Ban Ki-moon to visit India; UNSC seat may top talks

[Jade]

You significantly overestimate the power of developing nations. Especially India.

I'm more realistic. The only reason why China has some influence, is due to sheer scale, in terms of economy. We still have a LOT of work to do, and many decades to wait.

You can disregard countries like Britain and France at your own risk. Even if they are declining, they still have significant geopolitical/technological/economic power.

Check the rankings for nominal GDP and military spending, and you will see that they still punch significantly above their weight, even in terms of hard power alone. And most of their power lies in other areas, such as diplomatic influence and technology.

I don’t overestimate the power of developing nations. I derive their future performance from their present strengths – populations, growth rates, infrastructure improvements, natural resources, substantial educated mass etc... The best part is that the leadership of countries such as India and China have recognized that the only way to take the rightful position in world politics is through economic development. You are right about China, the sheer size of its economy coupled with its prolonged growth rates are creating ripples in the western world, and there is a part of world that is not satisfied with the leadership of the west, but, at present, they have no option. Large emerging countries such as China, India and Brazil will give that option.

As for Britain and France, I live in one such country. Even the common person on the street in west is accepting the inevitability of ascendency of the countries such as Brazil, China and India.

The difference is they are pacified, and all territory is under the firm administration of the government. Russia and China can maintain peace inside their borders. In contrast, parts of India are in a state of insurgency (Naxalite areas are just one of three, btw).

Don't post on something on which you have no knowledge of.

 

[faithfulguy]

Was it on the basis of economy that China got priority over others back in time???

China got in as a victor of WWII. That is why Germany and Japan was never in.

As for India, it should not ask to be a member. Many emerging economies was not part of G8 but the whole G8 itself lost its important vs the G20. Now,

"With the G-20 growing in stature since the 2008 Washington summit, its leaders announced on September 25, 2009, that the group will replace the G8 as the main economic council of wealthy nations."

If India grows in influence, other countries will invite India to be part of the P5. If India has to ask, then its not there yet. I know that many Indians like to predict that it will happen in 5 years or 10 years. But my belief that its too soon. The reason is that if Security Council is about to collapse without India, you could hear some noise it by now. So my own personal belief that this is still a long way off.

 

[Raphael]

Was it on the basis of economy that China got priority over others back in time???

No, it's because China was a member of the Allies. With that being said, China was no. 5 at the time:

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's quite likely India could have gotten a seat as well if she hadn't provided Hitler with the ideological basis for Nazism and supported the Axis during the war. So you guys really have only yourself to blame...

Don't post on something on which you have no knowledge of.

List of ongoing military conflicts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India has 3 decades-long insurgencies that show no sign of eroding: Naxalites, Kashmir and the North East. How can you expect a state with significant swathes of territory in anarchy to join the UNSC?

 

[Jade]

India has 3 decades-long insurgencies that show no sign of eroding: Naxalites, Kashmir and the North East. How can you expect a state with significant swathes of territory in anarchy to join the UNSC?

I am from the epicentre of the so called 'significant swathes of territory in anarchy', so I have first hand knowledge on insurgencies. As of China, I think you have much more graver problems: Tibet, Xinjiang, repressed press, blatant human right violation by state, no people rights, unequal development, lack of democracy, and the list can go on.

 

[hawx]

No, it's because China was a member of the Allies. With that being said, China was no. 5 at the time:

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's quite likely India could have gotten a seat as well if she hadn't provided Hitler with the ideological basis for Nazism and supported the Axis during the war. So you guys really have only yourself to blame...



List of ongoing military conflicts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

India has 3 decades-long insurgencies that show no sign of eroding: Naxalites, Kashmir and the North East. How can you expect a state with significant swathes of territory in anarchy to join the UNSC?

u forgot about 80000 monthly protests in china ?

 

[Raphael]

You guys have to recognize the difference between protest and insurgency. The USA has had a continuous protest (OWS) for a while now, but you'd be hard pressed to call it anarchy. In contrast, Naxalites, Kashmir and the North East are in a different stage. That's why when you ctrl+f India in the article, you can find 3 instances, whereas there are none for China.

 

[Tshering22]

I second Korean's opinion here. The UNSC is no longer relevant in the present world and being an Indian, I find it embarrassing why does this stupid government run to Ban all the time, asking for the UNSC position with VETO. We don't want it. Perhaps getting the UNSC seat is the ONLY hope for Congress to even stand a chance in the coming elections, in which right now it faces the prospect of a crushing defeat in 2014. Nothing more than a point score for elections, people.

Tell me why do we need UNSC seat now when:

- Not even tin pot dictators give a damn about its resolutions.
- The council itself is bitterly divided into factions.
- Every member has to agree meaning that even if we find something logical and good, say, Chinese might reject it.
- It doesn't affect us anymore in any way.. we've grown out of that league where UNSC decisions affect us in any manner.
- Apart from certain African, European and Latin American countries, the UNSC is useless against other nations.

I don't understand why the heck does this clown MMS or even HS Puri keep forwarding something that is of no relevance.

Most sensible approach would be to dissolve the VETO powers and be done with this "permanent" thing. Especially when it doesn't affect us in any way.

 

[ashokdeiva]

You guys have to recognize the difference between protest and insurgency. The USA has had a continuous protest (OWS) for a while now, but you'd be hard pressed to call it anarchy. In contrast, Naxalites, Kashmir and the North East are in a different stage. That's why when you ctrl+f India in the article, you can find 3 instances, whereas there are none for China.

please man, let the UNSC decide and if they see INDIA as a unworthy country for what we ask for let them say it at our face. and you just write your posts out of prejudice and pure hatred for INDIA.
1962 happened a long time ago, we INDIANS of the next generation are people who think about excelance and we take CHINA as a role model for development and you guys(the next gen of CHINA) on the other hand despices us for some thing that happened in 1962.

So thanks for your INDIA bashing so far and for the bashing that you will do in the future too. we are big in our mentality to move on despite worthless cirticism.

 

[Tshering22]

You guys have to recognize the difference between protest and insurgency. The USA has had a continuous protest (OWS) for a while now, but you'd be hard pressed to call it anarchy. In contrast, Naxalites, Kashmir and the North East are in a different stage. That's why when you ctrl+f India in the article, you can find 3 instances, whereas there are none for China.

Similarly, Tibet and east Turkestan are also burning issues that China has failed to resolve in any pragmatic manner. Brute force and news censorship only gets you some short term benefits.

While you have internal issues, you should be respectful of not meddling into internal matters of other countries.

 

[ashokdeiva]

Similarly, Tibet and east Turkestan are also burning issues that China has failed to resolve in any pragmatic manner. Brute force and news censorship only gets you some short term benefits.

While you have internal issues, you should be respectful of not meddling into internal matters of other countries.

Tshering22 we do not need to explain or compare our self with CHINA especially to young CHINESE who despic us for nothing. Let them tell what ever they want, we are a team of 1.2 billion dedicated work force which aims at excelance. Lets not go to the level of some CHINESE here in PDF

 

[tvsram1992]

The only real enemy for China is THE USA. All the others are just Uncle SAM's lapdog. Once Uncle SAM is gone then the lapdogs won't bark anymore.

India and China are not real enemies . We know who is the lap dog of USA You dont want me to prove it right ???

 

[Raphael]

please man, let the UNSC decide and if they see INDIA as a unworthy country for what we ask for let them say it at our face. and you just write your posts out of prejudice and pure hatred for INDIA.
1962 happened a long time ago, we INDIANS of the next generation are people who think about excelance and we take CHINA as a role model for development and you guys(the next gen of CHINA) on the other hand despices us for some thing that happened in 1962.

So thanks for your INDIA bashing so far and for the bashing that you will do in the future too. we are big in our mentality to move on despite worthless cirticism.

I'm very disheartened to find you have a persecution complex. I don't hate India, I didn't bring up 1962, and I pleased by the progress India has been making. I'm simply pointing out the facts: that while India has made progress, it's not ready for the UNSC yet. India is obviously not Somalia, but the imposition of law and order over all sovereign territory is a basic requirement that the GoI has not met.

@Tsering
Tibet and Xinjiang are not comparable because those regions are entirely pacified. Even though India may be giving sanctuary to separatist groups, they have not really been able to incite disorder. There is no insurgency that amasses a death toll of thousands every year. It's important you grasp this distinction.

 

[ashokdeiva]

I'm very disheartened to find you have a persecution complex. I don't hate India, I didn't bring up 1962, and I pleased by the progress India has been making. I'm simply pointing out the facts: that while India has made progress, it's not ready for the UNSC yet. India is obviously not Somalia, but the imposition of law and order over all sovereign territory is a basic requirement that the GoI has not met.

@Tsering
Tibet and Xinjiang are not comparable because those regions are entirely pacified. Even though India may be giving sanctuary to separatist groups, they have not really been able to incite disorder. There is no insurgency that amasses a death toll of thousands every year. It's important you grasp this distinction.

please mate we have a system not like that of CHINA its a democracy and every one has the right to protest and if the protests are crused take up an armed rebelion to make the government of INDIA realize their problems. we are just 64 years in the making and do you know how many languages are spoken in our land, how may divisions and sects are there and how many non identical cultures are there. its too vast for you or any other person to even imagine. even with this many difference we have stood united as a nation and yes we have incergency problems but we know our people better than any one else in the world. its just a technical glitch or inaction or lack of interest from the political leaders of my nation that is keeping these insurgencies alive and once in the future good leaders show up as a result of evolution in INDIAN mindset while voting these problems will vanish.

But just because we have insurgencise telling that we do not deserve the UNSC is abscrud.

if not us atlease unnanimously elect GERMANY, SOUTH AFRICA, JAPAN AND BRAZIL. we can wait for our tern.

 

[junk]

UNSC veto for a facist country? long way to go

 

[Aramsogo]

Yup, if you have to ask the price... You can't afford it.

Next up, India asks to join the Beatles and the living US Presidents Club.

Any other exclusive groups India wants to join. How about India wants to join astronauts that have walked on the moon??

China got in as a victor of WWII. That is why Germany and Japan was never in.

As for India, it should not ask to be a member. Many emerging economies was not part of G8 but the whole G8 itself lost its important vs the G20. Now,

"With the G-20 growing in stature since the 2008 Washington summit, its leaders announced on September 25, 2009, that the group will replace the G8 as the main economic council of wealthy nations."

If India grows in influence, other countries will invite India to be part of the P5. If India has to ask, then its not there yet. I know that many Indians like to predict that it will happen in 5 years or 10 years. But my belief that its too soon. The reason is that if Security Council is about to collapse without India, you could hear some noise it by now. So my own personal belief that this is still a long way off.