Polemos
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
I hope Indian tools do not spread more of their insidious propaganda
What next NYT? Chicago Sun? Soon Roger Ebert would be writing favorable reviews of Bollywood masala movies.Singapore PM backs India for Permanent UN seat
- Thread starter Tshering22
- Start date
I hope Indian tools do not spread more of their insidious propaganda
What next NYT? Chicago Sun? Soon Roger Ebert would be writing favorable reviews of Bollywood masala movies.
This Indian version of history circulates only in an interesting land - India. One would think that the UN Secretariat should have some sort of a record to that effect IF there is any truth to it. As of now the archval dig is ongoing and nothing has turned up. Let's sincerely hope that someone can provide us with UN documentation in support of that claim. To quote Carl Sagan, "Extrodinary discoveries require exordanary evidence".
It is great that countries around the world are supporting India but IMHO India should not waste too much energy in getting UNSC permanent seat instead should focus on making India military,economically,socially stronger
illusion8
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,232
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Is a UN Security Council seat worth the effort?
If 1998 was the year India announced its arrival on the global stage with a (literal) bang with the testing of a nuclear missile, then Indian foreign policy makers would like to believe that 2010 marked the climax of their efforts. This was the year of widespread global acceptance of India as a major player in global affairs. Theres good reason for that. The five self-appointed global superpowers, along with a bevy of other nations, expressed support for Indias top foreign policy priority: inclusion as a permanent member in an expanded United Nations Security Council.
Legitimacy for Indias bid for a UNSC seat came first from U.S. President Barrack Obama who announced it in his speech to the Indian Parliament during his first visit to India in November 2010. Nations that have traditionally given a cold shoulder to Indias foreign ambitions, such as the UAE and Syria, were quick to jump on to the bandwagon and extend support. Even arch-rival China said that it understood and supported Indias desire to play a greater role in the UN.
But nowhere more so is the importance of Game Theory, and the principle that for everything you gain at the negotiating table, you have to give something back, evident than in foreign policy a fact that India seems to have overlooked. While on the surface it was a diplomatic coup, it came at the cost of some significant concessions.
With the United States economy significantly weakened, a solution to that particular problem was always going to be top of Obamas priority list. The Obama visit generated $15 billion in business for the US economy and 53,000 jobs. In return, Obama played to the gallery and was quite liberal in his praise of Indias role in global affairs. However, little was said about issues that are closer to Indias national strategic concerns, like Pakistans role in spreading terror in India , the hike in H1-B visa fees, the increasing legislative restrictions on outsourcing.
Next came President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who arrived in India Dec 3, 2010, and had great success in selling the still-untested Areva nuclear reactors to India at a cost of $22 billion. The project has been plagued by financial over-runs and delays in the other locations where it is being built, and Areva has been criticized for grossly under-estimating the cost of producing a single unit of electricity. Given the severe energy crisis in India and the importance of reducing the countrys reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear energy is indeed the answer. But buying an untested nuclear reactor in return for a statement of support is too great a risk to take and too great a concession to make.
Indias trade-offs for the UNSC seat didnt stop there. Having set the mood very carefully on the first day of his Dec 15-17 visit to India by supporting Indias aspiration of a greater role in the UN, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who very skillfully skirted the issues of disputed borders with India, stapled visas for Kashmiris and Arunachalis, and control of Arunachal and Tibet. In the end, the Chinese premiers statement didnt amount to unequivocal support for Indias bid for a permanent seat simply greater participation. Buoyed by this apparent diplomatic victory, Indian officials went about inking $16 billion in economic deals with China.
What if India does go on to become a permanent member of UNSC, serving as an independent entity rather than being guided by the Big Five existing members? What would India achieve?
The primary advantage would be the right to veto any resolution that is brought in front of UNSC.
Here, India already has a proxy in the form of a powerful ally in Russia, which has consistently vetoed any resolution that could potentially harm Indias interests. Would that be enough? Not really. Even the most optimistic Indian official knows that any resolution India might bring to the UNSC will need the approval of China.
So its worth asking: as a permanent member of the UNSC, would India gain any advantages other than the exercise of a veto? Some would argue that a permanent seat would give India leverage with other nations outside the Security Council, which might ask for Indias help in lobbying within it.
This is hardly a compelling argument, for two reasons. Firstly, the UNs relevance in dealing with conflicts has been undermined by the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, nations are more likely to spend their efforts lobbying the most influential members of the council rather than its newest members.
There is certainly a chance that the position would be a mere status symbol. That would suggest that all Indias recent diplomatic efforts towards the goal of permanent Security Council membership have been rather misguided.
Currently, Indias interests are being served well by Russia in the Security Council. India need not make a permanent seat its top policy goal while that friendship remains solid and without cracks. The country might be better served by exploiting the rapid pace of economic growth to negotiate technology transfer and canvas support for bilateral issues. Its an approach that is unlikely to achieve short-term glory, but will ultimately serve the country better in the medium and long term.
Once India achieves its ambition of becoming an economic powerhouse and solidifies that position, the rest of the world will be unable to deny the country a significant role on the global stage.
Is a UN Security Council seat worth the effort? | Gateway House
If 1998 was the year India announced its arrival on the global stage with a (literal) bang with the testing of a nuclear missile, then Indian foreign policy makers would like to believe that 2010 marked the climax of their efforts. This was the year of widespread global acceptance of India as a major player in global affairs. Theres good reason for that. The five self-appointed global superpowers, along with a bevy of other nations, expressed support for Indias top foreign policy priority: inclusion as a permanent member in an expanded United Nations Security Council.
Legitimacy for Indias bid for a UNSC seat came first from U.S. President Barrack Obama who announced it in his speech to the Indian Parliament during his first visit to India in November 2010. Nations that have traditionally given a cold shoulder to Indias foreign ambitions, such as the UAE and Syria, were quick to jump on to the bandwagon and extend support. Even arch-rival China said that it understood and supported Indias desire to play a greater role in the UN.
But nowhere more so is the importance of Game Theory, and the principle that for everything you gain at the negotiating table, you have to give something back, evident than in foreign policy a fact that India seems to have overlooked. While on the surface it was a diplomatic coup, it came at the cost of some significant concessions.
With the United States economy significantly weakened, a solution to that particular problem was always going to be top of Obamas priority list. The Obama visit generated $15 billion in business for the US economy and 53,000 jobs. In return, Obama played to the gallery and was quite liberal in his praise of Indias role in global affairs. However, little was said about issues that are closer to Indias national strategic concerns, like Pakistans role in spreading terror in India , the hike in H1-B visa fees, the increasing legislative restrictions on outsourcing.
Next came President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who arrived in India Dec 3, 2010, and had great success in selling the still-untested Areva nuclear reactors to India at a cost of $22 billion. The project has been plagued by financial over-runs and delays in the other locations where it is being built, and Areva has been criticized for grossly under-estimating the cost of producing a single unit of electricity. Given the severe energy crisis in India and the importance of reducing the countrys reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear energy is indeed the answer. But buying an untested nuclear reactor in return for a statement of support is too great a risk to take and too great a concession to make.
Indias trade-offs for the UNSC seat didnt stop there. Having set the mood very carefully on the first day of his Dec 15-17 visit to India by supporting Indias aspiration of a greater role in the UN, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who very skillfully skirted the issues of disputed borders with India, stapled visas for Kashmiris and Arunachalis, and control of Arunachal and Tibet. In the end, the Chinese premiers statement didnt amount to unequivocal support for Indias bid for a permanent seat simply greater participation. Buoyed by this apparent diplomatic victory, Indian officials went about inking $16 billion in economic deals with China.
What if India does go on to become a permanent member of UNSC, serving as an independent entity rather than being guided by the Big Five existing members? What would India achieve?
The primary advantage would be the right to veto any resolution that is brought in front of UNSC.
Here, India already has a proxy in the form of a powerful ally in Russia, which has consistently vetoed any resolution that could potentially harm Indias interests. Would that be enough? Not really. Even the most optimistic Indian official knows that any resolution India might bring to the UNSC will need the approval of China.
So its worth asking: as a permanent member of the UNSC, would India gain any advantages other than the exercise of a veto? Some would argue that a permanent seat would give India leverage with other nations outside the Security Council, which might ask for Indias help in lobbying within it.
This is hardly a compelling argument, for two reasons. Firstly, the UNs relevance in dealing with conflicts has been undermined by the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. Second, nations are more likely to spend their efforts lobbying the most influential members of the council rather than its newest members.
There is certainly a chance that the position would be a mere status symbol. That would suggest that all Indias recent diplomatic efforts towards the goal of permanent Security Council membership have been rather misguided.
Currently, Indias interests are being served well by Russia in the Security Council. India need not make a permanent seat its top policy goal while that friendship remains solid and without cracks. The country might be better served by exploiting the rapid pace of economic growth to negotiate technology transfer and canvas support for bilateral issues. Its an approach that is unlikely to achieve short-term glory, but will ultimately serve the country better in the medium and long term.
Once India achieves its ambition of becoming an economic powerhouse and solidifies that position, the rest of the world will be unable to deny the country a significant role on the global stage.
Is a UN Security Council seat worth the effort? | Gateway House
Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Ask this question to this coward:
who keeps singing this for Madam G:
Working hard without working smart won't get us anywhere. One cannot keep walking if there is a wall in front of them. They have to either bypass that wall or break it to proceed. This wall here is the UPA. Can't bypass it because it is the "government". So got to use the other option.
Hint: What do construction workers do when old buildings pose a roadblock to making new townships?
---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------
The point of my posting this was NOT to show that Singapore supports us for UNSC. It was to simply reiterate what Post#3 mentions here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ambitious449
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 714
- Reaction score
- 0
50 and still counting 
Similar threads
