US sets condition for India’s UNSC seat

[Indika]

Any nation desirous of joining the group will find that it has to conform to certain obligations that come with it, regardless of which country it is.

You dont get to be on UNSC bcos you conform to certain obligation but when you have the power to impose your rules or dictate to other countries.

Drastically India, Japan, South Africa, and Brazil can withdraw from the UN to show solidarity in demanding a reformation.

UN is a jungle, UNSC is a bunch of beasts who have proclaimed themselves. Reformation is a not some thing which comes in power struggles. Emerging powers have to just disregard them and do whatever they want. The one who has more influence will win.

 

[Cookie Monster]

I said , let's vote in the UN for reforms.

But what kind of reform are u advocating?

1) The reforms that makes all nations equal instead of giving a few select countries the power to use UN for their agenda, which would effectively end the veto power?

2) Or u just want only the reforms that allow India to be on the security council? Which wouldn't really be a reform and would be more of the same with 6 countries(including India) being the puppeteers instead of 5.

Regarding UNSC membership , India has the backing from majority nations

I don't know what majority nations u r talking about here. Please provide me with a source.

 

[Srinivas]

But what kind of reform are u advocating?

1) The reforms that makes all nations equal instead of giving a few select countries the power to use UN for their agenda, which would effectively end the veto power?

2) Or u just want only the reforms that allow India to be on the security council? Which wouldn't really be a reform and would be more of the same with 6 countries(including India) being the puppeteers instead of 5.


I don't know what majority nations u r talking about here. Please provide me with a source.

I support voting on UNSC permanent seat membership.

I am on mobile check the below link for the nations which are supporting India's UNSC permanent membership.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Support_for_UNSC_India.svg

 

[VCheng]

You dont get to be on UNSC bcos you conform to certain obligation but when you have the power to impose your rules or dictate to other countries.

There is being on the UNSC by rotation, and there is being on the UNSC permanently, and then there is being on the UNSC with veto power. Each rank comes with its own obligations. Is India ready to pay the entry fee into the higher two levels?

 

[MultaniGuy]

lol China would never allow India to get into UNSC.

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

Majority of nations in this world support India for UNSC permanent seat

Very funny my friend.

Nigeria

What? Nigeria? Are you high?

The only good African nations for a permanent seat would be North African nations. Anything below the Sahara is a gigantic mess waiting to explode.


Can't they kick out France and Britain? They are pretty useless in the grand scheme of things. Replace those with an African and another Asian country and you should be good.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

What? Nigeria? Are you high?
The only good African nations for a permanent seat would be North African nations. Anything below the Sahara is a gigantic mess waiting to explode.
Can't they kick out France and Britain? They are pretty useless in the grand scheme of things. Replace those with an African and another Asian country and you should be good.

Sure, how about Algeria? The French like them and their neutrality is preferred.

The French Resistance bounded millions of Nazis. And they fought during the entirety of the war with nowhere to run off to.

France supports a German bid. Wtf would anyone abdicate their seat? Russia and China aren't going to press up against the US/France/UK.

 

[EgyptianAmerican]

Sure, how about Algeria?

A little biased against Morocco but a great choice.

The French Resistance bounded millions of Nazis.

??? Bounded?

The French resistance was almost entirely supported by the British and their intelligence agencies. Also just because some Frenchmen did something in World war 2 (70+ years ago) doesn't mean they deserve a seat on one of the world's most powerful positions especially when there are more important countries with more people/resources/ and history that could replace them.

anyone abdicate their seat?

I mean forcefully remove from their seat not abdicate.

 

[prashantazazel]

We should concentrate on rapid growth in all economic and military fields. The UN doesn't matter much for big countries.

 

[xyxmt]

America ney India ko truck ki battee kay peechay lagaya hua hey 20-saal sey.

Nothing is going to happen in this regard and India will never have the permanent seat in UNSC. The simple reason is that China will never agree.

America only wants to use India for its own interests - i.e., against China.

non of the 5 permanent members want India to have veto power.

 

[dreamer4eva]

US sets condition for India’s UNSC seat
By
News Desk

October 18, 2017



News Analysis |

US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, seemingly enticed India with a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. She said that the key to India becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council is “not to touch the veto”. She also identified Russia and China as the two global powers against changes in the current structure of the Security Council.

“This reform of the UN Security Council is much more about the veto. The permanent five (members of the Security Council) have the ability to veto. Russia, China, the UK, the US and France and none of them want to give that up,” Ms. Haley said in an address to an event organized by US India Friendship Council.

“America’s overriding interests in Afghanistan and throughout South Asia are to eliminate terrorist safe havens that threaten us. And to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, we will use all the elements of our national power economic diplomatic and military to pursue these goals,” was her statement.

The ambassador also said that India could help the US keep an eye on Pakistan as President Donald Trump has “taken a tougher approach to Islamabad harboring terrorists”. Noting that Trump recently announced a new strategy for combating terrorism in Afghanistan and South Asia, Haley said one of the pillars of that strategy is the development of America’s strategic partnership with India.

“America’s overriding interests in Afghanistan and throughout South Asia are to eliminate terrorist safe havens that threaten us. And to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists, we will use all the elements of our national power economic diplomatic and military to pursue these goals,” was her statement.


US DESIGNS

Nikki Haley alongside Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana holds the distinction of being top-level US officials of Indian descent. Born to Sikh parents, she converted to Methodism after marrying her husband Michael Haley and describes herself as a Christian. Her religious conversion, as well as her ethnicity, did not stop her from becoming the first female governor of South Carolina.

To stave off China, the US seeks to use India as a local Sherriff of the region, therefore, it has been quite generous with India lately through nuclear deals and calls for greater inclusion of India. It also sees India as a suitable counterweight to an increasingly independent Pakistan.

It remains to be seen whether the remarks of Nikki Haley are mere statements of a US official of Indian heritage or an indicator of US designs for the region. In September 2017, a resolution supporting India’s bid for the UNSC seat was presented in the US House of representatives. However, before President Obama, the US was severely against UNSC reforms. The case of India has been dogged by factors such as the Kashmir conflict, no signature of the NPT and great power wrangling.

The shift of the US from opposing to allowing more members in the UNSC probably stems from the perception of the US’s place in global affairs. After the departure of George W Bush, the US has started to see itself no more as the lone power and perceives challenges from a new multipolar order lead by China and Russia. To stave off China, the US seeks to use India as a local Sherriff of the region, therefore, it has been quite generous with India lately through nuclear deals and calls for greater inclusion of India. It also sees India as a suitable counterweight to an increasingly independent Pakistan.


NO VETO

However, the US is also following pragmatism. While it supports a permanent membership of India in the UNSC, it also seeks assurances to curtail the use of Veto. The Veto has been a rather problematic point for the US in current history. While it greatly used Veto primarily to safeguard Israel in the global arena, it got a taste of its own medicine when Russia and China utilized it in various instances such as Syria and Iran.

While what Nikki Haley’s remarks would achieve remains to be seen but it can be assured that the US is considering India as the most useful state in the coming Multipolar era.

Therefore it will be wary of any other power using the power of Veto as a checkmate for US endeavors in the UN. This has been reciprocated by India as well. New Delhi has offered to forgo veto power initially as a bargaining chip to get the permanent seat. “The issue of veto is important, but we should not allow it to have a veto over the process of Council reform itself,” India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin, said in March.


While what Nikki Haley’s remarks would achieve remains to be seen but it can be assured that the US is considering India as the most useful state in the coming Multipolar era.

My take is, no one except France wants Indian in UN Security council. France and UK, does not have any conflicting interests with India, however, UK is too much under US influence.

China, everyone know why. Russia & US, they don't trust India that it'll always toe their line, as it is too big of a country to not look after their own interests, and with becoming bigger economy, India will be more assertive regarding their concerns in coming future.

IMO, no one except France wants us in UN Security Council with Veto power. So, my Indian brothers/sisters, stop thinking that US wants us in SC. If India was in their situation, would do the same, so there should't be any hard feelings.

 

[faithfulguy]

With out veto UNSC permanent seat is not at all worthy.

UNSC is like an aristocracy , what is the use of yelling democracy and freedom if you cannot change the UNSC structure.

Majority of nations in this world support India for UNSC permanent seat and NSG membership. Both these memberships are denied based on the reservations of some countries like china. This is a shame.

It is also a shame for US to utter the above statement.

US and other permanent members should decide if they want to keep the relevancy of UN by introducing reforms and including India in UNSC or make UN an irrelevant organisation.

UNSC is doing just fine without India permanent membership. India is always welcome to apply for 2 year terms.

UN was from the very start set up heavily in favor of certain nations...and that's why it remains ineffective mostly. It only acts at the whims of the nations controlling it when the interests of the five UNSC members align. Otherwise it just sits idly by even when needed just bcuz one or more of those five members used its veto according to their own interests.

So u want to change the structure of UNSC bcuz u think it's an aristocracy? They should let India in? How does that change it from being that aristocracy? India would become just another member with the big 5 leaving the rest of the world out. The only way to make UN an organization it was meant to be is by giving all member countries equal voice/power...as long as some countries retain more power than others UN will remain in a tug of war. The current tug of war between US and China regarding India is evident. Even if India somehow manages to get in then it will just add one more player to the 5 already there(UNSC) and UN will continue to remain a puppet.

The major power had no war in the last 70 years. To me, UNSC is the only major organization to perform its duties in keeping the world safe. No major war since 1945.

 

[Cookie Monster]

UNSC is doing just fine without India permanent membership. India is always welcome to apply for 2 year terms.



The major power had no war in the last 70 years. To me, UNSC is the only major organization to perform its duties in keeping the world safe. No major war since 1945.

Which war is it that the UN prevented from occurring?
If u r referring to the fact that the major economies/powers haven't had a war since World War II(described as the long peace)...that's not bcuz of the UN. That trend has a few reasons...

1) Integration of Europe(EU), which made the traditional rivalries such as between Germany/France and others almost vanish. With integrated economies and trade those nations realized that they have more to lose if they go to war then they stand to gain. The resources they used to compete over can now simply be traded. Keeping in view the death and destruction of the two world wars and the prosperity and peace that this integration brought, Europe naturally went further and further into this direction of being integrated under the umbrella of EU. This was also helped along by the threat of USSR. It was one more reason(a major one) for the western European countries to band together. In conclusion this led to the elimination of "war"(in general) among European countries(which also happen to be some of the top economies)

2) US which was already aligned with the Western European countries in WWI and WWII and helped rebuild Europe would naturally also not need to go war with those countries. The Cold War also played a part in this...in order to oppose USSR/communism US needed to band together with other European countries that saw eye to eye on this issue...so with the formation of NATO it brought down the chance of any conflict between western European countries and US to zero.

3) Japan(also a big economy) having lost in WWII and US taking charge of its defense focused on its economic development...after WWII it didn't have any colonial ambitions to expand nor did it have any enemies strong enough that could engage Japan in a war(until recently).

4) USSR/Russia didn't engage directly with western European countries bcuz of NATO alliance nor with US...due to the utter destruction it would cause. Any direct conflict was prevented due to a MAD scenario.

That's pretty much all the major economies since the end of WWII. China and India only recently topped economies such as Russia/Japan/Western European countries so they are not mentioned above. Moreover with China and India the circumstances are different as compared to those of Western European countries/US/Japan...so that's where the "long peace" maybe the most fragile. The only thing that may keep a war from happening in that theater is perhaps the threat of a MAD scenario.

In all other cases wars did occur. Countries that didn't have the threat of a MAD scenario or didn't have a common enemy to unite against did wage wars against each other.
US/Vietnam, US/Korea, India/China, India/Pak, Iraq/Kuwait, Iran/Iraq, US/Iraq, etc.

The list is long...where in any of these instances UN was able to prevent a war? UN even confirmed that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and US still went to war tossing aside UN. That's the reality of UN...it only serves those who control it. UN had no part to play in the "long peace"...

P.S. I'm not against UN per se, I just think it's unable to do the job it was intended for bcuz of the way it was structured.

 

[faithfulguy]

Which war is it that the UN prevented from occurring?
If u r referring to the fact that the major economies/powers haven't had a war since World War II(described as the long peace)...that's not bcuz of the UN. That trend has a few reasons...

1) Integration of Europe(EU), which made the traditional rivalries such as between Germany/France and others almost vanish. With integrated economies and trade those nations realized that they have more to lose if they go to war then they stand to gain. The resources they used to compete over can now be simply be traded. Keeping in view the death and destruction of the two world wars and the prosperity and peace that this integration brought, Europe naturally went further and further into this direction of being integrated under the umbrella of EU. This was also helped along by the threat of USSR. It was one more reason(a major one) for the western European countries to band together. In conclusion this led to the elimination of "war"(in general) among European countries(which also happen to be some of the top economies)

2) US which was already aligned the Western European countries in WWI and WWII and helped rebuild Europe would naturally also not need to go war with those countries. The Cold War also played a part in this...in order to oppose USSR/communism US needed to band together with other European countries that saw eye to eye on this issue...so with the formation of NATO it brought down the chance of any conflict between western European countries and US to zero.

3) Japan(also a big economy) having lost in WWII and US taking charge of its defense focused on its economic development...after WWII it didn't have any colonial ambitions to expand nor did it have any enemies strong enough that could engage Japan in a war(until recently).

4) USSR/Russia didn't engage directly with western European countries bcuz of NATO alliance nor with US...due to the utter destruction it would cause. Any direct conflict was prevented due to a MAD scenario.

That's pretty much all the major economies since the end of WWII. China and India only recently topped economies such as Russia/Japan/Western European countries so they are not mentioned above. Moreover with China and India the circumstances are different as compared to those of Western European countries/US/Japan...so that's where the "long peace" maybe the most fragile. The only thing that may keep a war from happening in that theater is perhaps the threat of a MAD scenario.

In all other cases wars did occur. Countries that didn't have the threat of a MAD scenario or didn't have a common enemy to unite against did wage wars against each other.
US/Vietnam, US/Korea, India/China, India/Pak, Iraq/Kuwait, Iran/Iraq, US/Iraq, etc.

The list is long...where in any of these instances UN was able to prevent a war? UN even confirmed that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq and US still went to war tossing aside UN. That's the reality of UN...it only serves those who control it. UN had no part to play in the "long peace"...

P.S. I'm not against UN per se, I just think it's unable to do the job it was intended for bcuz of the way it was structured.

You could be right. But why fix something that is not broken? UN is part of the equation to maintain peace between major powers. That is why pretenders such as India is begging for a seat in UNSC and why they won't get the seat. As they or any new members could disrupt the situation.

 

[Cookie Monster]

You could be right. But why fix something that is not broken? UN is part of the equation to maintain peace between major powers. That is why pretenders such as India is begging for a seat in UNSC and why they won't get the seat. As they or any new members could disrupt the situation.

I agree that adding India as the permanent member would only complicate things. UN carries out most of its responsibilities just fine. I was just saying that UN doesn't have the power to stop any wars between any countries bcuz of the way it is set up. Other than that it is doing fine with things such as peacekeeping, helping refugees, etc.