China warms up to India's claim for UN Security Council seat

[!!craft!!]

BEIJING: Chinese president Hu Jintao on Thursday assured the visiting Indian President Pratibha Patil that China was ready to discuss the complex issues relating to India’s quest for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. China’s response to India’s position was a significant improvement over its earlier stance on the matter, foreign secretary Nirupama Rao said.

Chinese leaders including premier Wen Jiabo said they wanted to ensure "a greater role for India in the UN especially in the Security Council", Rao told reporters after the meetings. She said it as a "positive step" on the Chinese side and did not amount to mere "guarded and diplomatic language".

China also said it was going to back India’s candidature for a non-permanent seat in the Security Council for the year 2010-11. But it did not come out with a clear support for a permanent seat besides offering to discuss the matter in greater detail. Rao did not elaborate on what steps would be taken to set up a mechanism for talks on the issue.

"There is an increasing awareness on India’s legitimacy on the issue," Rao said referring to Patil’s discussions with Chinese leaders. Beijing agreed with India on the need for reforms in the Security Council and wanted greater representation for developing countries in it, she said.

India is apparently building on the new bond that has emerged during the Copenhagen talks on climate change in order to persuade Beijing to agree on a program of intense partnership on groupings like BRIC multilateral platforms like the United Nations.

The leaders agreed with each other that there was a need to consolidate the relationship between the two countries by to make sure that no single episode or issue could do damage to it. They accepted the need to maintain peace and tranquility on the border until the boundary dispute was resolved by special representatives of both sides engaged in negotiating the matter.

Patil raised the issue of trade imbalance and suggested that China should consider diversifying its purchases of Indian goods and services from the pharmaceutical, engineering and information technology industries. Chinese leaders said they were equally keen to address the problem of trade imbalance.

During the visit, the two countries signed three agreements on giving visa on arrival to the crew of airlines, on cooperation in the field of civil services and in the area of sports and youth affairs.

 

[Evil]

Good luck to indians though it wil be a long long trip

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

^^^^^ Already posted on multiple threads. Look into it next time.

 

[(o_O)]

they were supposed to add more permanent members in UNSC in 2005,but that move was halted.
I dont understand why UK is still permanant member UNSC they dont have power as they had earlier,they are just Americas puppets.
it should have been Brazil, India or Japs.

 

[gogbot]

they were supposed to add more permanent members in UNSC in 2005,but that move was halted.
I dont understand why UK is still permanant member UNSC they dont have power as they had earlier,they are just Americas puppets.
it should have been Brazil, India or Japs.

The 2005 attempt was stopped.

"In Larger Freedom"

On March 21, 2005, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the UN to reach a consensus on expanding the council to 24 members, in a plan referred to as "In Larger Freedom". He gave two alternatives for implementation, but did not specify which proposal he preferred. In any case, Annan favored making the decision quickly, stating, "This important issue has been discussed for too long. I believe member states should agree to take a decision on it – preferably by consensus, but in any case before the summit – making use of one or other of the options presented in the report of the High-Level Panel".

The two options mentioned by Annan are referred to as Plan A and Plan B:

Plan A calls for creating six new permanent members, plus three new nonpermanent members for a total of 24 seats in the council.

Plan B calls for creating eight new seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four years, subject to renewal, plus one nonpermanent seat, also for a total of 24.

The summit mentioned by Annan is the September 2005 Millennium+5 Summit, a high level plenary meeting that reviewed Annan's report, the implementation of the 2000 Millennium Declaration, and other UN reform-related issues.

Uniting for Consensus (UfC) is a movement (nicknamed the Coffee Club) that developed in the 1990s in opposition to the possible expansion of the United Nations Security Council. Recently revived by Italy, it now has about 40 members aiming to counter the G4 nations' bids for permanent seats. The leaders are Italy, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and Pakistan.
The countries that have made the strongest demands for permanent seats are Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. Japan and Germany are the UN's second and third largest funders, respectively, while Brazil, the largest Latin American nation, and India, the world's largest democracy and second most populous country, are two of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions.
A UN General Assembly in September 2005 marked the 60th anniversary of the UN and the members were to decide on a number of necessary reforms—including the enlarged SC. However the unwillingness to find a negotiable position stopped even the most urgent reforms meant the September 2005 General Assembly was a setback for the UN. The G4 retain their goal of permanent UNSC membership for all four nations (plus two African nations). However, Japan announced in January 2006 that it would not support a retabling of the G4 resolution and was working on a resolution of its own.

Some of the members of the Uniting For Consensus group are:

Argentina, Colombia, Mexico - opposed to a bid for Brazil

Italy, Netherlands, Spain - opposed to a bid for Germany (wishing for
a seat for the whole European Union)

South Korea - opposed to a bid for Japan

Pakistan - opposed to a bid for India

Canada - opposed in principle to expansion not achieved by consensus or near-consensus

Also UK is still the 2nd largest European economy.
and still play a role in international relief and coordination efforts

 

[sancho]

Also UK is still the 2nd largest European economy.
and still play a role in international relief and coordination efforts

But still is mainly in the UNC to back up the US when they need help, just think about the fake evidences about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, that were backed up by british Gov and intelligence.
They are not the leading country in Europe, nor with major influence in the world anymore, sooner or later they have to integrate other important countries like Japan, Germany, India, or Brazil, simply to justify the further presence of UK, or France.

 

[!!craft!!]

they were supposed to add more permanent members in UNSC in 2005,but that move was halted.
I dont understand why UK is still permanant member UNSC they dont have power as they had earlier,they are just Americas puppets.
it should have been Brazil, India or Japs.

indian, brazil,japan and germany opted for the position ,but jap and germany were rules out cos of the war crime they comitted ..this leaves india and brazil...to become a security counsile member you gotto have a thumbs up from every body, i mean the previous five members..we had a nod from every body except china... i hopr things get sorted out

 

[arun]

I doubt this government's statements in this regard. They have put the wrong spin on the facts in the past and it is quite possible that they are doing the same this time too. Remember the Headley thing and how the goverment spokesperson tried to portray the plea-bargain agreement as good for India? Anyway, I find no mention of the same in the Chinese statement. They have agreed to India being a non-permanent member of the SC the next time. And they have agreed to discuss India's bid for a permanent SC seat. They haven't agreed to it.

Plus, as far as I know, only Russia, France and the UK support India's bid for a permanent seat at the UNSC. The US has not supported it althought some people have the misconception that it does. So, there is still a long way to go.

 

[sancho]

indian, brazil,japan and germany opted for the position ,but jap and germany were rules out cos of the war crime they comitted ..this leaves india and brazil...to become a security counsile member you gotto have a thumbs up from every body, i mean the previous five members..we had a nod from every body except china... i hopr things get sorted out

Can you explain where that came from? As far as I know it was like gogbot said before:

Some of the members of the Uniting For Consensus group are:

Argentina, Colombia, Mexico - opposed to a bid for Brazil

Italy, Netherlands, Spain - opposed to a bid for Germany (wishing for
a seat for the whole European Union)

South Korea - opposed to a bid for Japan

Pakistan - opposed to a bid for India

Canada - opposed in principle to expansion not achieved by consensus or near-consensus

In terms of Germany it was also the rejection of US support, after Germany openly opposed the Iraq war.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

indian, brazil,japan and germany opted for the position ,but jap and germany were rules out cos of the war crime they comitted ..this leaves india and brazil...to become a security counsile member you gotto have a thumbs up from every body, i mean the previous five members..we had a nod from every body except china... i hopr things get sorted out

the only issue I have with permanent membership and the security council is the right to veto anything that doesn’t suit a member
that is stark contrast to democracy that the west promotes.
The way the Texan ranger Bush pushed through to Invade Iraq killed the concept of UN and it was he himself said that UN was irrelevant.
I am not sure if increasing or decreasing members is going to help in anyway

Reason why some very hot and old conflicts never get resolved is down to one or two members who just simply veto anything coming from General Assembly.

To my understanding the whole organisation & functions and powers need an overhaul. Taking about the atrocities and war crimes the victors of WW2 have committed war crimes of their own that can rival with Germany and Japan
e.g. over 2 million Iraqis dead & 2.5 million Koreans in Korean war to name the few

my point is, this council is a joke if it cant stop the dictatorship and bulling of the super powers who can steamroll over any form of protests from other nations. Might as well give everyone this right or do away with it.

 

[Parashuram1]

@To Mr. Baloch,

The point of UN Security Council is to have a representative capable of handling the world situations. Just as shepherds guide and control a flock of sheep, the UNSC does the same. Now while sheep might be getting the attention, naturally shepherd is likely to exercise some luxury for himself as well isn't it?

Now if every other sheep gives damn to the shepherd(s), the flock would be in chaos.


@ To all the Indian members in this thread,

India has a long way to go before it is capable of handling a permanent security seat.

You are 12th largest economy while all other powers are within the first 7-8. You have a large population under poverty limitations in proportion to the closest member of yours: China. You have just entered industrialization era and are classified as a newly-Industrialized country from your former category of developing country while your supposed Asian rival has powered really far ahead as compared to you ranked number three in the world, followed by other members of 'Big 5'.

Your military might be huge in size and professional (I don't know much about Indian military except from what is known about your anti-militant operations) but still it doesn't have executive powers to take decision except when in combat operations, unlike the Russian, Chinese and American Chiefs of Joint Staff. You need to do something about corruption which is really high in your country. Your government social services system is really poor and below the standards of anything the Big 5 can provide (including China which boasts of a much more organized and extremely fast paced government level work).


I am here just to give my opinion that New Delhi has a long way to go before it can consider applying for a seat. This is my humble opinion and is without any intentions to troll. Please take this as constructive criticism as I am pointing out what I have observed from my official visits and researched about your country.

 

[(o_O)]

we do have long way to go to get the seat.
but we are the largest democracy in the world it should count for something.
we could represent for the 3rd world country
is it true we were offered perm. UNSC seat without veto back than or even now they will offer us without the veto, i mean in future

 

[Irfan Baloch]

@To Mr. Baloch,

The point of UN Security Council is to have a representative capable of handling the world situations. Just as shepherds guide and control a flock of sheep, the UNSC does the same..........

combining your sentence with President Bush I cant help but caugh..
what an irony. a word wolf springs to mind rather than the shepherd when it comes to American past and present actions.

not to mention how Israel gives the two fingers to whole UN resolutions.

the victors of WW2 made this council to suit themselves it doesnt automatically makes it the templar knights or knight of the round table. I am sorry its not 1940s times have changed
veto itself is the most contracitory of the whole UN concept
full stop cant say anymore

 

[footmarks]

Till the time the concept of veto power remains, UN will always be seen as a puppet organisation of WWII victors trying to maintain their supremacy forever. Dollor power and military power are two components running UN (read US et al). Since both these powers are shifting gradually, its high time for other organisations to expand their relevance in world order and replace/reorganise UN as a better and equal representative of all nations irrespective of their economic or military might.

UN is fast losing its relevance. Had it been any potent and neutral organisation, US would be facing war crime trials and sanctions for invading Iraq.

 

[!!craft!!]

Can you explain where that came from? As far as I know it was like gogbot said before:



In terms of Germany it was also the rejection of US support, after Germany openly opposed the Iraq war.

hear you go....

While almost all nations have agreed in principle that the UN needs a revamping which includes expansion, few countries are willing to talk about the exact time frame for such a reorganization. Also there has been discontent among the present permanent members regarding the inclusion of controversial nations or countries not supported by them. For instance, Japan's bid is heavily opposed by the People's Republic of China and South Korea[citation needed] who believes that Japan needs to atone further for its war crimes in World War II. At the same time Japan finds strong support from the United States [2] and the United Kingdom.[3]

Countries that strongly oppose the G4 countries' bids have formed the Uniting for Consensus movement, or the Coffee Club, now comprising over 40 nations. The leaders of this group are Italy, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and Pakistan.[4] In East Asia, both China and South Korea heavily oppose Japan's bid. In Europe, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands all oppose a seat for Germany. In Latin America, Argentina and Mexico are opposing a seat for Brazil. In Asia, Pakistan and China are opposing India's bid. Also important are historical political animosities toward certain G4 nations (see Japanese war crimes, Comfort women for Japan, and The Holocaust for Germany).

you can click on the citations on wiki for the links and articles!!!