US does not want India in Security Council

[DARIUS]

Any expansion of the UNSC, if and when it occurs, likely will not grant the right of veto the new permanent members.

That has always been the underlying design in not expanding the UNSC!!Granting of any VETO power to the new members would imply dilution of the importance of the P5 and a perceived reduction in efficiency of the body since an increased no. of veto empowered countries could deter the existing members from taking comprehensive measures as and when they like.But the fact is no country aspiring to be a perm. member of the UNSC would ever give up on the demand of VETO,if that had been the case than reforms would have taken place much earlier.Permanent members without VETO is only as good as being temporary members.Moreover VETO power means a country would actually have a say in the affairs of the UNSC rather than just sitting as an observer.Ask it to yourself mate. . . Do u think that a country like India with one of the largest armed forces on earth serving dedicatedly over the years in various peace keeping missions around the world,a Nuclear Power,one of the largest economies on earth and last and the most important point-THE SECOND LARGEST POPULATED COUNTY ON EARTH would be willing to just sit and watch.The USA knows very well that India would not be another GB and would not act in a way so as to fulfill the whims and fancies of Uncle Sam. . . In fact India's P. membership at this fora could actually be detrimental to American interests cause w have a completely independent foreign policy as they have already witnessed when they imposed sanctions on Iran!!

 

[Hello_10]

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....

Turkey’s complex case for UN Security Council reform

One of the interesting innovations in Brazil's foreign policy under Dilma Rousseff is the adoption of a more subtle approach to the question of UN Security Council reform. While President Lula and his outspoken foreign minister Celso Amorim used every conceivable opportunity to make the case for reform, such public declarations have become rare under Rousseff and her smooth foreign minister Antonio Patriota. Far from having abandoned the quest for reform, Brazil's rationale has evolved: Both Rousseff and Patriota know that Brazil on its own is unable to bring about UN Security reform - rather, it requires a complex constellation of factors, including a sort of 'global momentum' that only occurs every once in a while. At the same time, decision-makers in Brazil are convinced that, if reform is to take place, Brazil will almost certainly obtain a permanent seat. Brazil is globally recognized as a 'natural candidate', so policy makers can focus on reforming other, potentially less rigid institutions, such as the IMF.

In this context, Turkey has emerged as the leading mouthpiece for UNSC reform. Pointing out recently that "the West is no longer the only centre of the world", Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan called for the inclusion of emerging powers, such as Turkey, Brazil, India and Indonesia as permanent UNSC members. Turkey's criticism is thus in many ways similar to Brazil's argument that the UNSC symbolizes an unjust and unequal international system, which needs urgent reform. Claiming a leadership role in the region, Erdogan is in a way adopting Brazil's in-your-face strategy under President Lula, which may help Turkey join the list of 'natural candidates', currently led by Brazil and India.

Yet Erdogan's current approach differs from Brazil's because it is tied to the crisis in Syria. While Brazil makes a general argument about a fundamentally flawed international system which needs to regain its legitimacy, Turkey's main criticism is the UNSC's lack of effectiveness. He warns that "if we leave the issue to the vote of one or two members" (referring to Russia and China) "of the permanent five at the United Nations Security Council, then the aftermath of Syria will be very hazardous and humanity will write it down in history with unforgettable remarks". Erdogan thus essentially calls for eliminating permanent members' veto power and the requirement to reach unanimity in order to pass resolutions. The P5's individual veto power is one of the key pillars of today's international system, and many believe it is responsible for the institution's relative success over the past decades. Questioning this rule is a much more profound - and less realistic - call for reform than politely asking for permanent UNSC membership à la Brasília.

But Turkey's approach is also different from Brazil's because it rejects Brazil's narrative of an underrepresented and rising Global South and an established yet declining Global North unwilling to share power with emerging powers. Turkey's criticism is focused on Russia and China, whose position in the 'Global South' vs. 'Global North' debate is not clearly defined - during BRICS Summits and IMF meetings, at least, both are keen to show their credentials as underrepresented powers that push for reform. Erdogan, on the other hand, portrays them as the two greatest obstacles against creating more effective international institutions.

By confronting Russia and China head-on, Turkey is unlikely to find support from Brazil, which - along with the other BRICS members - does not support a military intervention in Syria. It also diminishes the probability of Turkey entering the BRICS group any time soon, increasing the chances for Indonesia should the group ever decide to expand. By criticizing both Russia and China on the one hand, and 'the West' on the other, Turkey has adopted a rather risky strategy that may in the end complicate its own candidacy for permanent UN Security Council membership.

Turkey's complex case for UN Security Council reform