Does India deserve permanent membership in the United Nation Security Council?

[Chinese-Dragon]

But arent they a major Player of EU which to put very very mildly are not very fond of China.

We have good economic and diplomatic relationships, with most EU countries.

The EU is in fact the biggest customer of Chinese exports.

 

[Martian2]

The right question:who gets one at the end of the day?

The honest answer is no one. The United States and China are the real economic powers. Russia is a former superpower. France and Britain are two medium-sized former colonial powers. They were important a century ago.

There is no compelling reason to admit a new member into the UNSC. No country can submit an application that represents a combination of overwhelming economic, political, geographic, technological, and military power.

I am willing to make the prediction that we will see no changes prior to 2050. I stake my armchair general's reputation on it.

 

[chinapakistan]

But arent they a major Player of EU which to put very very mildly are not very fond of China.

It is just not very fond of china but not that serious as china-india territorial dispute, in fact, china-EU realationship is much better than china-india. See current Greece financial problems.

 

[fast and furious]

It is just not very fond of china but not that serious as china-india territorial dispute, in fact, china-EU realationship is much better than china-india. See current Greece financial problems.

And the status quo will remain.

Come on Dude The leaders of the two Asian Giants are meeting.I am sure they have a certain vision about Indo-China co-operation on the future.Citizens like me and you can defintely contribute towards that.

 

[chinapakistan]

And the status quo will remain.

Come on Dude The leaders of the two Asian Giants are meeting.I am sure they have a certain vision about Indo-China co-operation on the future.Citizens like me and you can defintely contribute towards that.

Yes, that result is what everyone is happy to see, but I am lack of confidence of which they can make a great progress during this meeting. I hope I am wrong.

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

@pakistanis :- Indians don't deserve seat in UNSC

@Indians :- We desrve it..!

@Chiness :- We will disclose our cards in the end..! Until then keep guessing..!

@Indians :- We got majority of countries supporting us for UNSC.

@pakistanis :- We have china to support our stand.

@Chiness :- we will tell in the End..!!

@ME :- Only time will tell that India deserves it or not..!!

 

[Frank Martin]

Does India deserve permanent membership in the United Nation Security Council?​

by Habib Yousafzai

The atrocities of the Indian forces committed against the Kashmiris cannot be forgotten, e. g., more than 192,685 killings, 215,877 arrests, 110,000 disappearances, 115,665 home demolitions, by Indian Security Forces, leaving 122,675 widows and 207,218 orphans. Indian forces have been committing crimes such as rape, torture, atrocities and gross human rights violations of the Kashmiri people. Nobody is there to listen to their agony for the past 63 years.
Likewise, India has murdered over 260,000 innocent Sikhs since 1984, according to figures compiled by various human-rights monitoring groups. It has also killed more than 300,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947; more than 500,000 Muslims in general; more than 12,000 Assamese, Bodos, tens of thousands of Dalits (“Untouchables,” the dark-skinned or aboriginal people of South Asia), Manipuris, more than 15,000 Tamils since the 1990s, and other minorities. The Indian Supreme Court called the Indian government’s murder of Sikhs “worse than genocide.”

According to a report by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR), 52,268 Sikhs are being held as political prisoners in India without charge or trial. Some have been in illegal custody since 1984, the time when India waged ‘An Undeclared war on the Sikh Homeland, Punjab (Khalistan)’. Similarly as per the report of the Association of Disappeared Persons more than 110,000 people from Jammu and Kashmir have disappeared. Instead of releasing the fate of these people, Indian authorities are claiming that these people have crossed the LoC for arms training. In fact, these innocent people either have been killed and their dead bodies have been disposed of secretly, or they are incarcerated in Indian jails in remote areas other than Jammu and Kashmir without any notice to their family members. Amnesty International reported that tens of thousands of other minorities are also being held as political prisoners.

Beginning by trying to curb militancy, it entrenched itself into the civilian life of Kashmir. So many incidents of killings of innocents at the hands of the army have taken place. Brutality of the army is disguised as defense of Nation. Army lives with the dictum that power flows through the barrel of the gun. Since June 11, 2010 112 civilians were killed in police and CRPF action. More than 3,000 people were left injured, many of them seriously and thousands were put behind bars. If Indian rulers believe the situation had turned normal then Dr. Manmohan Singh should come out and travel to any town or village. Let them remove the siege around houses and they will come to know about the ground realities.

As the saying goes, first deserve than desire. Readers may however, decide themselves, how a violator of human rights will lay down justice as a permanent member of UNSC to the other nations.

Does India deserve permanent membership in the United Nation Security Council?|SikhSiyasat.net – Sikh News and Multimedia.

Go and show this article to U.S. instead..may be you will get a Nobel next year

 

[Martian2]

There is no compelling reason to admit a new member into the UNSC. No country can submit an application that represents a combination of overwhelming economic, political, geographic, technological, and military power.

I am hesitant to provide my objective analysis of India, because of the Indian nationalists that will become angry at me. However, this is an interesting look and it may be useful for those that are willing to see with clear eyes.

India (potential candidate for UNSC permanent membership):

Economic strength: $1.2 trillion (11th in the world; less than 1/10 the size of the U.S.; and 1/4 the size of China)

Political strength: U.S. can count on European, Japanese, Australian, and South Korean solidarity. China can count on African, mostly ASEAN, some Latin American (e.g. Venezuela, Cuba, etc.), and some Middle Eastern support (e.g. Iran). China is an unofficial leader of G-77.

Not sure where Indian international political base is located. India looks like a supporting member of U.S. international political positions. Distinctive Indian views on important international issues are rare. This implies a serious question of international leadership potential.

Geographic: India is 1/3 the size of the United States or China. Russia is largest. France and Britain can be thought to collectively represent Europe.

On this criterion, India barely qualifies. Europe is a minnow geographically and India may meet the European standard. However, it is difficult for the United States, China, and Russia to see India as an equal.

Technological: United States is the leader. China has pockets of world leadership in technology (e.g. world's fastest high-speed rail system, world's fastest supercomputer, world's largest manufacturer and exporter of high-tech equipment, etc.). Overall European technology is generally considered as a runner-up to the United States. Russia has a declining industrial base, but they can still manufacture heavy industrial equipment; they may not be world-class, but it's good enough for now.

India has a solid software industry. However, India mostly imports all of its heavy industrial equipment. I have a post on the major contractors of the Delhi Metro. Most of them are foreign. In any case, most people do not consider today's India to be a technological or industrial power.

Military power: All P-5 members have had thermonuclear weapons for decades. India is stuck at the atomic weapon level. Furthermore, due to lack of indigenous manufacturing capability, India imports many advanced conventional weapons. For example, the Arjun tank contains 60% foreign content by value.


I will now rate India's CURRENT suitability for UNSC permanent membership as weak, average, or strong on the above-listed criteria:

Economic strength (relative to other UNSC members): weak

Political strength: weak

Geographic strength: weak

Technological strength: weak

Military power: average

Overall rating: weak

Conclusion: I am sorry to disappoint you, but my objective analysis indicates that India is unlikely to pry open the door anytime soon to the United Nations Security Council permanent membership with veto power.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

@pakistanis :- Indians don't deserve seat in UNSC

@Indians :- We desrve it..!

@Chiness :- We will disclose our cards in the end..! Until then keep guessing..!

@Indians :- We got majority of countries supporting us for UNSC.

@pakistanis :- We have china to support our stand.

@Chiness :- we will tell in the End..!!

@ME :- Only time will time that India deserves it or not..!!

I love it the way you"ve captured the entire forum's opioions on this issue .

India getting the UNSC seat is a long time wait.

until then we concentrate on the more important issues:economy,poverty,relations etc.

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

I am hesitant to provide my objective analysis of India, because of the Indian nationalists that will become angry at me. However, this is an interesting look and it may be useful for those that are willing to look with clear eyes.

India (potential candidate for UNSC permanent membership):

Economic strength: $1.2 trillion (11th in the world)
Correction it is $1.367 trillion now..!

Political strength: U.S. can count on European, Japanese, Australian, and South Korean solidarity. China can count on African, mostly ASEAN, some Latin American (e.g. Venezuela), and possibly some Middle Eastern support. China is an unofficial leader of G-77.

Not sure where Indian international political base is located. India looks like a supporting member of U.S. international political positions. Distinctive Indian views on important international issues are rare. This implies a serious question of international leadership potential.

Geographic: India is 1/3 the size of the United States or China. Russia is largest. France and Britain can be thought to collectively represent Europe.

On this criteria, India barely qualifies. Europe is a minnow geographically and India may meet the European standard. However, it is difficult for the United States, China, and Russia to see India as an equal.

Technological: United States is the leader. China has pockets of world leadership in technology (e.g. world's fastest high-speed rail system, world's fastest supercomputer, world's largest manufacturer and exporter of high-tech equipment, etc.). Overall European technology is generally considered a runner-up to the United States. Russia has a declining industrial base, but they can still manufacture heavy industrial equipment; they may not be world-class, but it's good enough for now.

India has a solid software industry. However, India mostly imports all of its heavy industrial equipment. I have a post on the major contractors of the Delhi Metro. Most of them are foreign. In any case, most people do not consider today's India to be a technological or industrial power.

Military power: All P-5 members have had thermonuclear weapons for decades. India is stuck at the atomic level. Furthermore, due to lack of indigenous manufacturing capability, India imports many advanced conventional weapons. For example, the Arjun tank contains 60% foreign content by value.


I will now rate India's CURRENT suitability for UNSC permanent membership as weak, average, or strong on the above-listed criteria:

Economic strength (relative to other UNSC members): weak

Political strength: weak

Geographic strength: weak

Technological strength: weak

Military power: average

Overall rating: weak

Conclusion: I am sorry to disappoint you, but my objective analysis indicates that India is unlikely to pry open the door anytime soon to the United States Security Council permanent membership with veto power.

Thanks for your opinion..!

I think all these facts are so secrete that even US,UK,FRANCE,GERMANY and other 100+ countries don't know about....And still supports india..!

can i call them wikileaks ..!

 

[prototype]

There is a tug of war between the world's most-powerful and second-most powerful countries.

If India takes the side of the U.S. (which is the predominant current situation), China will vote "no" on India's application.

If India takes the side of China, the United States will vote "no."

In other words, the United States and China are competitors and they will not allow the other side to recruit a friend into the UNSC.

My objective and dispassionate analysis is that India will not become an UNSC permanent member, unless it is coupled with a China-friendly applicant. The deal is that the U.S. gets one ally vote and China gets a balancing vote.

Therefore, since Pakistan is one of the ten most-populous countries in the world, I am predicting that India will become an UNSC permanent member when Pakistan becomes one as well. This is realpolitik.

i accept ur conclusion,India is not getting a UNSC seat,even if china support Brazil it will block to resolution to keep both India and Japan out,because if resolution got passed their is no one stopping this countries,China already have its piece of trouble with the existing members,why should it add two more hostile member's,actually 3 if u count Germany.

And by the way this UNSC is nothing more than a bull$hit,India should not waste time bargaining for it,it is nothing more than a status symbol,if it is all about blocking some resolution's then india already have its card inside UNSC.

 

[prototype]

I am hesitant to provide my objective analysis of India, because of the Indian nationalists that will become angry at me. However, this is an interesting look and it may be useful for those that are willing to see with clear eyes.

Well i differ on many points here

India (potential candidate for UNSC permanent membership):

Economic strength: $1.2 trillion (11th in the world; less than 1/10 the size of the U.S.; and 1/4 the size of China)

$1.2 trillion(1.3 trillion currently)is not a small economy,in that case nobody will qualify in respect to american's,i have seen many people supporting here Brazil because of much bigger economy,but they miss the point that India will overtake Brazil by next year itself if u bring the growth of 2 countries into prospective

Political strength: U.S. can count on European, Japanese, Australian, and South Korean solidarity. China can count on African, mostly ASEAN, some Latin American (e.g. Venezuela, Cuba, etc.), and some Middle Eastern support (e.g. Iran). China is an unofficial leader of G-77.

Not sure where Indian international political base is located. India looks like a supporting member of U.S. international political positions. Distinctive Indian views on important international issues are rare. This implies a serious question of international leadership potential.

U share a completely wrong prospective here,most of the European nation's will support India's bid,it had good relationship with ASEAN and CIS republic's,if u consider U.S as a major player,and if they frankly support india's candidature they will force the entire middle east and ASEAN to fall in line,we had already seen that in NSG,where even mighty China bowed down to US pressure,and in UNSC where once again US persuaded China to not veto sanction's again Iran,if u believe that Chinese friendship with many nation's will force them to vote against India,that does not hold true if the resolution is passed there is no stopping India

Geographic: India is 1/3 the size of the United States or China. Russia is largest. France and Britain can be thought to collectively represent Europe.

On that count how do UK and France qualify,totally irrelevent

On this criterion, India barely qualifies. Europe is a minnow geographically and India may meet the European standard. However, it is difficult for the United States, China, and Russia to see India as an equal.

Hmmm thats an interesting point,dont know about Russia and U.S but china definitely dont consider so,therefore i will not completely disagree with it

Technological: United States is the leader. China has pockets of world leadership in technology (e.g. world's fastest high-speed rail system, world's fastest supercomputer, world's largest manufacturer and exporter of high-tech equipment, etc.). Overall European technology is generally considered a runner-up to the United States. Russia has a declining industrial base, but they can still manufacture heavy industrial equipment; they may not be world-class, but it's good enough for now.

India has a solid software industry. However, India mostly imports all of its heavy industrial equipment. I have a post on the major contractors of the Delhi Metro. Most of them are foreign. In any case, most people do not consider today's India to be a technological or industrial power.

Completely irrelevant,once again technology has nothing to do with UNSC,if that was the criteria Japan and Germany would have already been inside UNSC,nobody will vote on the basis that if u posses high speed trains or super computers.And by the way India also have a decent emerging pharmaceutical and health care industry

Military power: All P-5 members have had thermonuclear weapons for decades. India is stuck at the atomic level. Furthermore, due to lack of indigenous manufacturing capability, India imports many advanced conventional weapons. For example, the Arjun tank contains 60% foreign content by value.

India to have thermonuclear capacity,its force is even bigger than some of those inside UNSC,but yes we lack indigenousnes capability at present

I will now rate India's CURRENT suitability for UNSC permanent membership as weak, average, or strong on the above-listed criteria:

And i will rate mine

Economic strength (relative to other UNSC members): weak

Moderate

Political strength: weak

Moderate,in that sense except U.S i do not consider any other nation with a strong political strength,not even china,but ya they r leaps and bound ahead of India

Geographic strength: weak

Its the 7th biggest nation in terms of area so more than good

Technological strength: weak

agree

Military power: average

Good

Overall rating: weak

More than enough to propose a candidature

Conclusion: I am sorry to disappoint you, but my objective analysis indicates that India is unlikely to pry open the door anytime soon to the United Nations Security Council permanent membership with veto power.

so it seems both of us r on two different corner,no need to view it as some nationalist view and dont be such pessimist to beleive everyone will attack u,most of the Indian's hold u in high regards,and we welcome ur views

anyway like i said earlier i dont frankly believe india is going to make the cut,as china is standing as a big barrier infront of india

 

[Martian2]

$1.2 trillion(1.3 trillion currently)is not a small economy,in that case nobody will qualify in respect to american's,i have seen many people supporting here Brazil because of much bigger economy,but they miss the point that India will overtake Brazil by next year itself if u bring the growth of 2 countries into prospective
...
anyway like i said earlier i dont frankly believe india is going to make the cut,as china is standing as a big barrier infront of india

Alex, I respect your difference in opinion. There is some room where reasonable people can disagree.

I have two further responses to your post.

Firstly, according to the IMF, India will not pass Brazil in GDP in the next five years. See List of countries by future GDP (nominal) estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Secondly, China may not be the only obstacle to India's UNSC permanent membership aspiration. The United States may pose a bigger problem than you think. This is logical because the United States does not look forward to negotiating with another Liliputian. The United States has trouble treating China as an equal. The idea that the United States remotely considers today's India as an equal is extremely far-fetched.

Hillary Clinton:India "self-appointed front-runner UNSC
"Dec 2, 2010 ... US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which she has described India as a "self-appointed front-runner" for a permanent UNSC seat. ..."

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your last post.

Best regards,

Martin

 

[prototype]

Alex, I respect your difference in opinion. There is some room where reasonable people can disagree.

I have two further responses to your post.

Firstly, according to the IMF, India will not pass Brazil in GDP in the next five years. See List of countries by future GDP (nominal) estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well again some differences here,the list shows Indian gdp at $1.4 trillion,which is overestimated,i dont think it will b more than $1.3 trillion,the same is for Brazil,it is not above $ 2 trillion,though it is much higher than i previously expected,see this link

http://http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=223&s=NGDPD,NGDPDPC,PPPGDP,PPPPC,LP&grp=0&a=&pr.x=83&pr.y=18

so if not in next yr,it will happen in next 2,3 yrs,given the wide difference in the growth rates of both nation's


IMF,World bank and CIA fact books show different figure but frankly I think IMF is the most credible

Currently dont read too much in IMF future GDP prediction's,they revise it each yr,what they do is calculate the growth of a nation for the next 50-100 yrs based on current growth rate which vary every yr,this is for the basic reason i do not agree that china will overtake U.S economy because the current prediction is based on china's current growth,if u had followed the trend then u must know that the growth rate of every nation falls steeply after achieving a particular GDP figure,it had happened to U.S,Japan and Germany and frankly will happen to China, India and Brazil also,also IMF failed to predict many ecents such as Soviet disintegration,the Asian crises,The U.S sub prime loan crises and the current European crisis which had magnanimous impact on world economies

it is humanly not possible to achieve a growth rate of 9 % ur economy is at $14 trillion but is easy at $ 1 trillion

Secondly, China may not be the only obstacle to India's UNSC permanent membership aspiration. The United States may pose a bigger problem than you think. This is logical because the United States does not look forward to negotiating with another Liliputian. The United States has trouble treating China as an equal. The idea that the United States remotely considers today's India as an equal is extremely far-fetched.

Hillary Clinton:India "self-appointed front-runner UNSC
"Dec 2, 2010 ... US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which she has described India as a "self-appointed front-runner" for a permanent UNSC seat. ..."

Anyway, I enjoyed reading your last post.

Best regards,

Martin

well who want dilution of power,thats i used the sentence"if they support India's bid" because i am not that optimistic on U.S support,and India had on many cases voted against U.s in general assembly does not act any good here

I also like debating with u,as for the fist time i felt like it can b done with a sane mind

 

[Rig Vedic]

Alex, here is a fact - those that need to lobby to get in, will not get in. Those who can afford to walk away will be invited in.

Recall what happened when India got the NSG exemption. On more than one occasion, India threatened to just walk away. Ultimately the exemption was given on India's terms.