite contributing over a million lives for the cause of the World War, India was given a short change by the Allies.

You were nowhere in the picture. It was Chiang Kai Shek's Taiwan that was given the power and recognition until the year 1971.

Whatever is your equation with Taiwan that is your matter; but the point is Allies short changed us.

China was never fully occupied by Imperial Japan (at their greatest extent they occupied around 1/4 of China's territory), we actually fought back. That's why we were recognized as an independent nation in 1945, and why we got the UNSC permanent seat while India got nothing, because India didn't exist at that point.

I don't know why you guys are out to make this some sort of conspiracy. There was simply no way they were going to hand 2 permanent seats to Britain.

 

[Srinivas]

China was never fully occupied by Imperial Japan (at their greatest extent they occupied around 1/4 of China's territory), we actually fought back. That's why we were recognized as an independent nation in 1945, and why we got the UNSC permanent seat while India got nothing, because India didn't exist at that point.

I don't know why you guys are out to make this some sort of conspiracy. There was simply no way they were going to hand 2 permanent seats to Britain.

Fake history after opium wars there is no Chinese authority just a controlled chaos.

Who is asking you for permanent seat?



Try to keep quite in India related threads. And there is no mention of china in the statement of Indian minister. China is been ignored.