beijingwalker
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 65,195
- Reaction score
- -55
- Country
- Location
I guess now they are Indian citizens. You problem, not ours, please take them all sincerely.
US sets condition for India’s UNSC seat
- Thread starter The Eagle
- Start date
MultaniGuy
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 12,243
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Lol so true
Japan and Germany have had larger economies than Britain and France and they don't have permanent seats.
India is not going to get a permanent seat when it has nothing to contribute to the world. I mean, how many wars has India participated in during this century? It's just been sitting on the fence and expecting everyone to treat India as a Supa powa.
MultaniGuy
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 12,243
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Excellent point. India will never get UNSC seat
You have very bad habit of repeating things again and again Mr. Is there something wrong with you?
You have very bad habit of repeating things again and again Mr. Is there something wrong with you?
Says who a jealous Pakistani
MultaniGuy
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 12,243
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
Say what you want, but China will never allow India a UNSC seat with veto.
Yes it does prove there is something wrongSay what you want, but China will never allow India a UNSC seat with veto.
faithfulguy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 13,651
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
He is correct. USA also would not allow India to have veto power. Neither would Russia. India should focus its energy on getting the two year term in UNSC as it has no capability of getting the permanent seat.
ohmrlobalobayeh
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- -23
- Country
- Location
Security council = Victors of world war 2
Former colonies not included, as none of the UNSC members are former colonies.
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.
= This post is implying india is the prime laundry 'b**tch of the United States.
SingaporeGuy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2017
- Messages
- 1,636
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
truth be told, under no condition should india be given a chance to step into UN security council veto or not.
the amount of human rights abuses is insane, and there is an insurgency going on right now in india.
the amount of human rights abuses is insane, and there is an insurgency going on right now in india.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Prime Minister's Office
24-October, 2017 09:34 IST
PM greets UN on United Nations Day
Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has conveyed his greetings to the UN on United Nations Day.
“Greetings on UN Day. We appreciate UN’s efforts in promoting world peace and laud the wide range of initiatives under its guidance”, the Prime Minister said.
***
24-October, 2017 09:34 IST
PM greets UN on United Nations Day
Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has conveyed his greetings to the UN on United Nations Day.
“Greetings on UN Day. We appreciate UN’s efforts in promoting world peace and laud the wide range of initiatives under its guidance”, the Prime Minister said.
***
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/with-or-without-the-veto/article19907383.ece?homepage=true
October 24, 2017 00:15 IST
Updated: October 23, 2017 23:00 IST
India should pursue the lead offered by the U.S. to end the deadlock over the Security Council’s expansion
Some recent statements of Nikki Haley, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, suggest, in a somewhat befuddled manner, that the American position on an expansion of the Security Council is evolving to favour India’s permanent membership without the power of the veto. But instead of exploring the idea further with the U.S., the Indian “government sources” which responded to Ms. Haley took a combative position and stated that there was no change in India’s stand that it should have “the same obligations, responsibilities and prerogatives as the existing permanent members of the Security Council.” India seemed unaware that it had, together with the others in G-4 (Brazil, Germany and Japan), conceded that veto should not be an issue, at least for the present.
What is the U.S. stand?
In March, Ms. Haley had candidly admitted that she did not know much about Security Council reform. In June, she seemed more informed, but not fully. “We have told all members of the UN that we are in support of Security Council reform, as long as they don’t take our veto away,” she told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee during a Congressional hearing. If the only issue was protecting the veto of the U.S., the expansion could have taken place long ago, as no one had ever suggested that veto of the permanent members should be taken away. The new candidates were only demanding the same veto power for themselves, and the U.S. and other permanent members were firm in rejecting such demands.
Ms. Haley’s latest comment was even more specific about the veto: “So, the key to getting India on the Security Council would have to be not to touch the veto.” She said the U.S. was already on board, but there was need to focus on Russia and China, the two permanent members of the Security Council who do not want to see any changes.
If Ms. Haley’s statements indicate the present thinking of the Trump administration, it is a definite advance in the U.S. position. When India put forward the proposal for an expansion of the non-permanent membership of the Security Council in 1979, the U.S. opposed it vehemently. But after the end of the Cold War, when the pressure mounted for expansion of permanent membership, the U.S. took the position that it could live with “one or two” additions to permanent membership, without identifying the countries.
Between the two options that then Secretary General Kofi Annan had given in his report, “In Larger Freedom” in 2005, the permanent members had supported “Model B”, which did not envisage any kind of expansion of permanent membership. It provided for no new permanent seats but created a new category of eight four-year renewable-term seats and one new two-year non-permanent (and non-renewable) seat, divided among the major regional areas. “Model A” was placed in the report at the insistence of the Indian representative, Gen. Satish Nambiar. It provided for six new permanent seats without the veto, and three new two-year term non-permanent seats, divided among the major regional areas.
During his visit to India in 2010, President Barack Obama had said he looked “forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.” This gladdened India, but the U.S. delegation did not take any follow-up action at the UN.
The compilation of the views of member states, published two years ago, clearly indicated that the U.S. merely favoured a “modest expansion”, without supporting any formula under consideration and no alteration or expansion of the veto. Unlike France and the U.K., the U.S. made no mention of support to India as a permanent member. Among the permanent members, the opinion of France was closest to India’s in the sense that it supported the addition of five new permanent members, including India, without any objection to veto being extended to them. The U.K. supported the G-4 without the power of veto. Russia, an old supporter of India, was non-committal and China indicated that the time had not come for any serious negotiations on the subject.
The way ahead
Ms. Haley’s statement opens up the possibility of permanent membership for India without veto. A draft resolution circulated by the candidates had already conceded that they would not expect to have the veto at least for 15 years. Thus a meeting point has emerged between the U.S. and G-4. But since it appeared that she had framed her comment for the consumption of Indian Americans, it looks like a PR exercise, nothing more.
India should pursue the lead Ms. Haley has given. If nothing else, the present impasse in negotiations will end and there will be new vigour in Security Council reform.
T.P. Sreenivasan, a former Ambassador, was the Governor for India of the IAEA and Executive Director of the IAEA 2020 Programme
October 24, 2017 00:15 IST
Updated: October 23, 2017 23:00 IST
India should pursue the lead offered by the U.S. to end the deadlock over the Security Council’s expansion
Some recent statements of Nikki Haley, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, suggest, in a somewhat befuddled manner, that the American position on an expansion of the Security Council is evolving to favour India’s permanent membership without the power of the veto. But instead of exploring the idea further with the U.S., the Indian “government sources” which responded to Ms. Haley took a combative position and stated that there was no change in India’s stand that it should have “the same obligations, responsibilities and prerogatives as the existing permanent members of the Security Council.” India seemed unaware that it had, together with the others in G-4 (Brazil, Germany and Japan), conceded that veto should not be an issue, at least for the present.
What is the U.S. stand?
In March, Ms. Haley had candidly admitted that she did not know much about Security Council reform. In June, she seemed more informed, but not fully. “We have told all members of the UN that we are in support of Security Council reform, as long as they don’t take our veto away,” she told members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee during a Congressional hearing. If the only issue was protecting the veto of the U.S., the expansion could have taken place long ago, as no one had ever suggested that veto of the permanent members should be taken away. The new candidates were only demanding the same veto power for themselves, and the U.S. and other permanent members were firm in rejecting such demands.
Ms. Haley’s latest comment was even more specific about the veto: “So, the key to getting India on the Security Council would have to be not to touch the veto.” She said the U.S. was already on board, but there was need to focus on Russia and China, the two permanent members of the Security Council who do not want to see any changes.
If Ms. Haley’s statements indicate the present thinking of the Trump administration, it is a definite advance in the U.S. position. When India put forward the proposal for an expansion of the non-permanent membership of the Security Council in 1979, the U.S. opposed it vehemently. But after the end of the Cold War, when the pressure mounted for expansion of permanent membership, the U.S. took the position that it could live with “one or two” additions to permanent membership, without identifying the countries.
Between the two options that then Secretary General Kofi Annan had given in his report, “In Larger Freedom” in 2005, the permanent members had supported “Model B”, which did not envisage any kind of expansion of permanent membership. It provided for no new permanent seats but created a new category of eight four-year renewable-term seats and one new two-year non-permanent (and non-renewable) seat, divided among the major regional areas. “Model A” was placed in the report at the insistence of the Indian representative, Gen. Satish Nambiar. It provided for six new permanent seats without the veto, and three new two-year term non-permanent seats, divided among the major regional areas.
During his visit to India in 2010, President Barack Obama had said he looked “forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.” This gladdened India, but the U.S. delegation did not take any follow-up action at the UN.
The compilation of the views of member states, published two years ago, clearly indicated that the U.S. merely favoured a “modest expansion”, without supporting any formula under consideration and no alteration or expansion of the veto. Unlike France and the U.K., the U.S. made no mention of support to India as a permanent member. Among the permanent members, the opinion of France was closest to India’s in the sense that it supported the addition of five new permanent members, including India, without any objection to veto being extended to them. The U.K. supported the G-4 without the power of veto. Russia, an old supporter of India, was non-committal and China indicated that the time had not come for any serious negotiations on the subject.
The way ahead
Ms. Haley’s statement opens up the possibility of permanent membership for India without veto. A draft resolution circulated by the candidates had already conceded that they would not expect to have the veto at least for 15 years. Thus a meeting point has emerged between the U.S. and G-4. But since it appeared that she had framed her comment for the consumption of Indian Americans, it looks like a PR exercise, nothing more.
India should pursue the lead Ms. Haley has given. If nothing else, the present impasse in negotiations will end and there will be new vigour in Security Council reform.
T.P. Sreenivasan, a former Ambassador, was the Governor for India of the IAEA and Executive Director of the IAEA 2020 Programme
ashok mourya
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2014
- Messages
- 1,957
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Let's the Korean war happen..it will happen sooner or later...after the war China will expelled from unsc and India will be given the seat with veto power....hope so...looks possible....
Similar threads
