Pakistan opposes UN Council permanent seat to India

[sancho]

I do not see either Germany or Japan as direct entries into the UNSC. They have a history which cannot be forgotten, will not be forgotten, and to a large extent is not forgotten, both by other major countries, as well as their own.

Well, then again we have the US, the biggest war monger, we have colonial powers like UK and France with that kind of bad history too and even Russia and China are not really peace loving nations right? This is about power and the balance of it on the world level in the UNC and history doesn't really matter there.

 

[Srinivas]

Security council permanent seat is all about Veto power. With out Veto power it is not worth.

When a Nation says it wants UN permanent seat, it is vying for Veto power.

India has majority of countries support all around the world, Russia, France, UK and USA will support India's membership.

China can choose whether it wants to oppose India or not. Because India will get the seat ,it seems, anyway.

If China supports Asia's century China should be co operative with India. Seems China is bluffing and wants to implement its own hegemony in Asia which is not possible.

No P5 member has promised to expand veto rights.

We already have such a headache with only 5 veto powers. If that gets doubled (as per the wishes of the G4) then the UNSC won't be able to do anything at all.

That's why UNSC reforms have been constantly delayed for around a decade now.

And if the reform resolution eventually bypasses all the delays, we are going to veto it. We've already said that any UNSC reform resolution that includes Japan will be vetoed, as long as we still have a territorial dispute with them.

So the reform resolution is dead anyway. Russia will probably veto alongside us (like on the Syria resolution) because most of the G4 are pro-America (Germany/Japan/India/Brazil).

Germany will mean 3 European powers on the UNSC. Which won't be acceptable, UK or France will have to share their seat.

Brazil is opposed by most of their neighbors in Latin America.

Japan has territorial disputes with 2 permanent members, China and Russia. China is guaranteed to veto their entry (i.e. the entire resolution).

India is opposed by Pakistan, and they have a territorial dispute with China. Until that dispute is solved, they won't have a chance either.

Right now the strategy is to simply delay the reforms ad infinitum, which is easier than an outright veto. The G4 has complained regularly, but nothing changes on the ground:

Delays in UNSC reforms will diminish its relevance: G4 bloc - Economic Times

PTIMay 10, 2014, 02.42PM IST

UNITED NATIONS: The G4 bloc of Brazil,Germany, India and Japan has said "status quo" and "artificial delays" in implementing the UNSC reforms will diminish the relevance of the United Nations, even as Pakistan called the grouping a "minority" that wants to reconfigure the Security Council to secure "their national interests."

 

[doppelganger]

Well, then again we have the US, the biggest war monger, we have colonial powers like UK and France with that kind of bad history too and even Russia and China are not really peace loving nations right? This is about power and the balance of it on the world level in the UNC and history doesn't really matter there.

Agree.

The key point here is that the US, UK, France, Russia, and China are already IN.

Its a closed door club. You bang on the door to be allowed in. Once you get in, you immediately turn around and put your shoulders into the door to prevent anyone else from getting in.

 

[Luca1]

Security council permanent seat is all about Veto power. With out Veto power it is not worth.

When a Nation says it wants UN permanent seat, it is vying for Veto power.

India has majority of countries support all around the world, Russia, France, UK and USA will support India's membership.

China can choose whether it wants to oppose India or not. Because India will get the seat ,it seems, anyway.

If China supports Asia's century China should be co operative with India. Seems China is bluffing and wants to implement its own hegemony in Asia which is not possible.

No country will get the veto power period. If India refuses a permanent seat without veto, then its will get no further in the organization.

And there is no need for talk about UNSC will be powerless without India. As of now, India is not significant to make UNSC illegitimate without its presence. If that is so, then India would have been a member already. Check out G7 was replace by G20 because it does not have proper representative. The same could also happen with UNSC. but don't hold your breath as India nor any other none p5 is any where close.

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Time to to lobby GCC, Arab League, ECO and OIC. As soon as Modi visits Israel, time would be right. India can't join UNSC while occupying Muslim lands.

None of these have an independent say anyway. The key is USA, Russia and China. Views of all others, including that of Pakistan, are inconsequential.

 

[halupridol]

Time to to lobby GCC, Arab League, ECO and OIC. As soon as Modi visits Israel, time would be right. India can't join UNSC while occupying Muslim lands.

what is muslim land??

 

[Srinivas]

No country will get the veto power period.

You seem to be in 1940's !

If India refuses a permanent seat without veto, then its will get no further in the organization.And there is no need for talk about UNSC will be powerless without India. As of now, India is not significant to make UNSC illegitimate without its presence.

It is the other way around, If UN security council do not undergo reforms The council will loose its significance.
Apart from USA and China the remaining powers are declining, India is rising.

Except Russia which played its part in opposing US hegemony in cold war era. Remaining all nations are for the name sake and never used their power to bring peace and prosperity or a good change.
In short the nations like UK,France and China got their as$ saved by USA in world war 2 and have not done any significant thing that will benefit the world.

On the other hand India as a leader of NAM tried its best for world peace, India is sending big number of military troops on UN missions. India has played a good role on global stage for peace and prosperity.

If that is so, then India would have been a member already. Check out G7 was replace by G20 because it does not have proper representative. The same could also happen with UNSC. but don't hold your breath as India nor any other none p5 is any where close.

If India is included into the UN security council then the significance of their block will definitely increase and India can address the concerns of Poor and developing nations which it is doing all the time.

 

[Luca1]

You seem to be in 1940's !


It is the other way around, If UN security council do not undergo reforms The council will loose its significance.
Apart from USA and China the remaining powers are declining, India is rising.

Apart from Russia which played its part in opposing US hegemony in cold war era. Remaining all nations are for the name sake and never used their power to bring peace and prosperity or a good change.
In short the nations like UK,France and China got their as$ saved by USA in world war 2 and have not done any significant thing that will benefit to the world.

On the other hand India as a leader of NAM tried its best for world peace, India is sends big number of military troops on UN missions. India has played a good role on global stage for peace and prosperity.


If India is included into the UN security council then the significance of their block will definitely increase and India can address the concerns of Poor and developing nations which it is doing all the time.

India might be rising. But it's still a long way to go. And UNSC work fine without India. Maybe in50-100 years, UNSC will lose its significance without India. But not now or within the next 20 years. India still need to grow more before it can have a seat with the adults.

Agree.

The key point here is that the US, UK, France, Russia, and China are already IN.

Its a closed door club. You bang on the door to be allowed in. Once you get in, you immediately turn around and put your shoulders into the door to prevent anyone else from getting in.

The only way India can get in as a veto member is if UNSC cannot operate without India. That time is not upon us yet.

 

[Srinivas]

India might be rising. But it's still a long way to go. And UNSC work fine without India. Maybe in50-100 years, UNSC will lose its significance without India. But not now or within the next 20 years. India still need to grow more before it can have a seat with the adults.

Three out of the 5 nations, except Russia, are firmly in the pockets of USA. France and UK are not at all relevant in todays world.
I think you have no idea about big boys. India is young and strong, old guys in UNSC do not have what it takes to make any change.

 

[zip]

There will be no expansion of UNSC permanent members untill and unless there comes a threat of an alternate body forming consisting of likeminded countries along with one or two nuclear powers as its members

 

[Srinivas]

There will be no expansion of UNSC permanent members untill and unless there comes a threat of an alternate body forming consisting of likeminded countries along with one or two nuclear powers as its members

I don't think so, This is the right moment to do UNSC reforms to make it relevant to today's ever changing world.

 

[Echo_419]

Islamabad: Pakistan Thursday reiterated its opposition to grant a permanent seat on UN Security Council to India and insisted on reforms to make the forum more democratic.


Pakistan contested the Indian move after US President Barrack Obama announced support for India to seek permanent Security Council`s seat during his recent visit to New Delhi.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Tasnim Aslam said India did not "qualify to become a permanent member of UNSC because of its violations of UN resolutions", Xinhua news agency reported.

"India is in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir and the right of people of Kashmir to self-determination," the spokesperson said at her weekly press briefing.

The spokesperson, however, said Pakistan supported reforms in the UN as "it is in the interest of everyone to seek more democratic, effective and credible mechanism of the maintenance of international peace and security through a comprehensive reform of the Security Council".

To a question about the nuclear agreement between the US and India, Aslam said Pakistan has shown serious concerns over the deal as it would badly affect the stability in the region.

"On the conventional side, India`s massive acquisition of weapons further complicates the regional strategic stability," she said.

She said India`s defence spending has increased by 12 percent in 2014-15 and stands at $38.35 billion.

"India has been the top buyer of arms for the last three years," the spokesperson said.

"In this backdrop, the US-India 10-year defence agreement can only add to the conventional asymmetry and hence strategic instability."

She said Pakistan has been proposing a three-pronged Strategic Restraint Regime to India that include conflict resolution, nuclear and missile restraint and conventional balance.

"Pakistan firmly believes that confidence-building and arms reduction in the regional and sub-regional context to be of paramount importance," she added.

Pakistan opposes UN Council permanent seat to India | Zee News

& what weight do the Pakistanis hold in International arena

And what say does Pakistan actually have in International Politics?

Agreed Pakistan is a non player

 

[Luca1]

There will be no expansion of UNSC permanent members untill and unless there comes a threat of an alternate body forming consisting of likeminded countries along with one or two nuclear powers as its members

And these like minded countries must be strong enough to counter UNSC permanent 5. Can you thinkof5 countries out there that can replace UNSC 5?

 

[zip]

I don't think so, This is the right moment to do UNSC reforms to make it relevant to today's ever changing world.

Mark my words ..there will be no expansion untill and unless UN survival itself questioned ?It needs a strong self sustaining economy, nuclear power with icbm to challenge for a permanent seat ..If you ask me a hypothetical question what would have happened if china is hoping for a permanent seat today ?
There still be no expansion ..

 

[Abingdonboy]

UN shouldn't give permanent seat to india, as it will make un more biased. We all know india is master in elevating anti Pakistan propaganda world wide, if this happens then UN will surely gonna lose its trust from Pakistan and maybe it may also affect an on going war on terror.

Don't you get it, no one cares what Pakistan says, wants or cries.


@Topic in other news, the sky is blue and the earth orbits the sun.

India has the backing of 4 of the UNSC permanent members and could quite easily get the 2/3rds majority in the UNGA, Pakistan's grossly overestimate how much weight their voice carries on the global stage not even many Arab countries would oppose India's permeant seat on the UNSC.