Obama backs India on permanent UN Security Council seat

[I FLY HIGH]

I think you are right, a weak ago the statement was totally different from now . I think the security council seat for India would not be an easy task e.g other players like pakistan ,china etc. Moreover there are other countries who are candidates for this , however if india gets the seat , it will be welcomed by us.

 

[Alphatech]

Exactly right.

The future is all about cooperation, not about rivalry. Despite the perceptions that some people still hold.

Right on Bro....

I am personally sure that when the time comes China will definitely vote for India's permanent seat. After all, this is the beginning of the Asian Century and our countries will have to work together to ensure that that we grow together. There will be many western powers which will inevitably try to slow us down and we need to join hands to protect our interests.

I specially mentioned why it's in China's own interest to support us, not because I think China is a hostile rival, but to preempt the inevitable few who will come along saying that China will use it's veto to block India. No matter how close China might seem to be with Pakistan, it will not risk antagonizing India just to keep it's smaller friend happy. China and India are in a whole different league, and if the other countries in the region stop squabbling and instead jump on the bandwagon of progress, the whole region can grow together. Even Japan has realized that it is no longer the rising Star of Asia and is backing away from being hostile towards China as seen in the rush to defuse the recent crisis, as well as increasing it's efforts to improve relations with India.

and we not sharing USA's view on global warming ... India and China is giving hard time to western nations on this

It's not that both our countries don't recognize the dangers of global warming. The reason we have this problem is because of the huge amount of pollution that America and Europe spewed out in their industrial growth phases. They polluted the whole planet for decades and now want the rest of the world to clean it up. India and China are the fastest growing major economies now and will not sacrifice that growth for correcting someone else's mistake.

If America and Europe are so serious about this, they should work twice as hard to clean up the mess that they created and then maybe we will pay attention. We all remember that America wasn't even willing to ratify the Koyoto protocol till it saw global warming was an opportunity to slow down the rapid industrialization of the East.

 

[I FLY HIGH]

I don't think China will openly oppose or even think of vetoing India's bid. They might try to stall the process and buy time, but openly opposing India's bid will be seen as overt aggressiveness and will severely hurt the international image China is trying to cultivate. India has too many powerful friends and a clean international record which will prevent any major powers from antagonizing India. Moreover in all recent talks with China regarding this issue, the Chinese have shown support but stopped just short of actually endorsing the bid.The only country that will blatantly oppose India's bid is Pakistan, which is pretty much inconsequential, and given their current reputation, we might even be able use this to our advantage.

I think dont underestimate the geographical and military postion of Pakistan. Pakistans point of view in this regard will be very important for China , Being an ally , the china will safeguard its intrests and also Pakistans intrests . I think UNSC seat for India does not fit in to the foreign polIcy of both Pakistan and China . WHAT OBAMA HAS SAID IN SAINT XAVIERS COLLEGE ABOUT PAKISTAN BEING A GREAT AND VERY IMPORTANT COUNTRY SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THOSE WHO UNDERMINES PAKISTANS IMPORTANCE IN THE REIGION AND ON GLOBE .(If anybody thinks that chinas image willbe distorted if it opposes india for UNSC seat , I is not likely to be)

 

[Alphatech]

WHAT OBAMA HAS SAID IN SAINT XAVIERS COLLEGE ABOUT PAKISTAN BEING A GREAT AND VERY IMPORTANT COUNTRY SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THOSE WHO UNDERMINES PAKISTANS IMPORTANCE IN THE REIGION AND ON GLOBE .(If anybody thinks that chinas image willbe distorted if it opposes india for UNSC seat , I is not likely to be)

I don't know how the media there spins the news, but even though I personally think Pakistan has the potential to be a great country, President Obama certainly did not mention anything about it.

The only thing positive he said was that Pakistan was “a strategically important country not just for the United States, but also for the world.” The "Republic of Panama" is probably the most strategically important country in the world, but no one would call them great or consider giving them a permanent security seat. Strategic importance does not automatically translate into economic power or global influence.

President Obama used his speech to point out the dangers of what he called the “cancer” of extremism that emanate from Pakistan and the dangers it posed to the world. Rather than taking this as a compliment and suggesting implied "greatness" due to strategic significance, Pakistan should work harder to remove the stigma it has due to it's association with terrorism and try to become realize the real potential it has to be a great country. That way the rest of the world will actually respect Pakistan as a emerging power rather than be worried of it being overrun by terrorists.

 

[gubbi]

I am personally sure that when the time comes China will definitely vote for India's permanent seat. After all, this is the beginning of the Asian Century and our countries will have to work together to ensure that that we grow together. There will be many western powers which will inevitably try to slow us down and we need to join hands to protect our interests.

China's problem is not India for UNSC expansion. The G-4 which aspire to become future perm members of UNSC are India, Brazil, Germany and yes, Japan. All these countries have a pact of sorts - "all for one, one for all". Each member of the group supports the entire group's efforts for UNSC expansion and apparently, if one gets left out, the others will protest. That is the whole point of a combined push by the G-4 for UNSC expansion.

China has problems, not with India, but Japan. And there lies the problem. Brazil and India are the only two countries whose UNSC aspirations most of the UNSC and UN members are comfortable with. Germany has problems within the EU block or Israel I presume, while Japan has problems with China.

Pakistan's opposition to India's bid will be heard, but will not be given any consideration. Ultimately, Pakistan will have to vote for India to reap the benefits what UNSC seat will bring to the region. China has Japan to deal with.

 

[Alphatech]

China has problems, not with India, but Japan. And there lies the problem. Brazil and India are the only two countries whose UNSC aspirations most of the UNSC and UN members are comfortable with. Germany has problems within the EU block or Israel I presume, while Japan has problems with China.

That was the case till a few years ago and was slight problem for India, but in 2006 Japan announced that it would not support putting the G4 resolution back on the table and was working on a resolution of its own. This conveniently distances Japan from the rest of the G4 and that too of it's own accord.

As for Germany, truth be told, after the European recession, Germany emerged significantly stronger than the rest of Europe and is still rapidly growing. It probably has more clout today than France or the UK. The only thing going against it is the troubling past due to it's hand in starting both the world wars. It's understandably difficult for the rest of the world to forget that so soon. On that note, I see no chance of China allowing Japan's bid without an acknowledgment and apology for their WW2 atrocities.

But at the end of the day, the G4 was an alliance of convenience . It was formed to highlight the issue of reform and present a united front. Other than that, the G4 countries are hardly best buddies, and wouldn't care much about the success of each others bid. The "3 permanent members from Europe" wouldn't matter as it also looks like "3 from Asia" if both India and Japan go through. Not to mention that everyone is acting like Africa is Invisible. At the end of the day, the permanent membership of the security council is all about who are the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. And when the final vote is done, I imagine it as an "Each candidate for himself " situation where the popularity of the other applicants won't really matter. This should ensure that India and Brazil sail through.....best of luck to the others though.

 

[Jackdaws]

Just read in Washington Post - apparently India was offered permanent seat in '55 but it declined it saying it should go to China. LOL. Nehru really was one of the worst Prime Ministers we had - perhaps only one truly worse was Deve Gowda.

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

 

[gubbi]

That was the case till a few years ago and was slight problem for India, but in 2006 Japan announced that it would not support putting the G4 resolution back on the table and was working on a resolution of its own. This conveniently distances Japan from the rest of the G4 and that too of it's own accord.

Thanks for the update. I didnt know that.

As for Germany's bid, though they are powerful, but EU does have problems with letting Germany in UNSC. Call it the hangover of WWII. And for Africa, nobody is ignoring that important voting block! I believe that India is very popular there along with China. Most of the African nations do support India's bid for UNSC. IIRC the majority of African nations voted for India for temp UNSC seat.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China's problem is not India for UNSC expansion. The G-4 which aspire to become future perm members of UNSC are India, Brazil, Germany and yes, Japan. All these countries have a pact of sorts - "all for one, one for all". Each member of the group supports the entire group's efforts for UNSC expansion and apparently, if one gets left out, the others will protest. That is the whole point of a combined push by the G-4 for UNSC expansion.

China has problems, not with India, but Japan. And there lies the problem. Brazil and India are the only two countries whose UNSC aspirations most of the UNSC and UN members are comfortable with. Germany has problems within the EU block or Israel I presume, while Japan has problems with China.

You're exactly right.

China doesn't use its veto often... but if Japan tries to get a permanent seat, we will use the veto to shut them down. Not only because of historical issues, but also because they are a proxy for the USA.

As for Germany, there are already two European permanent seats. There is no way "Europe" will get another seat. Germany will have to share a seat with France.

Japan and Germany also have "pacifist constitutions", as a result of losing WW2. So what use are they on the UNSC?

As before, India is by far the strongest candidate in the G4, due to population size, and huge economic potential. Forget Japan and Germany.

 

[Jackdaws]

Thanks for the update. I didnt know that.

As for Germany's bid, though they are powerful, but EU does have problems with letting Germany in UNSC. Call it the hangover of WWII. And for Africa, nobody is ignoring that important voting block! I believe that India is very popular there along with China. Most of the African nations do support India's bid for UNSC. IIRC the majority of African nations voted for India for temp UNSC seat.

I personally think the EU should have 2 seats which can be rotated between the UK, France, Germany and Italy or even other EU members.

 

[Alphatech]

Just read in Washington Post - apparently India was offered permanent seat in '55 but it declined it saying it should go to China. LOL. Nehru really was one of the worst Prime Ministers we had - perhaps only one truly worse was Deve Gowda.

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

That is quite true but all is not as it seems. It was regarded in intelligent circles as a plan to distance India from USSR and leave us hanging with neither a permanent seat nor a respectable reputation. Read on....


Today, 55 years later, as New Delhi runs from pillar to post for a permanent member seat in the UNSC, a review of Nehru’s decision to go by Moscow’s persuasion and plea in favour of China for a permanent UNSC seat could be of great significance. Perhaps a leader with lesser understanding of the then international scenario would have jumped to the conclusion of saying ‘‘Yes’’ to the US offer and possibly would have landed up biting dust. The crux of the matter at that point of time was the Cold War. The US, UK and France openly belonged to one block while of the Warsaw Pact countries USSR was the sole member in the UNSC. Moscow’s gameplan was obviously to have another Communist power as a permanent member in the UNSC to face the challenge of the NATO even within the security council. And hence the pressure on New Delhi to surrender the US offer in favour of China.

Any observer with adequate knowledge of the raging Cold War and the international scenario in 1955 would agree that Washington’s offer of a permanent UNSC seat could never ensure India a cake walk into the Security Council. With every permanent member enjoying veto power it was clear as daylight that any proposal for the fifth member’s name made by a member of one block would be vetoed by the member(s) of the other block. Accordingly, in the face of a standing US offer, possibly Nehru could see through the Soviet gameplan of vetoing any member’s name till China made the entry into the Security Council as the permanent member from Asia. Perhaps realizing a near impossible task of making way to the Security Council with the two Cold War blocks calling the shots in tune with their confrontation, Nehru possibly could clearly visualize the ineffectiveness of the US offer and hence turned down the offer.

Another reason why Nehru possibly rejected the US offer could possibly be to maintain friendly relations with all countries, regardless of blocks, or at least not to incur the wrath of any country, more particularly powerful nations. Perhaps Nehru was highly convinced that the American gameplan would come a cropper, leaving India to bite dust while relations with the Soviet Union and China would deteriorate to an all-time low. With the situation ensuring an almost certain fall and ignominy, it was only natural for New Delhi to reject the US offer. After all, any fool can aim for the moon, but the wise and the intelligent would always consider if a greater risk of crash-landing or still worse nose-landing could be on the cards. And certainly Nehru did not want to see India crestfallen after fighting a losing battle.
The Sentinel


You see Nehru, being the shrewd politician he was, politely declined, ensuring we had a trustworthy relationship with USSR and amiable one with China. Never forget that in 1971, the US sent a nuclear carrier into the bay of Bengal to force India to give up the war against Pakistan and the nuclear submarines immediately dispatched from Russia are what sent them packing. This would have never happened if we had even tried to get that seat

The security council seat is something that will smoothly slide into our hands with our current position. We could not have got it that time and even if we did, the world would not have respected a newly independent "third world country" for it. Besides, we had the Russian veto whenever we really needed it. Now India is in a much more powerful place to flex the muscle that comes with a permanent SC seat. we are also quite popular , remember we won the recent non-permanent seat with 187 of the 191 member states in the General Assembly backing us. Some things taste much more sweeter when we earn them rather than when they are gifted to us. Nehru may have been flawed but his economic policies contributed to our current growth and he was smart enough to help secure our independence. I would certainly not call him one of the worst Prime Ministers we had, he was quite an intelligent lad.

 

[Alphatech]

Thanks for the update. I didnt know that.

As for Germany's bid, though they are powerful, but EU does have problems with letting Germany in UNSC. Call it the hangover of WWII. And for Africa, nobody is ignoring that important voting block! I believe that India is very popular there along with China. Most of the African nations do support India's bid for UNSC. IIRC the majority of African nations voted for India for temp UNSC seat.

I am quite sure the Africans will whole heatedly help us secure the seat. Like you said they love India and China, especially because even though we go there for business we treat them with respect unlike the exploitative westerners.

But What I meant when I said we were treating them as if they are invisible was that they might feel like they deserve some representation too. Okay I guess that probably never crossed many poeple's minds....I can even imagine some people laughing at such a comment. But they are also part of the "United Nations" that supposedly represents the whole world. We are talking about 54 countries with 15% of the world's population and some countries like South Africa look quite respectable too. When we ignore them completely or say the other permanent members can take care of them, we are mimicking the western reasoning that denied Asia a permanent seat when the UN was first formed. I would prefer to have India and China advocate a seat for them too, or else we will be guilty of the same double standards that we frequently accuse the West of. And if we do that Africa will be forever grateful, and trust me, they don't forget a debt........ Just a thought.

 

[Jackdaws]

That is quite true but all is not as it seems. It was regarded in intelligent circles as a plan to distance India from USSR and leave us hanging with neither a permanent seat nor a respectable reputation. Read on....


Today, 55 years later, as New Delhi runs from pillar to post for a permanent member seat in the UNSC, a review of Nehru’s decision to go by Moscow’s persuasion and plea in favour of China for a permanent UNSC seat could be of great significance. Perhaps a leader with lesser understanding of the then international scenario would have jumped to the conclusion of saying ‘‘Yes’’ to the US offer and possibly would have landed up biting dust. The crux of the matter at that point of time was the Cold War. The US, UK and France openly belonged to one block while of the Warsaw Pact countries USSR was the sole member in the UNSC. Moscow’s gameplan was obviously to have another Communist power as a permanent member in the UNSC to face the challenge of the NATO even within the security council. And hence the pressure on New Delhi to surrender the US offer in favour of China.

Any observer with adequate knowledge of the raging Cold War and the international scenario in 1955 would agree that Washington’s offer of a permanent UNSC seat could never ensure India a cake walk into the Security Council. With every permanent member enjoying veto power it was clear as daylight that any proposal for the fifth member’s name made by a member of one block would be vetoed by the member(s) of the other block. Accordingly, in the face of a standing US offer, possibly Nehru could see through the Soviet gameplan of vetoing any member’s name till China made the entry into the Security Council as the permanent member from Asia. Perhaps realizing a near impossible task of making way to the Security Council with the two Cold War blocks calling the shots in tune with their confrontation, Nehru possibly could clearly visualize the ineffectiveness of the US offer and hence turned down the offer.

Another reason why Nehru possibly rejected the US offer could possibly be to maintain friendly relations with all countries, regardless of blocks, or at least not to incur the wrath of any country, more particularly powerful nations. Perhaps Nehru was highly convinced that the American gameplan would come a cropper, leaving India to bite dust while relations with the Soviet Union and China would deteriorate to an all-time low. With the situation ensuring an almost certain fall and ignominy, it was only natural for New Delhi to reject the US offer. After all, any fool can aim for the moon, but the wise and the intelligent would always consider if a greater risk of crash-landing or still worse nose-landing could be on the cards. And certainly Nehru did not want to see India crestfallen after fighting a losing battle.
The Sentinel


You see Nehru, being the shrewd politician he was, politely declined, ensuring we had a trustworthy relationship with USSR and amiable one with China. Never forget that in 1971, the US sent a nuclear carrier into the bay of Bengal to force India to give up the war against Pakistan and the nuclear submarines immediately dispatched from Russia are what sent them packing. This would have never happened if we had even tried to get that seat

The security council seat is something that will smoothly slide into our hands with our current position. We could not have got it that time and even if we did, the world would not have respected a newly independent "third world country" for it. Besides, we had the Russian veto whenever we really needed it. Now India is in a much more powerful place to flex the muscle that comes with a permanent SC seat. we are also quite popular , remember we won the recent non-permanent seat with 187 of the 191 member states in the General Assembly backing us. Some things taste much more sweeter when we earn them rather than when they are gifted to us. Nehru may have been flawed but his economic policies contributed to our current growth and he was smart enough to help secure our independence. I would certainly not call him one of the worst Prime Ministers we had, he was quite an intelligent lad.

Thanks. Couple points of disagreement -

a. Nehru had practically nothing to do with securing our independence - he was a second rung leader below the likes of Gandhi and Patel in the Congress and below the likes of Jinnah at the national level. Even within his age group, S.C. Bose was a bigger leader for the people with more mass appeal and a far bigger contribution to independence.

b. Till the fiasco of 1962 - India's voice actually carried a lot of weight. Countries from Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia saw as a natural leader of the "third world". Infact the term, "third world" was coined by Nehru to not reflect economic backwardness but political independence from the two blocks.

c. Nixon sent the warship in 1971 and all said and done, the man was borderline insane. He would have sent it irrespective of whether we had been on the UNSC or not.

 

[luckyyy]

Obama has backed india on the UNSC seatr..but putup two conditions.

Iran & myanmar

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Obama has backed india on the UNSC seatr..but putup two conditions.

Iran & myanmar

is buying F-18s a condition too