Pakistan opposes creation of new permanent seats at UNSC

[WAR-rior]

no one wants to dilute his own power by creating more equals, not US, not China.

no one wants to hurt yindoo ego by telling yindoos the truth, though, not US, not China.


no one wants to dilute his own power by creating more equals, not US, not China.
no one wants to hurt yindu ego by telling yindoos the truth, though, not US, not China.

so yindoos like you will always have to wait but always get to tell yourselves the wait will inevitably be over.

poor yindoos...

That was simple blabbering without substance. Matter of fact is Only Pakistan opposed India's inclusion. Even China supported under certian conditions.

 

[NKVD]

You are a nuclear state because you refused to sign the NPT, typical pariah state behavior, which forced Pakistan to develop weapons too and ended any possibility of a nuclear-free sub-continent. By your logic, North Korea should be a P5 power too. Your navy is weaker than Japan's and your army is weaker than Germany's. And as for "soft-power" - we'll let the facts speak for themselves:

...

Our army is weaker than Germany in what Sense
Soft power my shit Just attack Sikkim see what soft power can do Paco

 

[Jackdaws]

A seat at the UNSC is useless. What's the point of it? The UN is unable to enforce anything. USA is such a hyperpower that it will do what it wants. France and Russia are the only ones who put up a token resistance now and then. The UK always toes the American line and China is a joke - they are only there to clean up the table when the big boys are done.

 

[That Guy]

Delaying the inevitable.10 yrs-20-yrs-30 yrs it's gonna happen .Only solution is not to impede others but become economically powerful urself and then stake a similar claim for ursleves.

Except it's not if China has anything to say about it. Pakistan's opinion in this, I'll be honest, doesn't hold much weight. All Pakistan is doing is towing China's line, and we all know China's opinion on this matter.

Also, I think abolishing the current setup of the UNSC is for the best. It's current setup gives to much power to the P-5, and is a black mark on the democratic nature of the UN. When you have only 5 members with veto power, you run into problems. I think there should be a voting system for the election of the P-5 every few years, so as to reflect the reality on the ground. This way, everyone has an equal shot, even India.

 

[Imran Khan]

same as big three issue they will lick spit at the end with lame excuses

 

[Raphael]

my silly han friend, actions speak louder than words. This is a poll of individuals, what does that matter on the state level?

This very line sums up how the world thinks of us:

Most recently India was elected to serve in UNSC from 2011 to 2012 as it had received 188 of the 190 total votes.[48][49]

My glad you decided not to pursue the other points. That's a positive symptom that you're shedding your delusions. But as for this one final delusion you're clinging onto:

1. Of course soft power is determined by the views of the citizenry. That is integral to its very definition. If you didn't know this, you shouldn't be throwing around terms and concepts that are far beyond your expertise, lest you humiliate yourself.
2. You're being very disingenuous about this 188/190 vote thing, as a closer examination reveals India ran unopposed for the Asian seat after Kazakhstan dropped out:
United Nations Security Council election, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was simple blabbering without substance. Matter of fact is Only Pakistan opposed India's inclusion. Even China supported under certian conditions.

This is true. China's position is that it only opposes Japan.

 

[Jackdaws]

Except it's not if China has anything to say about it. Pakistan's opinion in this, I'll be honest, doesn't hold much weight. All Pakistan is doing is towing China's line, and we all know China's opinion on this matter.

Also, I think abolishing the current setup of the UNSC is for the best. It's current setup gives to much power to the P-5, and is a black mark on the democratic nature of the UN. When you have only 5 members with veto power, you run into problems. I think there should be a voting system for the election of the P-5 every few years, so as to reflect the reality on the ground. This way, everyone has an equal shot, even India.

Yes, but who will bell the cat? The UNSC reflects the globe in 1945, not 2014. Nobody should have veto. What gives one country the right to hold the whole world ransom? It is a rubbish system in an organization which is by and large a failure.

china supports anything that costs it nothing, including verbal support to yindu's quixotic bid to join UNSC. actually letting yindoos join the UNSC, though, will cost china (and us and france and uk and russia) everything, so expect your quixotic bid to continue to be quixotic. but it is good to know that you yindoos still appreciate our verbal support

China doesn't matter. Their being on UNSC and unable to actually integrate Taiwan shows what an utterly useless organization the UN is.

 

[illusion8]

same as big three issue they will lick spit at the end with lame excuses

Looks like Pakistan doesn't learn it's lessons too well - rightly said, they will fall on track at the last moment, when it's vote wouldn't even be required.

 

[iajj]

Except it's not if China has anything to say about it. Pakistan's opinion in this, I'll be honest, doesn't hold much weight. All Pakistan is doing is towing China's line, and we all know China's opinion on this matter.

Also, I think abolishing the current setup of the UNSC is for the best. It's current setup gives to much power to the P-5, and is a black mark on the democratic nature of the UN. When you have only 5 members with veto power, you run into problems. I think there should be a voting system for the election of the P-5 every few years, so as to reflect the reality on the ground. This way, everyone has an equal shot, even India.

every man is born equal and not a single state is. with the current setup, you make sure that small countries have no say in international order (well, because these booger-sized countries like singapore, israel, vietnam are too small to have anything at stake and are thus, by virtue of their booger-size, irrational and irresponsible) and so even if they start to act their size and go nuts, they can be easily stopped by the big countries, which actually carry with themselves the potential of the cruelest contests and most destructive conflicts and thus carry with themselves also the onus to prevent such conflicts. deny them their veto powers and to at least define their core interests and draw red lines for hostile powers big and small, you deny the world system the sense of honor of its most honorable defenders and most important pillars.

they are veto powers because the world will be a whole lot scarier without their veto powers.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I really dont care to Understand Why India wants a permanent seat?
India , being a representative to many voting bodies, ranging from ICC, UNESCO, Non- Permanent Member UNSC, UNHRC, India simply abstain from voting. Whats the use of being a member of these organisations and wasting the votes?

Unless India changes its foreign policy, and takes stand in every foreign issue, that may not be evenly remotely possibly related to India, developing countries expect India to raise the voice. We simply cant tell we represent the developing nations but not raising the voice and vote telling we are Non-Aligned. Its a waste of vote and time, for India, for now.

 

[WAR-rior]

china supports anything that costs it nothing, including verbal support to yindu's quixotic bid to join UNSC. actually letting yindoos join the UNSC, though, will cost china (and us and france and uk and russia) everything, so expect your quixotic bid to continue to be quixotic. but it is good to know that you yindoos still appreciate our verbal support

Ha Ha. MAke ur establishment to bark the same blabber. U mean nothing to ur country and ur voice means nothing. Dont try to be spokesperson of CCP.

 

[ares]

You are a nuclear state because you refused to sign the NPT, typical pariah state behavior, which forced Pakistan to develop weapons too and ended any possibility of a nuclear-free sub-continent. By your logic, North Korea should be a P5 power too. Your navy is weaker than Japan's and your army is weaker than Germany's. And as for "soft-power" - we'll let the facts speak for themselves:

...

We are nuclear state,because we wanted to become one and we did, we did not sign the NPT, because it was discriminatory.

We represent 1/6th of the human population.

We started Non aligned movement and over 117 nations followed our suit.

We did not sign the NPT , Pakistan and Israel followed us., the world's sole super power amended its constitution to accommodate us as the only Non NPT nuclear state. 9 members of Nuclear suppliers group ignored NPT to sign civillian nuclear deal with us.

We do not follow heard, we make are own way..and others follow our suit..those are qualities of leader.

Just as we became nuclear power , pioneers of NAM and the only non NPT signatory to treated at power with NPT nuclear state..we will become UNSC permanent member with veto power..it is but inevitable.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Not even the permanent member will vote for this non sense. All it needs is just one veto. China in will never allow India or Japan in particular to gain veto power. I for one am in favour of Japan to be there as they deserve it.
On the other hand it has been shown repeatedly that UNSC is only there to eat its own $hit while P5 is there to stomp all over it despite any resolutions adopted unanimously.

Lol. China will allow India to become a Permanent member, but never in their dreams will they vote for Japan.

 

[Yeti]

India and Brazil deserve a seat on the high table but the UN is becoming less important the new world order is the BRICS and SCO

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

UNSC veto power is a "joke power".

But its still better to have it, rather than being at the mercy of it.

The G-4 knows this, that's why they want it.

The problem is that no P5 member will accept the G-4 as a whole, China for instance will veto Japan's entry (with the support of countries like Russia and South Korea). Whereas other G-4 members will find opposition from many quarters, Germany's inclusion for instance would give Europe three permanent seats, which is unpalatable to many.

India is opposed by Pakistan, and India also regularly opposes the USA on matters like Iran and Russia.

Brazil is the least contentious, but they are opposed by many nations in Latin America who would prefer a collective representation.

Whichever way you look at it, any reform proposal that involves the entry of the entire G-4 as a whole, will find opposition from every angle.

They would be much more successful if they made individual bids.