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

[!!craft!!]

...............

 

[rubyjackass]

@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.

If all that BS you wrote were a factor then China would not be a member now. It would have been trying hard like India. All that matters is proper diplomacy and consent of all. If everyone agrees even Switzerland can become a permanent member with some justifications or other.

 

[below_freezing]

no. large population under poverty is only india. we don't have starvation here. we moved beyond living for food in china 30 years ago. india should take care of itself before worrying about security council.

 

[forcetrip]

So they want 24 countries to agree on something??

 

[Speeder 2]

...
You have just entered industrialization era and are classified as a newly-Industrialized country from your former category of developing country ...

Then most sub-Sahara African nations such as Nigeria, Cameroon, Zambia must all be classified as a Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs), paticualrly Pepublic of Congo which is further ahead.

It is because they are all ahead of India in GDP per cap ranking which is the implied key parameter for NICs statue.

Other generally recognised criteria for NICs are:

• 
  Increased social freedoms and civil rights.
  
  A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, especially in the manufacturing sector.
  
  An increasingly open-market economy, allowing free trade with other nations in the world.
  
  Large national corporations operating in several continents.
  
  Strong capital investment from foreign countries.
  
  Political leadership in their area of influence.
  
  Lowered poverty rates.

Does India meet ANY of those pre-conditions?

Note that Goldman Sucks' NIC catagory in wiki in the line of so called "BRIC", is out of obvious political correctness. In a country like India where a huge % of population suffer severe hunger and malnutrition, and it's newly industrialised. Only fools believe that.

Not even China can be classified as NIC at this stage in reality.

However, the rest of your post was quite reasonable.

 

[!!craft!!]

Then most sub-Sahara African nations such as Nigeria, Cameroon, Zambia must all be classified as a Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs), paticualrly Pepublic of Congo which is further ahead.:lol
It is because they are all ahead of India in GDP per cap ranking which is the implied key parameter for NICs statue.
:

can you give me a single link to prove this statement????? or are you another one of those wise guys who has a phd in trolling ??????

if you doa little bit of research then you will find that china gdp per capita ranking is 102.. and india is 134 ... that aint a lot of diffrence ...considering the fact that we got independeance 65 years ago....

 

[IndianArmy]

Then most sub-Sahara Africa nations such as Nigeria, Cameroon, Zambia must all be classified as a Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs) then, paticualrly Pepublic of Congoand Sudan which are further ahead, because they are all ahead of India in GDP per cap ranking which is the implied key parameter for NIC statue.

GDP per capita of China is low When compared to the above mentioned nations aswell..

Other generally recognised criteria for NICs are:

Increased social freedoms and civil rights.

India is a sovereign ,Democratic Country

Strong political leaders.

Manmohan singh,Any one falling Under him is made straight and strong by him, such is his talent

A switch from agricultural to industrial economies, especially in the manufacturing sector.

This is not even a clause to become an Industrialized nation, but since u asked, I say yes.... but India dosent want to move from agrarian culture and India has Issued very low tax schemes for those employed relating to Agriculture

An increasingly open-market economy, allowing free trade with other nations in the world.

Indian market is an open market, But if you are keeping in mind the latest ban on chinese products, Open markets does not always mean Open the doors for what ever is being dumped, But Have a systematic trade, which India has

Large national corporations operating in several continents.

lol.... TATA, Reliance,Mahindra and Mahindra,And Many More

Strong capital investment from foreign countries.

Foreign direct Investment, Why is that so Much needful To make a Country an Industrialized nation,. we have A good inflow of FDI.

Political leadership in their area of influence.

Like???

Lowered poverty rates.

India is Lowering its poverty rates

Does India mett ANY of those pre-conditions?

Yes , I guess so, Check it out

However, the rest of this post was quite reasonable.

 

[!!craft!!]

no. large population under poverty is only india. we don't have starvation here. we moved beyond living for food in china 30 years ago. india should take care of itself before worrying about security council.

thats correct ..and we are working on it we know we have certain issues ...but they wull be solved in the cource of time.... remember when china was selected as a member of security counsile it was in the almost similiar situation...

 

[Speeder 2]

GDP per capita of China is low When compared to the above mentioned nations aswell..

I specificly said that China is not industrialised either. Further, China is far more ahead of those countries. Use your brain for once, China's currency is deliberately undervalued by about 40% according to some concensus - that's what currency issue with the US is all about.

Hence China's real GDP per cap should be about 40% more than the current level , putting her roughly in the same catagory of some Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, Serbia, etc, on average, noting that metropolitan cities in China is far more advanced than that of Bulgaria, Serbia. It's intuitively and realistically correct.

India is a sovereign ,Democratic Country

and? the largest "democracy" in the world crap again? Maoist rebel can fully justify "increase social right and freedom", eh?

Manmohan singh,Any one falling Under him is made straight and strong by him, such is his talent

also is Mugabe of Zimbabuwi, and more.

And?

his is not even a clause to become an Industrialized nation, but since u asked, I say yes.... but India dosent want to move from agrarian culture and India has Issued very low tax schemes for those employed relating to Agriculture

Industrilised= strong and competent manutactoring sector, not service (call centres or others).

Indian market is an open market, But if you are keeping in mind the latest ban on chinese products, Open markets does not always mean Open the doors for what ever is being dumped, But Have a systematic trade, which India has

A ban is a ban, no darn excuses! It is not a single incident, but a ban in general, in multiple standard industries. No industralised countries outright BAN foreign products in general as India does simplely because its domestic industries/companies can not compete - a verification of being a developing country, not industrialised one.

lol.... TATA, Reliance,Mahindra and Mahindra,And Many More

It depends. Most countries have some kind of "large"corps on several continents. Most African nations do also.

Comprohensively a wide range of high-tech companies are properly implied under this context, not "information" companies, no low tech corps such as cenment/ steel producing, bike asemblely, garbage shipment, waste recycle, etc. India's IT corps count, but with very limited scope and tech IP rights.

Foreign direct Investment, Why is that so Much needful To make a Country an Industrialized nation,. we have A good inflow of FDI.

Vietnam has good FDI too! It's the quality and orientation of the FDI that implies. A big chuck of india's FDI is not aiming at long -term investments in industries, but a short-term capital inflow, global hot money chasing some one-night gain in stock market of mumbai alike.

India is Lowering its poverty rates

e.g. If one country had 100% poverty rate yesterday, today it has 95%. It also has lowered poverty rates, and still lowering it to maybe 90% tomorrow.... what's your point?


Again, Newly-Industrialised Countries mean a hell lot more than some above general guidlines. The last wave of NICs from Asia was "4 little dragons": Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and S Korea. They are the newst NICs. When India reached that level ?

The rule of thumb is GDP per cap, as I said previously. If a country has GDP per cap lower than say $ 10,000 (nominal level) as a rough watermark, no sh!t about NIC statue. WIKI's NICs nominations are a joke!

 

[xdrive]

Australia is in competition for a permanent seat aswell.

Goodluck India and Australia!

 

[psychedelic_renegade]

@Speeder 2: China wasn't a developed nation(neither she is today, though growing at a good pace indeed) when it attained security counsel seat. UN security counsel members are victors of 2nd world war, being developed country wasn't prerequisite or a criteria. Security Counsel needs major reform if UN aspires some credibility.

 

[psychedelic_renegade]

Also most of your other arguments are flawed too, but too lazy to post a line by line rebuttal. Anyways security counsel seat doesn't really matter much, we have more immediate problems to amend.

 

[IndianArmy]

I specificly said that China is not industrialised either. Further, China is far more ahead of those countries. Use your brain for once, China's currency is deliberately undervalued by about 40% according to some concensus - that's what currency issue with the US is all about.

You think only you have the power to dream, The countries you mentioned are weaker than India, when you can say they Have good Per capita than india, Then why cant I retaliate?

Hence China's real GDP per cap should be about 40% more than the current level , putting her roughly in the same catagory of some Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria, Serbia, etc, on average, noting that metropolitan cities in China is far more advanced than that of Bulgaria, Serbia. It's intuitively and realistically correct.

Dont get into Stuffs like, If It would have been this and that, Do not overlook the reality... if It was the case Even I can tell about India.

and? the largest "democracy" in the world crap again? Maoist rebel can fully justify "increase social right and freedom", eh?

You see protests in India Because of the Sovereign and Democratic Policy we follow, unlike some countries who order to shoot down a small crowd gathered At a site

also is Mugabe of Zimbabuwi, and more.

And?

Why Do U bring in a 3rd country If You cannot justify? Or cant you digest what I said?

Industrilised= strong and competent manutactoring sector, not service (call centres or others).

Industrialized = Competent but not strong, to be strong a Country need Agriculture, Food....

A ban is a ban, no darn excuses! It is not a single incident, but a ban in general, in multiple standard industries. No industralised countries outright BAN foreign products in general as India does simplely because its domestic industries/companies can not compete - a verification of being a developing country, not industrialised one.

Open market is A market which trades at a Monitary value for a good of a certain quality, QUALITY is a big clause sir.... Take care of that And Our markets would Open Up for You....

It depends. Most countries have some kind of "large"corps on several continents. Most African nations do also.

So, what did You ask? I said India has Certain Companies abroad, next time be specif when You ask..

Comprohensively a wide range of high-tech companies are properly implied under this context, not "information" companies, no low tech corps such as cenment/ steel producing, bike asemblely, garbage shipment, waste recycle, etc. India's IT corps count, but with very limited scope and tech IP rights.

Non of my above listed Companies deals with petty goods, even if they do, thats no the only area they deal with, TATA has a reputation of 2nds largest Bus manufacturer and 3rd largest truck manufacturer, Bought two major firms Jaguar and Land rover, Mahindra and Mahindra has even a Aircraft building facility abroad, reliance, I dont need to Say how reputed that Company is....

Vietnam has good FDI too! It's the quality and orientation of the FDI that implies. A big chuck of india's FDI is not aiming at long -term investments in industries, but a short-term capital inflow, global hot money chasing some one-night gain in stock market of mumbai alike.

You Were the one who said FDI play major Role, Now you make a contradictory statement? Why dont you stick to one?

e.g. If one country had 100% poverty rate yesterday, today it has 95%. It also has lowered poverty rates, and still lowering it to maybe 90% tomorrow.... what's your point?

Indias Poverty rate is 37%... And We are decreasing it gradually

Again, Newly-Industrialised Countries mean a hell lot more than some above general guidlines. The last wave of NICs from Asia was "4 little dragons": Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and S Korea. They are the newst NICs. When India reached that level ?

India Is a NIC, Check the source from where You asked me these questions...
Click Here

The rule of thumb is GDP per cap, as I said previously. If a country has GDP per cap lower than say $ 10,000 (nominal level) as a rough watermark, no sh!t about NIC statue. WIKI's NICs nominations are a joke!

If Wikis NIC nomination is a Joke, so is your question as you Copied it from Wiki

 

[Speeder 2]

...:

It is almost always impossible to argue with Indians, at least most Indians here in PDF IMO, because it seems that you people have endless time to always make "comeback"s with whatever obfuscation and dumb logic avalaible to you, to get away with some absurd arguments and blunders in spite of my obvious hints, many of which are pure facts. Keep enjoying with your own non sense.

 

[Speeder 2]

@Speeder 2: China wasn't a developed nation(neither she is today, though growing at a good pace indeed) when it attained security counsel seat. UN security counsel members are victors of 2nd world war, being developed country wasn't prerequisite or a criteria. Security Counsel needs major reform if UN aspires some credibility.

Not quite. Obviously UNSC 5 were winners of WW2. Korea was a winner too, so were Vietnam, Egypt, Belgium, Kenya, Australia, etc, etc. Why they cound't make it to UNSC ???

It's because being a respected strong country, and preferably also a large country, was an obvious key unspoken criterion among others.

Yes, China was underdeveloped at a time. She was also at her weakest in almost her entire history. Nonetheless, China's long history of being the world #1 superpower(reflecting her innate capabilities being able to make a comeback at shortest time possible), together with the geo size and population made her a respected country suitable for UNSC at post WW2 era.


That said, being a permament vero-wielding memeber of UNSC has many unspoken conditions as such. Being a winner of WW2 was only 1 of them. All of these current 5 countries have been THE superpower of the world at least once in the recent history. Currently they are all ranked amongst world's top 5 (taking out Japan and Germany) in both economic power, military power, and geopolitical power.

If India is proven to be one of world top 5 in any of above criteria, then you could start to imagine being in a long waiting list.

Otherwise, if today's India is convinced that she should be included, then Australia, Canada, Brazil, even South Korea should be more entitled to the postion according to either measure, to be frank.

Furthermore, being a winner of the WW2 is becoming less and less important criterion as time moves on. Therefore, both Germany and Japan are becoming strong candidates in the waiting list.