Zabaniyah
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 14,925
- Reaction score
- 7
- Country
- Location
India can do without UNSC, but can UNSC do without India?
Sure it can.
Heck, I'd rather vote for Germany for UNSC.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
India can do without UNSC, but can UNSC do without India?
Absolute nonsense!!..When China got the permanent security seat it had none of the features you are talking about, no??....
Funny. At 1945 when UN found, India was not existing as an independent country yet. There was only the empire of British.
No country will be offered a seat in P5. You must own it yourself.
Washington Post reported that "India was offered a permanent seat on the council 55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was declined by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead." [5] The council seat then was held by Taiwan (ROC). This decision by Nehru is seen as a blunder and the loss of an opportunity to attain a stronger diplomatic stature by India.
If India were to accept this offer it would have required the United Nations charter to be amended to include India in place of Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Security Council or to expand the Council. It is not known whether the Taiwanese government representing China's seat at the time in the Security Council would have vetoed the amendment or accepted the amendment under US pressure as Taiwan was solely dependent on the US for its protection from mainland China.
Although the U.S. and other permanent Council members were not very supportive of expanding the Security Council, in his visit to India President Obama has offered his support for India to become a permanent member of the Council. However the reaction from other Council members are not very clear, particularly from China. Thus it is uncertain whether the demands by G4 nations will be implemented anytime soon.
India, the world’s second most populous country and is one of the world’s largest contributors of U.N. peacekeeping personnel not a member of security council..... Why?????
Washington Post reported that "India was offered a permanent seat on the council 55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was declined by India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be given to China instead." [5] The council seat then was held by Taiwan (ROC). This decision by Nehru is seen as a blunder and the loss of an opportunity to attain a stronger diplomatic stature by India.
If India were to accept this offer it would have required the United Nations charter to be amended to include India in place of Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Security Council or to expand the Council. It is not known whether the Taiwanese government representing China's seat at the time in the Security Council would have vetoed the amendment or accepted the amendment under US pressure as Taiwan was solely dependent on the US for its protection from mainland China.
Although the U.S. and other permanent Council members were not very supportive of expanding the Security Council, in his visit to India President Obama has offered his support for India to become a permanent member of the Council. However the reaction from other Council members are not very clear, particularly from China. Thus it is uncertain whether the demands by G4 nations will be implemented anytime soon.
I found so many Indians rely on Modi.
It seems when Modi become PM, he will solve every problem and India will automatically become super power.
Let's wait and see.
We deserve and we will get it soon ...... , UN security council do not have any meaning if India is not represented there.
that I am not aware of, what I know is I quoted a reliable source.A complete LIE that keep reappearing time and time again. It is not even Washington Post. It was in a book written by Nehru after the war with China. Nehru was lying and even dare drag an American President into this plot. Amazing.
I think the first paragraph needs some re-wording, because by 1955, RoC has been on the permanent security council for close to a decade.
To be honest, 1955 is probably the best time for India to obtain a seat on permanent security council, because PRC's industrialization process has just begun and India was believed to be the strongest third world country.
However, even back then, India would have faced some pretty stiff resistance:
RoC would be against the decision for obvious reasons.
US would have been resistant to the idea due to the fact that India is supplied by USSR.
UK would have been against the decision in order to preserve its colonial empire.
There is also the fact that back in 1955, USSR and China was in the golden age of their relationships.
All these are on top of the fact India would asking the members of UNPSC to share their power.
Sure it can.
Heck, I'd rather vote for Germany for UNSC.
It is not the question of your liking or hating.
Germany is the past, India is the future. We have the size, population, military, influence, and economy that can match any of the aspirants of UNSC or the members of UNSC. Moreover, unlike Germany, these above parameters are going to grow enormously for India in future. Imagine a world 20 years hence, and then imagine Germany and India's place in such a world. You will get the answer.
Anyway, it doesn't matter whether India gets into UNSC or not. At least I don't care. Apart from China and US, I don't see anyone competing directly with India 20 years hence . India will have its own sphere of influence that will rivals any of the great power in future and that sphere of influence also includes Bangladesh.
Who said it was about hating India? It isn't.
Actually, Germany is very much a part of the future. Especially in regards to global security.
And no, those factors you stated aren't the only things that count. Nonetheless, India will be developing for many years.
Fair enough.
Every country has a future, but the question is how much its future is going to affect the world around them that matters. As you correctly mentioned India will be developing for many years, that is where all the difference lies. A developing economy and that too a size of India will bring with it wealth of opportunities and growth at much faster rate than say any advanced economy.
By all means India is going to over take China in population with in next 15 years and would reach 1.7 billion by 2040. Imagine the size of India's economy by by 2040 even if it grows by a modest 5 to 6%, and imagine the relatively well off consumer market of 1.7 billion by 2040. With this kind of market power, India is sure to wield a huge influence across the world.
Be very careful what you wish for. Too many people create problems.
Even in the year 2040, it is the US that'd be the largest consumer market. Through and through. A large population wouldn't mean much. Even an educated one.