What's new

Obama backs India on permanent UN Security Council seat

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

Iran & myanmar

I think regarding Iran there are some understanding between India and US as India maintained good relation with Iran through out previous years.

About Myanmar it doesn't matter what Obama thinkS because it is not a major part of US policy. And India will engage Myanmar like we are now.
 
I think it's a good idea for India to get a permanent seat. :tup: India has an "independent" foreign policy, they don't fall into anyone's "camp".

The UK for example just follows whatever the USA does.

Russia and France like to vote against the USA, just to annoy them.

China and India don't fall into any camp, they will just vote independently. Which ironically, will annoy America as well. :azn:

Yes, India does strive to follow an independent foreign policy. Though there are tremendous pressures sometimes. The remark on India not voting against the Burmese regime is a clear indication on the ultimate price that India is expected to pay for support of its UNSC aspirations. We are not in China's shoes as yet. I hope we can resist the attempts being made to subjugate our foreign policy. India should continue to do what is in India's best interests without bowing down to vested interests even if it means a delays in achieving our permanent membership at the UNSC. Let us become really strong first, in every way, it may take a few decades, but we can afford to wait that long can't we? Yes, China's foreign policy is really independent. India is yet to get there.
 
Exactly right. :tup:

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

I totally agree with you, for all the talks of rivalry between China and India, the future of India and China is about cooperation. India and China are neighbors (a situation that cannot be changed); the best strategy is cooperation with a tint of competition. People should understand competition is different from confrontation
 
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.

I think it would not be correct to compare Pakistan with Panama (you know that very well). There are challenges for pakistan but every country has got challenges . We are moving forward very succesfully to these , Swat is clear , southwaziristan is clear etc . Now things are lot better .(Allied forces are not successful in afganistan, they are talking to taliban) we have internally a lot of awareness in our country like independent MEDIA, JUDICIARY etc. You are right we need to work on our economy. Economics is the major tool which can turn arround the position of any country along with its geo graphical position , millitary etc. As far as stigma of terrorism is concerned , we are fighting against terrorism with 100,000 troops , we are fighting more than any country, we condemn Mumbai attacks however we differentiate between terrorism and struggle for independence (you can differ). we do not put struggle for independence under the umbrella of terrorism . International politics will not be the same once USA withdraws from Afghanistan. IF INDIA GETS IT SEAT IN UNSC , I WOULD WELCOME IT , YOU WORK FOR YOUR GLORY AND WE WORK FOR OURS.
 
I think it would not be correct to compare Pakistan with Panama (you know that very well). There are challenges for pakistan but every country has got challenges . We are moving forward very succesfully to these , Swat is clear , southwaziristan is clear etc . Now things are lot better .(Allied forces are not successful in afganistan, they are talking to taliban) we have internally a lot of awareness in our country like independent MEDIA, JUDICIARY etc. You are right we need to work on our economy. Economics is the major tool which can turn arround the position of any country along with its geo graphical position , millitary etc. As far as stigma of terrorism is concerned , we are fighting against terrorism with 100,000 troops , we are fighting more than any country, we condemn Mumbai attacks however we differentiate between terrorism and struggle for independence (you can differ). we do not put struggle for independence under the umbrella of terrorism . International politics will not be the same once USA withdraws from Afghanistan. IF INDIA GETS IT SEAT IN UNSC , I WOULD WELCOME IT , YOU WORK FOR YOUR GLORY AND WE WORK FOR OURS.

Well said buddy.
 
Obama said what he did but he did not look very happy :D

Let's be frank here. US is not a "donor". Although Obama supporting India as a UNSC member (permanent) is a good step towards Indo US relations. Having said that , US is fully aware that to get this seat, India must be supported by China and 2/3rd of general assembly.
 
we condemn Mumbai attacks however we differentiate between terrorism and struggle for independence (you can differ). we do not put struggle for independence under the umbrella of terrorism .

actually it is the terrorism that has been put under the umbrella of struggle for independence....and time to time the phases like the jihad been also get associated with it...

it was in 1971 , when local people standing both side of the roads to greet the india forces at dhaka ..that was a statement of struggle for independence..

how many war pakistan has fought in J&K.., and which side the local people at large were..ask yourself..

the terrorist activities at J&K is just a 1971 revenge of pakistan army...and it will continue till they change theit policy to accept the realty of the world..
 
US forewarned Pakistan on supporting India for UNSC

US forewarned Pakistan on supporting India for UNSC - The Economic Times

ISLAMABAD: The US had forewarned Pakistan about support to India as a permanent member in the UN Security Council ahead of President Barack Obama's visit.

Pakistan wasn't taken aback at Obama's announcement on supporting India for the UN Security Council seat, the News International reported Tuesday.

Support for the permanent UNSC seat for New Delhi was the crowning moment of Obama's four-day maiden visit to India. Obama landed in India Saturday and left for Indonesia Tuesday morning.

Obama told a joint sitting of Indian parliament Monday: "Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate.

"That is why I can say today - in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."

Pakistan's Foreign Office said they hope the US will take a moral view and not base itself on any temporary expediency or exigencies of power politics.

It was pointed out that while expressing support for a permanent seat for India, the US acknowledged that UN Security Council reforms was a difficult process and would take significant time.

A spokesman was quoted as saying that Pakistan believes US endorsement of India's bid for UNSC permanent seat will add to complexity of the process of reforms of the Security Council.
 
Obama has backed india on the UNSC seatr..but putup two conditions.

Iran & myanmar

Post of the day^^. My laptop is crashed and I am using iPhone otherwise I could have made my detailed assertion more on it. Very diagnostic thinking. Keep it up.
 
US forewarned Pakistan on supporting India for UNSC

US forewarned Pakistan on supporting India for UNSC - The Economic Times

ISLAMABAD: The US had forewarned Pakistan about support to India as a permanent member in the UN Security Council ahead of President Barack Obama's visit.

Pakistan wasn't taken aback at Obama's announcement on supporting India for the UN Security Council seat, the News International reported Tuesday.

Support for the permanent UNSC seat for New Delhi was the crowning moment of Obama's four-day maiden visit to India. Obama landed in India Saturday and left for Indonesia Tuesday morning.

Obama told a joint sitting of Indian parliament Monday: "Indeed, the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate.

"That is why I can say today - in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."

Pakistan's Foreign Office said they hope the US will take a moral view and not base itself on any temporary expediency or exigencies of power politics.

It was pointed out that while expressing support for a permanent seat for India, the US acknowledged that UN Security Council reforms was a difficult process and would take significant time.

A spokesman was quoted as saying that Pakistan believes US endorsement of India's bid for UNSC permanent seat will add to complexity of the process of reforms of the Security Council.

The US forewarning Pakistan sounds logical, reasonable and responsible. After all, the US and Pakistan have been allies for the last six decades and are fighting a war together.
 
actually it is the terrorism that has been put under the umbrella of struggle for independence....and time to time the phases like the jihad been also get associated with it...

it was in 1971 , when local people standing both side of the roads to greet the india forces at dhaka ..that was a statement of struggle for independence..

how many war pakistan has fought in J&K.., and which side the local people at large were..ask yourself..

the terrorist activities at J&K is just a 1971 revenge of pakistan army...and it will continue till they change theit policy to accept the realty of the world..

Dont be sentimental dear, I accept in 1971 the Bengalis were not happy with Pakistan , there were lot of mistakes commited by our poloticians , generals etc. When we make mistakes ,we have to pay.But you see that incident made a great impact on our policies , we developed our nuclear programme , we have a very advanced missile programme ,we invested in infrastructure, education , industry etc (still a long way to go ).Now coming to Kashmir , you can yourslf see the people of kashmir fighting with stones in the streets of kashmir , raising slogans of freedom, hoisting Pakistani flags in their streets . (dont feel offended ) It is the truth . Now i think it is not an era of war , both of the countries should resolve the kashmir dispute .(Ask every kashmiri about their fate ,could be one solution ). We should move forward , 1971 has passed , now it is not possible for any country to invade pakistan via military(you know the pakistans capability to strike back). Even after Mumbai attaks , your forces couldnt attack us. (although i condemn MUMBAI ATTACKS.) THE FUTURE CODE IS NOT WAR , FUTURE CODE IS RESOLVE ISSUES VIA DIALOGUES , BUILD OUR ECONOMIES .
 
High Hurdles for India's Seat on the Security Council
Stephen Schlesinger: High Hurdles for India's Seat on the Security Council

President Obama, in his address to the Indian Parliament, announced that the US would support India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This represents a significant public recognition by the world's only superpower that India -- not only as the globe's largest democracy, but also a military power which has supplied troops to UN peacekeeping missions and also an emerging economic power -- should now be accorded a perch on the Council which decides all on war and peace matters for the planet.

The only other nation which the US has backed for such an honor is Japan. But the American advocacy really is only symbolic. For India to achieve this long-sought goal, just like Japan, it must pass through a series of formidable hurdles.

First, it must gain the approval of the other four nations (China, Russia, France and Great Britain) that currently have permanent seats on the Council, any of whom can cast a veto against status changes on the Council. And it is well-known that China, the only Asian nation with permanent standing, has reservations about its neighboring Asian states gaining a presence on the Council and would likely at this time block the entries of both India and Japan.

Second, even the US backing has its own hedge. Obama, in his speech, said that he first wanted a "reformed" Security Council that includes India. But what does Washington mean by "reformed." Probably it means that, before India's request should be acted upon, the Council's membership must be expanded to at least 21 or 22 countries. And there also may be other changes that the US will insist on.

In addition, there is the question of whether India, if it does get voted onto the Security Council, gets the seat with a veto or without one. The five permanent members will have a say in that decision -- and the issue will be whether India would accept a spot sans the veto.

Finally, the newest criteria for permanent membership is whether a country can, as Obama stated in his speech, show that "with increased power comes with increased responsibility." In other words, a nation must be able to look beyond its own narrow interests to the broader needs of the world if it wants to serve on the Council.

For India, that test actually comes right now because it is just beginning a term on the Council as one of the ten rotating two-year members. Its participation for the next 24 months could be a trial run for whether it can perform as a "responsible" party. But, meantime, India's dreams of an early promotion to "superpower" status on the Council remain just that for the moment -- dreams.

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

Iran & myanmar

There was one more thread on the same subject. I'll rewrite my post from that thread regarding the above and more.

i was listening obama speech,

he wants India not just to look east but to engage east

he also said India must interfere in Myanmar for democracy... he suggested it would not be interference in sovereignty of Myanmar(India supported leadership in mayanmar till yet and is a close friend of myanmar)

He said US wants india to behave like a global leader, as a friend of US

He wants indian support on Iran issue

He wants greater Indian role in Afganistan

There you go.....

It's all in black and white what's the price....

Like I said many times before, India should concentrate on domestic HOMOGENEOUS development and other critical and most important domestic issues (which are handful if I may say so) rather then trying to join this stupid global policing bandwagon.

Our relationship with almost all the countries is in it's best at the moment (courtesy our non-allignment policy and our trade and economic capability) and it'll only continue to improve in the near future, with or without UNSC permament seat.

India's Myanmar policy also need not be changed as we donot want another hostile neighbor on our eastern front. We have to look east but with a view to improve our relationship. With china, with all south-eastern asian, with Japan. Not the way US want's us to act.

As for Iran policy, like Kinetic already said, US already knows what'll be India's approach on this subject.

Most importantly, we should keep our relationship with US strictly professional. We pay, you sell; You pay, we sell!! That's it. No need to go out of the way to please uncle SAM. They are terrible as friend but could be immensely useful in a professional relationship.
 
Back
Top Bottom