What's new

UNSC seat: US throws water over India's hopes

Spring Onion

PDF VETERAN
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
41,403
Reaction score
19
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
US throws water over India's hopes for UNSC seat -

WASHINGTON/ NEW YORK: The US has cautioned against expecting any breakthrough "anytime soon" on the UN Security Council reforms, dampening India's hopes for a permanent seat just a week after President Barack Obama backed its quest for this prestigious slot.

A top US official also clarified that Obama's endorsement of India for permanent membership in the UNSC during his visit to New Delhi was not a last minute decision, but had been well thought out. It was kept hush-hush, since the endorsement was a big news item, he said.


"I would caution against expecting any kind of breakthrough anytime soon," assistant secretary of state Robert Blake told journalists in New York and Washington during a digital video press conference.

"I think the President and others have made it clear that this (reform) is going to be a long and complicated process and that we're committed to a modest expansion both of permanent and non-permanent seats," he said.


The official said the only "real change" Obama announced was US support to India's permanent seat in the 15-membered wing of the UN, but "we have always been clear that this is going to be a long-term and very complicated process."

Blake, however, asserted that no condition has been imposed on India in lieu of the support for the Security Council berth. "No, there's not conditionality."

He also answered questions on a range of issues including terrorism, Pakistan and China.

Blake said it is in interest of Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups operating inside the country.

"The President (Obama) was very clear that Pakistan itself has been the chief victim of international terrorism. And so it's very much in its own interest to crack down on these groups, which increasingly are operating as a syndicate and it's very difficult to really distinguish between them," he said.

Blake also said Obama's enthusiasm for a stronger Indo-US relationship is not to "counterbalance" China's growing influence over Asia.

"I don't think you heard anybody say that in the course of the President's three-day visit (to India), we're looking to counterbalance China in any way," he added.

On nuclear issues, Blake said US said it considered India as a partner in its global non-proliferation efforts.

"One of the criticisms in the past has been that US sometimes regarded India more as a target than a partner in non-proliferation, I think the steps President (Obama) announced in the course of this visit showed definitely that we now see India as a partner in the global non-proliferation space

"Not only in terms of the actions, but also in terms of our growing efforts in the nuclear area," he added.

Elaborating on UNSC reforms, he said there are many contenders for permanent seats as India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and Germany.

"There's the whole question of the veto. And so we need to have a detailed and serious conversation with all of our friends who are competing for these seats," he added.

Read more: US throws water over India's hopes for UNSC seat - The Times of India US throws water over India's hopes for UNSC seat - The Times of India
 
Good things come to those who wait.
India in the UNSC, it's in our fate-
Just a matter of time, mate.:D

"There's the whole question of the veto. And so we need to have a detailed and serious conversation with all of our friends who are competing for these seats," he added. ;)
 
"I think the President and others have made it clear that this (reform) is going to be a long and complicated process and that we're committed to a modest expansion both of permanent and non-permanent seats," he said.

I didn't understand the logic behind underlining the text. There is no confusion that it's not a matter of month or year.

As far as modest expansion is concerned, well India being among the front runners, will be considered even there is just a single entry in the exclusive club.

Headline is confusing and more confusing is Jana quoting orange media.
 
"There's the whole question of the veto. And so we need to have a detailed and serious conversation with all of our friends who are competing for these seats," he added. ;)

Once again, is there anything new in that statement?
 
breakthrough "anytime soon"

We are not expecting it any soon either.. its part of the process of the ultimate aim. Starting the ground work better late than never.


Blake, however, asserted that no condition has been imposed on India in lieu of the support for the Security Council berth. "No, there's not conditionality."


Good and great!!!


Elaborating on UNSC reforms, he said there are many contenders for permanent seats as India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and Germany.

yes the G-4. :cheers:


"There's the whole question of the veto. And so we need to have a detailed and serious conversation with all of our friends who are competing for these seats," he added.

Yes .. why not lets all discuss it. :cheers:
 
I didn't understand the logic behind underlining the text. There is no confusion that it's not a matter of month or year.

As far as modest expansion is concerned, well India being among the front runners, will be considered even there is just a single entry in the exclusive club.

Headline is confusing and more confusing is Jana quoting orange media.

Jana has posted what the orange indian media is saying.


Its up to you to term it false :P when it comes to questioning Indian claims or term it authentic when it comes to anti-Pakistan lies.


I have so far not commented on the content
 
"There's the whole question of the veto. And so we need to have a detailed and serious conversation with all of our friends who are competing for these seats," he added. ;)

Small steps which have to be taken before expanding the council. India has no problems with that.

I think that best way to expand the council is to first give permanent seats without veto to Brazil, South Africa, Germany, India, Russia, and Japan. (and maybe Indonesia, not Saudi Arabia).

Eventually, either the veto should be awarded to these 6-7, which is unlikely, or the veto power should be revoked from the big 5 (more likely).
 
When did we ever state or even assume that India was getting a UNSC next month or next year ? lol. The day Obama made the announcement the word was going around that India could expect to be on the UNSC as early as 2012.

The UN needs to have India on the UNSC for it's own good. More precisely, UN cannot afford to exclude 1,139,964,932 people.
 
When did we ever state or even assume that India was getting a UNSC next month or next year ? lol. The day Obama made the announcement the word was going around that India could expect to be on the UNSC as early as 2012.

The UN needs to have India on the UNSC for it's own good. More precisely, UN cannot afford to exclude 1,139,964,932 people.

Those 1,139,964,93 in the form of India has been violating UN laws without feeling the responsibility of their large size. Even if China has been violator to the level you are today, it mustn't have got the place it enjoys today.

A food for memories.. India is still to follow UN resolutions on Kashmir before it would imagine to be a protector of its resolutions and be awarded a greater role. So act before you expect.

As far "Need" of UN is concerned, its Indian need more than UN's. UN is not disfunctional without you sitting on its veto seat.
 
This is an Indian source. Believe it or not thats your choice. I have just posted it.

Its a pathetic article.

Everybody nows that its going to be a long process. Obama said it himself. UNSC reforms are not so easy to implement. But that does not mean that Indian hopes have been dashed.

Jana, I would like to join you here over here in bashing TOI for publishing this crap.

THis stupid orange media article. :D
 
Just trying to calm people who got excited after Obama's speech. The message is still the same.
Wanted to assure Brazil, Germany, SA and Japan.
Also wanted to calm Jana.
 
When did we ever state or even assume that India was getting a UNSC next month or next year ? lol. The day Obama made the announcement the word was going around that India could expect to be on the UNSC as early as 2012.

The UN needs to have India on the UNSC for it's own good. More precisely, UN cannot afford to exclude 1,139,964,932 people.

Are you saying that as long as a country has a big population then she qualifies for a Permanent U.N. seat ? :rofl: :rofl:

Tell us what can India do for the world that other countries cannot ?

Japan, Germany and Brazil are far richer than India and can use their
wealth to help many poor countries around the world while we doubt
that India can match that !!!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom