US committed to a permanent seat for India in a reformed UN Security Council

[IR-TR]

India deserves a seat more than even Russia? Do you know that without Russia India wouldnt have a military to begin with/its military will come to a complete halt without Russia?
You really lost it my Iranian/turkish buddy.



Lool doesnt matter, we are all british/under the U.K .

India will deserve it more than Russia in a few decades, that was my point. Not today. But they deserve it more today than France. UK in about a decade. The EU needs a single seat, not two. The days that the 800 million people who make up the west, can dictate all they want to 6.7 billion people, need to be over.

 

[Luca1]

India will deserve it more than Russia in a few decades, that was my point. Not today. But they deserve it more today than France. UK in about a decade. The EU needs a single seat, not two. The days that the 800 million people who make up the west, can dictate all they want to 6.7 billion people, need to be over.

I agree with you. But India can only join "UNSC" when it can show that UNSC cannot function without it. Ever figure out why G7 was replaced by g-20. If anything, another UN organization will set up to include India and UNSC will be sidelined when India is indispensable in international politics. But this day is not here and it will take a while.

 

[Hindustani78]

But the countries that matter don't support it

Try harder

According to reports, UK and France supports permanent UNSC seat for India.

Uk and France are allies of United States.

This is what the UN was about: maintaining the dominance of WWII victors.

Anyone outside the UNSC getting nuclear weapons? Sanctions
Anyone outside the UNSC waging wars? Sanctions
Anyone outside the UNSC comitting genocide? Sanctions

I agree completely with the underlined part, the UN has become increasingly ineffective over the last few decades. The US itself has shown utter comtempt for it when it decides to take unilateral action against countries.

India, representing a billion people, should have been part of a global body, but the current power structure in UNSC will never allow it.

Sanctions has been placed on Russian Federation because of the Ukraine conflict .

I agree with you. But India can only join "UNSC" when it can show that UNSC cannot function without it. Ever figure out why G7 was replaced by g-20. If anything, another UN organization will set up to include India and UNSC will be sidelined when India is indispensable in international politics. But this day is not here and it will take a while.

UNSC permanent members are aware that India is contributing the most in peace and harmony around the world and this is even the reason that majority of countries of Africa, Latin America, Middle East, Central Asia, South East Asia do supports India's Permanent seat at UNSC.

Even number of EU countries do supports India.

 

[IR-TR]

I agree with you. But India can only join "UNSC" when it can show that UNSC cannot function without it. Ever figure out why G7 was replaced by g-20. If anything, another UN organization will set up to include India and UNSC will be sidelined when India is indispensable in international politics. But this day is not here and it will take a while.

Let's turn that around, my esteemed friend. Can the USNC work without FRANCE? It will take a while, I agree, but we need to understand the current composition of the UNSC is unsustainable, IF it is to be a world body governing global problems. It needs a whole lotta more Asia, a whole lotte LESS west. It's sheer fairness. Just like a democracy, 1 man, 1 vote.

 

[Luca1]

Let's turn that around, my esteemed friend. Can the USNC work without FRANCE? It will take a while, I agree, but we need to understand the current composition of the UNSC is unsustainable, IF it is to be a world body governing global problems. It needs a whole lotta more Asia, a whole lotte LESS west. It's sheer fairness. Just like a democracy, 1 man, 1 vote.

Actually, only US is needed. But the point is that we have an established system, why change if it's not broken? It's upon any new country to show that UNSC must have them.

 

[RazorMC]

...
Sanctions has been placed on Russian Federation because of the Ukraine conflict .
...

You are aware that those measures hardly qualify as sanctions and have not been passed through the UNSC?

 

[dray]

Considering that the US recently rejected even having a debate (along with Russia and China) to any changes to the structure to the UNSC, against Indian demands, I highly doubt the US is serious.

The Americans are using India, they'll never seriously give a permanent seat to another nation, creating another potential rival at the council.

It's only a matter of time before India secures it's position in no.3 slot in some of the most important parameters including economy and continue to grow further, and UNSC cannot remain relevant in the long term with the actual major powers remaining outside of it, periodic reforms to reflect the changing global scenario are needed for UNSC's own relevance.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

This is what the UN was about: maintaining the dominance of WWII victors.

Anyone outside the UNSC getting nuclear weapons? Sanctions
Anyone outside the UNSC waging wars? Sanctions
Anyone outside the UNSC comitting genocide? Sanctions

I agree completely with the underlined part, the UN has become increasingly ineffective over the last few decades. The US itself has shown utter comtempt for it when it decides to take unilateral action against countries.

India, representing a billion people, should have been part of a global body, but the current power structure in UNSC will never allow it.

You are absolutely correct about the UN being an instrument of continuing domination by the Victors of WW2. That was exactly the failing of the League of Nations. Only in case of the UN, the USA took the dominating position and did not allow the other Allied Powers to manipulate it. The USA went even beyond that and set up things like the Marshall Plan to enable re-construction. So much so that the US and the Atlantic Accord (which crystallised the UN) was responsible in ensuring that the British had to leave India.

But that is where it began to peter out and finally end. The Cold War led to a re-formation of the "Allied-Axis" paradigm, USA increasingly took on a mantle of an Imperial Power, the very thing that Franklin Roosevelt had so derided. Deja Vu.....

Change is INEVITABLE.

Those who try to fight it off, will only end up losing face..... and even more.
While the UN will then fall into the "dust-bin of history". Deja Vu......

 

[IR-TR]

Actually, only US is needed. But the point is that we have an established system, why change if it's not broken? It's upon any new country to show that UNSC must have them.

It is broken. Three countries that represent some 8% of the world population have 60% of the votes?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

It is broken. Three countries that represent some 8% of the world population have 60% of the votes?

LOLLL its effin' broken to pieces........

 

[DD5]

The US will never give India veto power. If possible it would remove everyone else's veto powers too.

US phrases its statements very carefully. Permanent seat and veto powers are two very different things.

Let's be honest here, India is entitled to a seat at the UNSC in the future (near future). The thing is, the West needs to give back one seat (Britain and France swapped for a single EU seat). Otherwise, it's time for a new UN, the Asian/African/Latin American powers together with the entire non-aligned movement. This bs UNSC is a relic of WW2. Simply look at population, industrial output, gdp and what not. How the hell does that little RAT france deserve an entire seat at the UNSC? Same for that has been douchebag Britain.

You lose your moral high ground when you ask for a seat at the UNSC. Why not play democratic and ask for UNSC to be replaced by a simple UNGA vote?

 

[notorious_eagle]

You are absolutely correct about the UN being an instrument of continuing domination by the Victors of WW2. That was exactly the failing of the League of Nations. Only in case of the UN, the USA took the dominating position and did not allow the other Allied Powers to manipulate it. The USA went even beyond that and set up things like the Marshall Plan to enable re-construction. So much so that the US and the Atlantic Accord (which crystallised the UN) was responsible in ensuring that the British had to leave India.

But that is where it began to peter out and finally end. The Cold War led to a re-formation of the "Allied-Axis" paradigm, USA increasingly took on a mantle of an Imperial Power, the very thing that Franklin Roosevelt had so derided. Deja Vu.....

Change is INEVITABLE.

Those who try to fight it off, will only end up losing face..... and even more.
While the UN will then fall into the "dust-bin of history". Deja Vu......

Can't help but agree with you, change is indeed inevitable. This is why G20 is a more powerful forum than G7.

UNSC is indeed part and parcel of WW2 Victors for maintaining their dominance. It gives them a legal protection to maintain their dominance and deny any up comers any role without their consent. But for the up comers to challenge the old established players, they need to set their house in order. The Developing World needs to initiate massive structural reforms within their countries to reduce corruption, raise human development index and create transparency.

Best example would be Germany. Built out of ruins of WW2, through massive reforms and sheer hard work, Germany is by far the Super Power of Europe. Although not a UNSC Member, but it holds far more influence than France or Britain on the strength of its piggy bank. The US or for that matter even Russia, will not accept any additional member in the UNSC who holds a veto power. That is the sad reality of Real Politik. India is taking exactly the right steps, building up a powerful economy and on the side building a powerful military force. If India continues at the same pace for the next two decades, it will be strong enough to bypass UNSC.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Considering that the US recently rejected even having a debate (along with Russia and China) to any changes to the structure to the UNSC, against Indian demands, I highly doubt the US is serious.

The Americans are using India, they'll never seriously give a permanent seat to another nation, creating another potential rival at the council.

It's a 30 year project for us.

Can't help but agree with you, change is indeed inevitable. This is why G20 is a more powerful forum than G7.

UNSC is indeed part and parcel of WW2 Victors for maintaining their dominance. It gives them a legal protection to maintain their dominance and deny any up comers any role without their consent. But for the up comers to challenge the old established players, they need to set their house in order. The Developing World needs to initiate massive structural reforms within their countries to reduce corruption, raise human development index and create transparency.

Best example would be Germany. Built out of ruins of WW2, through massive reforms and sheer hard work, Germany is by far the Super Power of Europe. Although not a UNSC Member, but it holds far more influence than France or Britain on the strength of its piggy bank. The US or for that matter even Russia, will not accept any additional member in the UNSC who holds a veto power. That is the sad reality of Real Politik. India is taking exactly the right steps, building up a powerful economy and on the side building a powerful military force. If India continues at the same pace for the next two decades, it will be strong enough to bypass UNSC.

I thik it's fair to say that the resurgence of right wing ideology in Europe that the original P5 was worried about is no longer the case. Plus, if India decides to pursue its security interests privately and outside of the UNSC, the relevance of the UNSC will become a joke. Take Iran for instance, for years India has effectively undermined the sanctions that the UN had imposed and no one could do anything about it. Better that India is on board and has greater say/ responsibility to execute the said policies than outside and doing it's own thing. The UK pursuing an independent policy with Iran on the othe hand would be irrelevant.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Can't help but agree with you, change is indeed inevitable. This is why G20 is a more powerful forum than G7.

UNSC is indeed part and parcel of WW2 Victors for maintaining their dominance. It gives them a legal protection to maintain their dominance and deny any up comers any role without their consent. But for the up comers to challenge the old established players, they need to set their house in order. The Developing World needs to initiate massive structural reforms within their countries to reduce corruption, raise human development index and create transparency.

Best example would be Germany. Built out of ruins of WW2, through massive reforms and sheer hard work, Germany is by far the Super Power of Europe. Although not a UNSC Member, but it holds far more influence than France or Britain on the strength of its piggy bank. The US or for that matter even Russia, will not accept any additional member in the UNSC who holds a veto power. That is the sad reality of Real Politik. India is taking exactly the right steps, building up a powerful economy and on the side building a powerful military force. If India continues at the same pace for the next two decades, it will be strong enough to bypass UNSC.

To be honest with you; I am not rooting for India to join the UNSC (not yet) because the UNSC and it way of operating (esp the Veto) is simply an anachronism and it defeats the very purpose of the existence of the UNO. The first reform that must be undertaken is the removal of the Veto. Any Member that has a legitimate and principled stand will carry the day on the basis of that alone.

Correct about the need to achieve an international status on the basis of Diplomatic Credibility, Economic Strength and Military Power (in that order). That is the way to go. I am very pleased that India has eschewed being part of Military Alliances through the years. That is for either Bullies or Puny People.

As for bypassing the UNSC; that is happening all the time now; not just by big powers...... even N.Korea.

 

[انگریز]

If that happens Pakistan should stop brown nosing and leave UN