There will be NO expansion of the exclusive club

[JamesBond]

five members can not hold onto this permanent seat thing for too long. it's not easy to subdue the voices of emerging nations anymore. look at G8.. from G6 it became G7 & after G8. now even G8 is formality & all major economic decisions are taken by G20.

Officially, G8, doesn't exist, it's G20 now. Keeping in touch with the realities of today.

 

[greatsequence]

Veto is a discriminatory power and worked because the gap between the power of veto nations and the rest of the world was immense. As more and more countries will rise the gap between the power will decrease and so will the relevance of veto. I dont see this setup being able to continue for a long time.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Officially, G8, doesn't exist, it's G20 now. Keeping in touch with the realities of today.

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.

 

[Developereo]

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.

 

[JamesBond]

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.

Britain, France support India's UNSC seat bid - Hindustan Times

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because if they don't, whatever little relevance UNSC has today will also be finished very soon.

Elephant in the room: UNSC needs rising powers like India more than India needs the UNSC. If they don't include India, it will be entirely their loss. Whatever little relevance they have left after the Iraq war, especially, will also be lost if a country of over a billion people and growing economic and political clout in the world stage, is not given the voice it deserves.

The truth is AM, in nearly 15 years of time from now, india will be where China is today. Now think...can they really afford to ignore India in such a scenario?

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?

To clarify, I am not suggesting that the P5 will (eventually) oppose India or the other mentioned nations joining the UNSC as permanent members, but that I do not see any new permanent members getting veto powers.

 

[Hafizzz]

Britain, France support India's UNSC seat bid - Hindustan Times

Hindustan Times, huh ? LOL

 

[JanjaWeed]

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?

To clarify, I am not suggesting that the P5 will (eventually) oppose India or the other mentioned nations joining the UNSC as permanent members, but that I do not see any new permanent members getting veto powers.

point is not what new permanent members will bring to the table! whole p5 thing is flawed in the first place anyway. How can just five nations can decide the fate of rest of the countries? if you ask me, none of them should have the veto power anyway & the majority's openion should count.

 

[Jade]

Britain, France support India's UNSC seat bid - Hindustan Times

Britain, France, Russia and China support does not matter much. US is the key. If US supports the world supports as is proved in the case of Indo US nuclear deal. We are missing Bush

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

point is not what new permanent members will bring to the table! whole p5 thing is flawed in the first place anyway.

That is not what your compatriots are saying, and my comments were a response to them.

How can just five nations can decide the fate of rest of the countries? if you ask me, none of them should have the veto power anyway & the majority's openion should count.

Absolutely, which is what I pointed out earlier, and which is the position taken on UNSC reform by Pakistan and a few other nations in a loose grouping called the 'Coffee Club'.

 

[gubbi]

Source Deccan Herald!!!!!!!!!!

The Deccan Herald is a popular English-language daily newspaper in the Indian state of Karnataka. It is published by the Printers (Mysore) Private Limited and has a number of editions in Bangalore, Hubli, Mysore, Mangalore and Gulbarga.

Deccan Herald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are the best

I dont know if you have read the paper, but if you do, then dont forget to keep the Oxford dictionary by your side.

As for Atimes -the site from which the article is posted, its a Chinese (specifically HK based) portal, with their own opinion. Seriously, who cares? Move on.

Theres only one member who is officially ambiguous but unofficially unwilling to let specifically Japan and by extension India into the exclusive club. This type of articles, semi officially sanctioned, amount to "below the belt attack" in official parlance and are put out to gauge the mood.

 

[JamesBond]

Why does the UNSC need India?

Why does UNSC need China today?

Now flash forward 15 years, replace the word 'China' with 'India' and Bingo! you have your answer.

I cannot comment about other countries honestly.

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?

It changes in that the nations who are the biggest supporters of UN efforts (India etc.) worldwide get a voice on the biggest international platform available.

To clarify, I am not suggesting that the P5 will (eventually) oppose India or the other mentioned nations joining the UNSC as permanent members, but that I do not see any new permanent members getting veto powers.

I myself do not think India needs veto power. It is a 'bekaar ka sardard' anyways. India's prime concern is to be heard at the international stage and to be recognised as an international power in accordance with its status.

 

[gubbi]

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.

Google is thy friend. You are wrong.

K Natwar Singh: UNSC - An unfair arrangement

Of the P-5, Russia, the UK and France support India’s bid for a permanent Security Council seat. That leaves the US and China.

More here:

Of the P-5, Russia, the UK and France support India’s bid for a permanent Security Council seat. That leaves the US and China.

or here:

Britain and France have voiced their support for India's case for permanent membership of the UN Security Council and favoured deepening of bilateral ties between them.

There.

 

[Spring Onion]

The longer it takes to enact UNSC reforms the lower the chances of SC expansion with veto powers for the new members. People have mentioned Germany and Japan as being interested, but there are several second tier nations (Turkey, South Africa, Argentina, Arab States, ASEAN members etc.) that are developing rapidly and will gain more and more clout internationally and will either start demanding a stake for themselves or opposing the extension of discriminatory privileges (veto) to a select few more.

True SC reform would involve the removal of veto powers from the existing members, not increasing members with veto powers, something along the lines of the what the Coffee Club is proposing. More members with veto is a recipe for inefficiency and logjam in the SC, given that the number of competing interests will increase by many magnitudes, and any one of the nations could halt progress on issues brought in front of the UNSC.

wont it be better to leave just China and US with veto power and kick the other three with Britain as powerless as anything already.

 

[Hafizzz]

Why does UNSC need China today?

Now flash forward 15 years, replace the word 'China' with 'India' and Bingo! you have your answer.

If UNSC didn't have China as a member, non-white and poor countries around the world would have suffered even more from Western Imperialism and Bullying but if India disappeared from the world the International community would not even notice any difference.