US does not want India in Security Council

[shree835]

Nothing New in this …Indians knows it well… This is all becoz of worst fellow Jawahar Lal Nehru.

 

[Shimly]

Nothing New in this …Indians knows it well… This is all becoz of worst fellow Jawahar Lal Nehru.

 

[mb444]

There will be no expansion of the security council. Any move for expansion itself would have to be passed by the permanent 5. Why would they wish to dilute their power? They will talk and talk but nothing will happen unless accompanied by something cataclysmic. I do not see india or anyone getting a seat in the UNSC and even less having the veto.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Why do we even want this seat ?

 

[for truth]

if they are keeping India out,they will have to do the same for Brazil too,even Brazil is vying for a permanent seat,so is Germany and japan.
US cannot keep one out and support the other,and frankly, US is supporting Brazil's candidature,since there is no south American country yet,Brazil makes up a good candidate,but India,Brazil,Germany and japan have vowed that they will collectively fight for a Permanent seat.

US will have hard time answering these countries as to why it is unwilling to support,and i don't think US will have last say in this matter, there are lot many countries involved in this,and UK,France and Russia have already endorsed India's candidature.

 

[ahfatzia]

The US, Uk. France and Russia account 80% of the votes in the Security Council and they all represent the interests of white people. Hmm, it needs a change, but how?

 

[Hello_10]

Does not matter what she wants as UN reform will take shape sooner rather than later that is the way the wind is blowing.

in fact its not the right time for India to try for permanent seat in UN. as, its hard for them to get Veto while only permanent seat in UN has a little meaning. and if yo want to delay negotiation on Veto but first permanent seat then again US will say like this as above. "there can't be an agreement between emerged and emerging powers, until we reach a power balance which is then likely to be maintained for longer." neither US wants India to get permanent seat with veto power nor India would itself try for the same until they may come in the position for a better negotiation after few more years. India would maintain grouping of G4 with Germany, Brazil, Japan and after 3-4 years of economic fall of these WW2 winners, then there will be little for US and its team to understand difference between right and wrong, whether its NPT or permanent seat in UN.

(and also, we find Indonesia in the position to replace Japan, and Turkey in the position to replace Germany if this process is delayed for a while. lets see how things go........)

 

[Norboo]

Frankly, none of the P5 really want to dilute their veto-power.

What they have offered support for so far, is a permanent seat, not a veto.

Russia and China are always vetoing the USA anyway, it already drives them crazy. Last thing they want is another member of BRIC who might follow them one day and then veto them the next.

Exactly! I don't know why the heck India wants a permanent seat in the UN! What would it achieve? Probably to get orgasms sitting there on the high table!

 

[Hello_10]

in fact its not the right time for India to try for permanent seat in UN. as, its hard for them to get Veto while only permanent seat in UN has a little meaning. and if yo want to delay negotiation on Veto but first permanent seat then again US will say like this as above. "there can't be an agreement between emerged and emerging powers, until we reach a power balance which is then likely to be maintained for longer." neither US wants India to get permanent seat with veto power nor India would itself try for the same until they may come in the position for a better negotiation after few more years. India would maintain grouping of G4 with Germany, Brazil, Japan and after 3-4 years of economic fall of these WW2 winners, then there will be little for US and its team to understand difference between right and wrong, whether its NPT or permanent seat in UN.

(and also, we find Indonesia in the position to replace Japan, and Turkey in the position to replace Germany if this process is delayed for a while. lets see how things go........)

I would like to mention the key points we discussed, why Indonesia may become the more suitable candidate for the permanent seat in UN by 2020 onward, with a probable claim for Turkey also in place of Germany, hopefully by 2020:-

=> Why Indonesia?

1st, it is the 3rd biggest country of Asia by population

2nd, the largest Muslim country.

3rd, there is no country opposing its candidature, while China won't let Japan get into this UN's seat.

4th, its economy size is above $1tn on PPP, while that of Japan is $4.4tn. but Indonesian economy would be double by 2020 while that of Japan may hardly maintain its current size, if it won't collapse with EU+US anytime this decade. as, its 'highly likely' that few of the major economies of EU would collapse till 2020, and then it would then bring down UK, France, with it also, obviously. and then its hard to believe that US and Japan type economies will remain unaffected after that......

5th, a collapse of NATO, after fall of its major economies, would clear path for the countries like Indonesia for the position of permanent seat in UN. as, neither there will be any grouping like NATO nor there will be much to ask, "why a US's follower isn't given a top post of UN. "

Why Turkey?

1st, if Germany follow collapse with other major economies of EU this decade then there will be little difference left between economy size of Turkey and Germany. while both have almost equal population and located in EU itself.

2nd, with around 80mil population, its a bigger country than Britain and France and after a 'likely' economic collapse of UK and France during this decade, Turkey will emerge as a more stable European economy to have a permanent seat in UN.

3rd, a big Muslim country and having close terms with Gulf nations, who may represent this whole Arab world in a better way in UN, so it would obviously have full support from this whole region for its claim on permanent seat in UN.

4th, there is no country who would oppose claim of Turkey and after a probable collapse of EU, Turkey will emerge as a representative of whole EU also this way, an emerging economy which falls in E7s with Indonesia itself.

these are the main reasons why we find Indonesia and Turkey would emerge as favorites for their claim on permanent seat of UN from 2020 onward....

 

[Zabaniyah]

India may become a member at some point in the future. But very unlikely to wield veto power. EVER.

A distant possibility at best for now.

 

[Hello_10]

India may become a member at some point in the future. But very unlikely to wield veto power. EVER.

A distant possibility at best for now.

sir, few things we both understand so its no need to mention. that is, just after an economic fall of UK, France etc, very likely by this decade, there will be less to ask, why India is not on this top post and why any of these two would keep permanent seat with Veto?

from here, as we all have different political background due to our nationalities, i do understand that an Indian member won't consider permanent seat without Veto while you would think that Veto is not possible for India, as per your political background. due to our political background, an Indian member would say that negotiation on Veto may be delayed for few years while you would not accept, why India would ever get Veto with permanent seat in UN? but few things I would tell you short, even the African candidates won't accept permanent seat in UN without Veto.

either the concept of Veto has to be taken out from UN or India would simply remain happy with the current form of UN, until a power balance is reach when it will become 'obvious', why India/Brazil/Indonesia type very big countries must get Veto or there won't be any Veto type things in UN

 

[A.Rafay]

India has nothing to do with major issues like taliban and Alqaeda and Nuclear Iran, India should solve its own issues first.

 

[GURU DUTT]

why india is not getting UNSC seat with veto has 3 major obstacles

1. we are in non or the so called power blocks we are followers of NAM(hence we are no ones lap dog and bark and hunt as per masters wish ie. US , RUSSIA , CHINA..UK or FRANCE)on the contrarry we studd against US for IRAN even as the UMMAH nations sided with US but are too vocal against its policies and its soft ness for Isreal

2. Stupid International Good boy politics (Thanks to the moron)

3. we dont want to cause it will mean that we have to sign many treaties like NPT & CTBT among others which are not in owr immedeat interestss

now we can debate it as much we like but keep these three points away and youl have no point to discuss

 

[xuxu1457]

number of veto
Russia：128
US：83（59 Individual Combat, in which 42 of them for Israel）
England:32(22 times with US)
France:18(13 times with US and England)
China:9(1971-1978:one for Pak, one for Palestine;2001-2012:4times with Russia for Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Syria )

 

[faithfulguy]

The US, Uk. France and Russia account 80% of the votes in the Security Council and they all represent the interests of white people. Hmm, it needs a change, but how?

Stop judging a country by the color of the skin, but by the content of the character