There will be NO expansion of the exclusive club

[JamesBond]

Reform on the UNSC in terms of non veto wielding permanent members representing various communities of the world will not find many opponents. But that in itself is not a tangible benefit for the UNSC, compared to its composition currently. What you have pointed out, having more representative membership on the UNSC (without veto), is good for the world in general in that there are more nations voting on issues, but it is not a tangible benefit for the institution of the UNSC as it stands today, and certainly not a benefit for the current P5, who will have less ability to control the direction of votes on issues brought before the UNSC.

Why not? From a cost benefit POV, given the current UNSC power structure, why would they wish to include any nation that will dilute their power?

It's not a question of if they will. It's a question of if they can?

See ignoring india's concerns in a thing which India regards as sooo dear to its heart will have affect on bilateral relations with those countries as well.

The impact of such a stand-off between India and the reticent P5 members will make its way to everything. And by everything I mean:

1. trade talks (WTO)
2. Climate talks
3. Bilteral relations etc.

I don't think after 15 years when India will practically be where China is today, the P5 will be in a position to keep holding soooo much at stake. They won't be able to afford it. Simple.

The benefit to the global community, which is the premise behind UNSC reform, is to have more communities represented on the UNSC in order for their voice to be heard. India would deserve a (non veto) permanent membership by virtue of representing over a billion people, and not because of being influential, if we are to look at the pure motivations behind UNSC reform.

'Cause' is immaterial, 'Effect' is not.

India is officially refusing the idea of permanent membership without veto, and that is a position that India needs to change, since it is regressive.

When the moment arrives India may very well change its stance. Who knows?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

that's the whole point. what a flawed justification to be elevated as permanent members on the first place? world has moved on since 2nd world war, so should the structure of UNSC.

Ideally reforms would restrict UNSC membership to nations with functioning democratic societies and commitments to HR and international peace, laws and treaties.

That may not be possible however until China starts transitioning towards more representative government.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's not a question of if they will. It's a question of if they can?

See ignoring india's concerns in a thing which India regards as sooo dear to its heart will have affect on bilateral relations with those countries as well.

The impact of such a stand-off between India and the reticent P5 members will make its way to everything. And by everything I mean:

1. trade talks (WTO)
2. Climate talks
3. Bilteral relations etc.

I don't think after 15 years when India will practically be where China is today, the P5 will be in a position to keep holding soooo much at stake. They won't be able to afford it. Simple.

The P5 merely have to defer to consensus on UNSc reform, and the nations opposing the Indian position (of veto) will be able to stall it and let the P5 get away with it.

Secondly, India depends on these nations for economic growth and access to technology far more than they depend on India. India would be shooting herself in the foot by damaging international relations with these nations.

'Cause' is immaterial, 'Effect' is not.

Which means what exactly with respect to my comments?

When the moment arrives India may very well change its stance. Who knows?

The moment is now is it not? India is courting support for its membership, it should therefore clarify its position if it has had a change of heart.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Ideally reforms would restrict UNSC membership to nations with functioning democratic societies and commitments to HR and international peace, laws and treaties.

That may not be possible however until China starts transitioning towards more representative government.

well.. that is something the members will have to thread carefully. you can not leave out any country just because it's not towing the line of mejorities. it would only work when you include all the countries under the umbrella & work towards changing the system within the framework & not act as god, which is what happening at the current moment when it comes to countries like iran, NK & cuba, to name a few.

 

[SpArK]

Obstacles to permanent UNSC seat: Krishna​

First Published : 15 Oct 2010 08:56:33 PM IST


NEW DELHI: Pressing for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, India today said there were "obstacles" and "road-blocks" in this and asked the five permanent members to "revise" their concepts on basic reforms of the world body to reflect current global realities.


Three days after India was elected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna said it marks the "finest hour" for the country and provides a "foothold" in the world body.


He pitched for reorganisation of the Security Council, saying the world has undergone major changes since the world body was founded in 1945 and there are "credible nations" around who should be in it.


"There are obstacles and road-blocks. These cannot be wished away. So we have to keep pursuing relentlessly," the minister said.


He said the victory at the UN when India got 187 of 190 votes reflects recognition of India's standing in the global arena.


Krishna said the permanent members of the Security Council -- the US, Russia, China, Britain and France -- "will have to revisit their concept on bringing about basic reforms (in the UNSC) we want".


The silver lining, he said, is that text-based negotiations on UN reforms have begun and there is hope that these will yield some dividends.


On India's entry into Security Council as a non-permanent member, he said the country will have "awesome responsibilities" and it will have to live up to expectations.

Obstacles to permanent UNSC seat: Krishna | | | Indian Express

 

[mehboobkz]

g8 does still exist in paper as the group of 8 govts of the countries, whereas G20 is mostly to do with group of 20 finance ministers & governers of central bank.

Excerpt:

With the G-20 major economies growing in stature since the 2008 Washington summit, world leaders from the group announced at their Pittsburgh summit on September 25, 2009, that the group will replace the G8 as the main economic council of wealthy nations.

 

[mehboobkz]

France supporting India for UNSC seat is like Greece supporting Turkey for EU membership.

Your analogy is very wrong, for, India and France have no terretorial fight as is the case with Turkey and Greec on Cyprus.

India and France are not at loggerheads with each other.

 

[INDIAN007]

The matter of Expansion of permanent UNSC seat will be taken when OBAMA visits INDIA next month.........so lets keep fingers crossed...

 

[mehboobkz]

Why does the UNSC need India? In what tangible way does an India, Brazil, Germany and/or Japan on the UNSC with veto powers (or even without) help the UNSC? Are all UN member nations not already obligated to follow binding UNSC resolutions? How does that change whether India or the others are on board or not?

In the same tangible way as smaller nations like Britain and France help UNO. If you can live up with them, why not with India, Japan, Germany and Brazil?


As for Resolutions, there are more non binding resolutions than binding ones....

 

[1000VA]

France supporting India for UNSC seat is like Greece supporting Turkey for EU membership, or India saying they will give up their nukes if everyone else does.

This message is from French Ambassador to India,

Ambassador's Message: The website of the Embassy of France

Message de l?Ambassadeur : Le site Internet de l?Ambassade. - French Embassy in India - Ambassade de France en Inde
English Translation

Dear friends,
The website of the Embassy of France in India offers a gateway to France. I am pleased to welcome you. You are more likely to visit us, and I am delighted. This reflects the strengthening and intensification of relations between France and India.

After the state visit of President of the French Republic in Delhi on 25 and 26 January 2008 during which he was the guest of honor at Republic Day, Indian Prime Minister visited France on 29 and 30 September 2008 to participate first in Marseille in the summit between the European Union and India, and Paris summit between France and India. On the occasion of these summits, the leaders reiterated the main themes of the strategic partnership between our two countries, foreign policy and economics course, but also defense, environment, energy, research, education. The extent of cooperation demonstrates the political will of France and India to share what they have to better meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Our two countries work together to strengthen international cooperation on major economic and geostrategic issues. In this sense that France supports the participation of India as a permanent member of UN Security and the transformation of the G8 into the G14 including India. In this sense also that France supported the participation of India at the summit extended to meet the global financial crisis.

Our trade and economic relations are strengthening. The objective of doubling our trade in 2012 is more relevant than ever. The Embassy will of course continue to support its economic mission through the establishment and expansion of French companies in India and Indian investment in France. In the energy field, the signing of an agreement on civil nuclear cooperation 30 September 2008 will enable France and India to work together. This is a very important area of cooperation in which France has recognized expertise.

In education and research, we must promote trade and ensure to welcome more Indian students in French higher education institutions and vice versa. The President of the Republic wanted the tripling of student exchanges in the coming years. Some areas of cooperation such as the Espace are already old and cooperation of that work. We must continue this cooperation in all other areas of importance to our two countries.

Sign of the strengthening of our relations, the French presence in India has increased in 2008. Our French community is growing. Two new consulates-general were opened, one in Calcutta, the other in Bangalore. In Delhi, the French school is now a full year of high school.

 

[prototype]

France supporting India for UNSC seat is like Greece supporting Turkey for EU membership, or India saying they will give up their nukes if everyone else does.

I think u r thinking about the same France which along with Russia vetoed a move to place ban on India after the nuclear tests

 

[Awesome]

The US is in no mood to weaken its grip on the UNSC any further.

Britain, France and even Russia won't help India out either, they know to speak good words when they know fully well America won't hesitate one bit to use its Veto to India's Veto Powers.

If India truly wants to make its mark on the world, then help us get rid of the UNSC, not mess it up any further. General Assembly should vote on everything and majority wins. Thats it.

 

[mehboobkz]

The US is in no mood to weaken its grip on the UNSC any further.

But the US does want Japan and Germany into the fold, and if that happens, India gets sucked into UNSC by default.

Britain, France and even Russia won't help India out either, they know to speak good words when they know fully well America won't hesitate one bit to use its Veto to India's Veto Powers.

There is only one veto to be exercised, and its not sure, whether new UNSC members will get veto power.

If India truly wants to make its mark on the world, then help us get rid of the UNSC, not mess it up any further. General Assembly should vote on everything and majority wins. Thats it.

UNSC status quo wont go away, its a reality, unless there is new International orgnisation on the similar line. Just as league of nation was replaced by present UNO.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Ideally reforms would restrict UNSC membership to nations with functioning democratic societies and commitments to HR and international peace, laws and treaties.

That may not be possible however until China starts transitioning towards more representative government.

How long are you willing to wait?

Until "rural" China is at the same level of development as urban China, democracy will not be a serious priority. Feeding our people will always come first.

 

[Developereo]

Seems I have to spell out my statement long hand.

1. France supports India's bid for UNSC because it knows others will block the motion.
2. Greece supports Turkey's bid for EU because it knows others will block the motion.
3. India is willing to dismantle all her nuclear weapons if the US, Russia, China, etc. dismantle theirs because it knows others will block the motion.

There doesn't need to be any conflict between France and India for France to play duplicitous games. As others have noted, why on Earth would an exclusive club allow more members? The UN is as relevant or irrelevant as it has always been. India may think the world revolves around her, but adding India to the UNSC will have zero impact on how the rest of the world perceives the UN.